Report on the proceedings of the 3rd Anuual PACT Global Workshop on Financial Accountability and Transparency Bangkok, Thailand

Report on the proceedings of the
3^rd Annual Pact Global Workshop on Financial Accountability and Transparency
2 - 3 July 1998
Bangkok, Thailand
Organized by:
Programme for Accountability & Transparency (PACT)
Management Development and Governance Division
United Nations Development Programme
in co-operation with
UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS) and UNDP Thailand

If you need more information about the PACT programme,
please feel free to contact:
Programme for Accountability and Transparency (PACT) – Global Secretariat, New york
Management Development & Governance Division, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
One United Nations Plaza
Rooms DC1-2082/2084/2084A
44th Street and 1st Avenue
New York, NY 10017
tel: (212) 906-5094/5027/5349
fax: (212) 906-5023
Fred Schenkelaars, Global Coordinator
Ato Ghartey, Principal Adviser
Pauline Tamesis, Programme Coordinator
PACT-Bratislava
c/o UNDP/RBEC (DGP) Support Centre
Grosslingova 35, 4th Floor
Bratislava 811 09, Slovak Republic
tel: (421-7) 434-7111
fax: (421-7) 434-7450
Daniel Blais, Regional Programme Specialist
Jan Waanders, Associate Expert
PACT-Harare
UNDP Harare
9th Floor, Takura Building
67-69 Union Avenue
P.O. Box 4775
Harare, Zimbabwe
tel: (263) 4792681 ext. 240
fax: (263) 4728695
Kjeld Elkjaer, Regional Programme Specialist
Tom Kerscher, Associate Expert

Table of Contents

Executive Summary
Introduction & Opening Statements
Thematic Presentations
1. Key Accountability Issues in the Pacific (M. Ferrieux-Patterson)
2. Asian Financial Crisis: Role of Accountability and Transparency (M. Montes)
3. Emerging Programmes and Activities in Financial Accountability
a. Accountability and Records Management (A. Thurston)
b. Accountability Framework and CONTACT Guidelines (A. Ghartey)
c. Accountability in the National and Regional Context (K. Elkjaer)

4. Working Models for Regional Collaboration: Promoting Accountability And Transparency in Governance
a. Regional PACT Programme for Central and Eastern Europe & CIS (D. Blais)
b. Regional Programme for Governance in the Pacific (C. Wescott)
c. Donor Consultative Group for Financial Management Improvements in Latin America and the Caribbean (S. Isralow)
d. Global Perspective through a Regional Lens (K. Henderson)

5. Developments in International Accounting and Auditing Standards
a. Environmental Accounting (D. Moore)
b. Accounting Standards and Guidelines for Governmental Financial Reporting (S. Walker)

6. Revolutionizing Financial Governmental Management Systems: Developments in Information Technology
a. Total Electronic Financial Management Accounting (M. Mathov)
b. Use of Internet in Facilitating Policy Discussions (R. Labelle)

7. Measuring the Performance of Development Assistance Programmes (V. Saghal)

8. New Perspectives in Integrity Improvement
a. Political Will: The Core of Anti-Corruption Reforms (S. Kpundeh)
b. New Frontiers in Corruption Diagnostics & Programme Design (D. Kaufmann)
c. National Integrity Systems: Integrating Institutional Reformsand Developing A Regional Approach (P. Langseth)
d. Ethics in Government Management Decision Making (P. Diekman)
e. Various Mechanisms for Combating Corruption (H. Grandvoinnet)
f. The Role of Civil Society (N. Jayawickrama)

Country Presentations
1. Mongolia (D. Ganbold)
2. Thailand (K. Sarapanich)
3. Philippines (E. Dalman)
4. Fiji (M. Saitala)
5. Slovak Republic - special statement (S. Balejik)
6. TCDC in Eastern Europe and CIS - additional presentation (J. Waanders)

Report of the Working Groups
Summary & Concluding Statements
Feedback & Suggestions
Acknowledgments
Electronic Dissemination
Annex A: Workshop Programme
Annex B: List of Participants
Annex C: Working Group Discussion Outline

Executive Summary

The 3^rd Annual Global Workshop on Financial Accountability and Transparency was held in Bangkok, Thailand on 2-3 July 1998. The UNDP Programme for Accountability & Transparency (PACT), organized the workshop in collaboration with the UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS) and UNDP Thailand. It aimed to provide a forum for exchange of cutting-edge ideas, emerging trends, experiences and best practices among representatives of key stakeholders in accountability and transparency. This year’s workshop focused on:

* discussing key issues and new developments in the area of financial management, accountability and transparency, focusing on concrete country and regional experiences;
* reviewing and analyzing factors, tools and resources that facilitate financial accountability and transparency;
* identifying existing and potential areas of intra- and inter-regional cooperation in promoting accountability and transparency; and
* enhancing the understanding of accountability and transparency as a key to good governance and ultimately, achieving the goals of sustainable human development

The workshop immediately followed the Regional Workshop on Integrity in Governance in Asia organized jointly by the Management Development and Governance Division (MDGD) and the Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific (RBAP) of UNDP. PACT also used this opportunity to establish the base for a regional programme in accountability and transparency in Asia.

In the two days of the workshop, a wealth of knowledge and information was shared in the various areas that comprise financial accountability. Issues discussed covered: formulating an accountability framework including records management; establishing working models of regional collaboration, developments in international accounting and auditing standards, financial government management systems and information technology, measuring performance in development assistance programmes to promote effectiveness and accountability, and new perspectives in integrity improvement (or anti-corruption) initiatives.

In summary, the general consensus from the workshop revealed:

1. That accountability and transparency are relative concepts applicable to specified purposes and circumstances.

2. The purpose of accountability is not to apportion blame but to seek and obtain objective explanations and reports on actions of anyone handling resources, public office or any other position of trust.

3. Combating corruption and improving integrity have economic, political, social and administrative dimensions. They also have direct implications for reducing poverty and protecting the environment, both of which are particularly vulnerable to the corrupt practices. Though it was not discussed in the workshop, evidence suggests that corruption widens the gender gap.

4. Accountability and transparency could be an entry point to introducing reforms at the entity and systemic levels all leading to changes in individual behavior.

The over-all feedback about the workshop was overwhelmingly positive and enthusiastic. The participants found the workshop well organized, with stimulating discussions and high quality presentations. In addition, it brought together all the partners who had the opportunity to discuss ideas not only in the official sessions, but also during breaks and after hours. The limited time allotted for the sessions was considered a major drawback, with the participants recommending a longer workshop (3 days) or a fewer number of speakers in the future. The participants also appropriately suggested that more speakers from developing countries, to speak on concrete and practical experiences, should be invited in the next workshop. There should also be more emphasis on sharing "lessons learned" given that governance interventions are considered higher risk than traditional development projects. Moreover, the cross-regional participation encouraged by the workshop would have been more helpful if continued and carried further electronically after the workshop. Consequently, on-line discussions at the preparatory stage would have enriched the actual discussions at the workshop.

3^rd Annual Global Workshop on Financial Accountability and Transparency
Bangkok, Thailand, 2 – 3 July 1998

Introduction & Opening Statements

The 3^rd Annual Global Workshop on Financial Accountability and Transparency was held at the Siam City Hotel in Bangkok, Thailand on 2-3 July 1998. The workshop was organized by the UNDP Programme for Accountability & Transparency, in cooperation with the UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS) and UNDP Thailand, to provide a forum for exchange of cutting-edge ideas, emerging trends, experiences and best practices among representatives of key stakeholders in accountability and transparency. This year’s workshop focused on:

This workshop was strategically linked with the Regional Workshop on Integrity in Governance in Asia organized jointly by the Management Development and Governance Division (MDGD) and the Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific (RBAP) of UNDP. The Integrity Workshop was also held at the Siam City Hotel in Bangkok from 29 June to 1 July 1998. The back-to-back conduct of both workshops was a deliberate design to capitalize on the presence of key figures in anti-corruption in the preceding forum, and create synergies resulting from related areas of discussion. PACT also used this opportunity to build its constituency for a regional programme in accountability and transparency in Asia.

Approximately 80 participants attended the workshop, representing national supreme audit institutions (SAIs), Ministries of Finance, Economic Planning, and Budget, members of parliament, and Office of the Ombudsmen, from the Asia and the Pacific region. There were also representatives from regional and global professional networks (e.g. International Federation of Accountants and International Records Management Trust), bi- and multi-lateral development agencies (e.g., World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and US Agency for International Development), civil society organisations (e.g., Transparency International) and academic institutions, were also in attendance as presenters. For a complete overview, please see Annex B for the List of Participants.

Overall, the participants considered the workshop a valuable forum to discuss the increasingly important issues of financial accountability and transparency, particularly in the current context of the Asian financial crisis. Issues discussed covered: formulating an accountability framework including records management; establishing working models of regional collaboration, developments in international accounting and auditing standards, governmental financial management systems and information technology, measuring performance in development assistance programmes to promote effectiveness and accountability, and new perspectives in integrity improvement (or anti-corruption) initiatives. Discussions also highlighted the need for concrete actions and an active and continuing exchange of best practices/lessons learned in accountability and transparency.

This report briefly synthesizes each presentation, and includes a summary of discussions following the original workshop programme. It is organized under the following sections: introduction (which includes the background and objectives of the workshop), opening statements, thematic and country presentations, and the summary of working group discussions. The list of participants, workshop programme and working group discussion outline are also included at the end of the report as annexes.

Welcome remarks were delivered by Mr. Michael Heyn, United Nations Resident Coordinator and Resident Representative of UNDP Thailand, followed by opening statements from Mr. G Shabbir Cheema, Director of the Management Development and Governance Division of UNDP.

Mr. Heyn appropriately put into context the relevance of a workshop on financial accountability and transparency in the wake of the financial crisis that has swept much of East Asia. The workshop was considered very timely as many countries in the region, including Thailand, are now taking the opportunity to examine not only financial and economic management, but also more fundamental issues related to good governance, which the current crisis has revealed. He noted that in Thailand, there has been an increasing national awareness and concern about the central issues of good governance. In this growing awareness, the UN system in Thailand has had an opportunity to witness and contribute with the preparation of the new National Economic and Social Development Plan, which went through a very participatory and bottom-up process. The result was a people-centred and holistic development strategy based on participation, empowerment and decentralization. Another hallmark was last year’s adoption of a new Constitution in Thailand, which places clear emphases on transparency and accountability, participation and decentralization, and equity and empowerment. The new Constitution, for example, provides for an independent, one fixed term national auditing commission with the Auditor-General to be selected by the elected Senate. This is in response to the public awareness and demand for a more transparent system of governance and processes. Now both public and private institutions especially those in the banking and financial sectors have realized the value of transparency and are implementing changes towards this end.

In the opening statements, Mr. Cheema presented a brief over-view of the governance programme of UNDP, highlighting that Management Development and Governance Division (MDGD) works on almost every conceivable aspect of building the institutions required for thriving democracies and hence sustainable human development. The key areas of focus include: governing institutions (legislatures, judiciaries, and electoral bodies), public and private sector management, decentralization and support for local governance, participation of civil society organizations, and crisis and special circumstance management. MDGD recognizes and appreciates that accountability and transparency form the fundamental basis of good governance. This is the primary reason for setting-up a separate programme for accountability and transparency (or PACT as it is commonly known). This also explains why a special workshop on this theme, Accountability and Transparency, has been organized to immediately follow the workshop on Integrity in Governance. For the workshop, it would suffice to note that accountability is the obligation or responsibility of anyone handling resources, public office or any position of trust, to report on the intended and actual use of the resources or the designated office. Transparency ensures that the accountability processes and procedures are clear, easily understood, and implemented with integrity. Mr. Cheema expressed hopes that this workshop will have a qualitative impact on the ability to strengthen partnerships and move toward consensus among governments, private sector, civil society organisations, international community, and all other stakeholders. He also expected that the additional exchange of information and sharing of experience from the workshop would provide impetus to effective coordination between the United Nations and all other stakeholders with considerable interest and experience in the area of governance. Such collaboration would also benefit the mobilization of support and resources for governance programmes.

Thematic Presentations

1. Key Accountability Issues in the Pacific
Ms. Marie-Noelle Ferrieux-Patterson, Ombudsman of Vanuatu

Marie Noelle Patterson, the Ombudsman of Vanuatu, started off the presentations by sharing her concrete experiences in fighting for accountability in the island nation of Vanuatu. As Ombudsman, she has three areas of responsibilities: maladministration, language rights (Vanuatu has three official languages, Bislama, English and French), and leadership conduct. In her presentation, Ms. Patterson focused on the first and third areas, to elaborate on the issues of accountability, maladministration and corruption.

Since the adoption of the Ombudsman Act in 1995, forty reports have been issued by the Ombudsman, of which the majority shows systematic maladministration and breach of the leadership code. It is especially in the outright breaking of existing laws, and in the delay and absence of sanctions that have led to a public distrust of leaders. Moral bankruptcy almost resulted into financial bankruptcy of the country, which led to the adoption of a structural reform programme. The activities of the Ombudsman have been and are being heavily obstructed by politicians that want to take away the current powers of the Ombudsman. Examples of reports of the Ombudsman Office show the practice of overcharged feasibility studies, attempts to establish an off-shore trust for administration of public assets, misuse of disaster funds, a bank guarantee scandal, and misuse of pension money.

Most noteworthy in Ms. Patterson’s presentation were the valiant acts of personal courage she exhibited to protect the integrity of the Ombudsman’s work, and continue its investigations as an independent body even against systematic actions to hinder the delivery of its duties. Of equal note is the support by the Courts and the public for the Ombudsman’s reports on abuse and misuse of funds in the government. In 1997, the Pacific Journalists Association presented Ms. Patterson the Pacific Freedom of Information Award for investigative journalism in the Pacific region.

Ms. Patterson also noted that the situation in Vanuatu is not unique. Corruption, misuse and abuse of power, and other countervailing struggle for grassroots empowerment are common in other Pacific jurisdictions. She indicated that the job ahead for public watchdogs, law enforcers, judges and leadership tribunals, may not be completed in the short term and arguably because of human nature. She also highlighted the following observations in her four years as the first Ombudsman in the Pacific:

* There is a predominant lack of experience by leaders and public servants in the demands of statesmanship and administration. Leaders then feel accountable only to their own opinions rather than the principles and procedures attached to those with a longer tradition and experience in self-regulation and democratic participation.
* The unmistakable recurrent evidence for the disregard of law and a widespread lack of integrity among leading figures to extensive misuse of public money for private gain.
*The long delays in charging and bringing offenders to Court, and the total lack of prosecution, has led the public not to expect a high standard of integrity or performance from their leaders. Many express disillusion and lack of hope for the country’s future. This in turn creates an atmosphere of resentment and hopelessness, which may lead to increasing social unrest and criminal activity, if the guilty remain unpunished.

2. The Asian Financial Crisis: The Role of Accountability and Transparency in Sustainable Development
Manuel F. Montes, Senior Fellow, Institute for Southeast Asian Studies

A year ago-to-date, the devaluation of the Thai baht triggered the current economic crisis that has swept much of Asia. In this crisis, the common element, as Manuel Montes asserted, was debilitated credit systems. Aggressive lending behavior before the crisis was encouraged by poor accounting practices, incentives to conceal gains from tax authorities and losses from prudential regulators, weak traditions in independence of accounting practitioners, and limited traditions in internal controls. Certain Asian styles of business, which relied heavily on family accountability, created vulnerabilities in a new situation where lending volume based mostly on price and credit analysis increased tremendously. The institutions of cross-holdings, cross lending and cross-guarantee provided unreliable information to the riskiness of lending activities. To illustrate this point, notable was the lack of need for consolidated financial statements in lending to business groupings.

The aggressive lending behavior was additionally exacerbated by undertaking a liberalization process when the required control and monitoring capacities were not yet in place. The untested and discretionary bankruptcy procedures and the poor protection for minority shareholders rights encouraged irresponsible accounting and aggressive credit practices.

Discussion

In the ensuing discussion, Prof. Alatas (Malaysia) pointed out that the term, "moral poverty" should be used instead of "moral bankruptcy", because bankruptcy indicates that there has been an asset in the past. On a question by Mr. Radburn (UNDESA) about the right to access information by the Ombudsman of Vanuatu and the relation between the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General, Ms. Patterson stated that the Ombudsman has access to all necessary information and that there currently is no Auditor-General in Vanuatu.

Mr. Kaufmann (World Bank) stated that the credit boom was partly pushed by governments in Asia, and therefore not all blame should be put on the private sector. According to Mr. Kaufmann, the main reason behind the Asian crisis was due to improper government adjustment of exchange rates. Mr. Montes did not agree since the Asian currencies were only slightly overvalued (20%) as compared to the Mexican peso just before the Mexican crisis (50% overvalued). He acknowledged that one of the reasons behind the Asian crisis was the close ties between the private and the public sector. Therefore governments in the region should become less dependent on families. He, however, noticed that family accountability in the past had been a good guarantor for repayment of debts, and that it is very difficult to loosen the ties between technocrats and the private sector.

3. Emerging Programmes and Activities for Financial Management
Moderator: Peter Dean, World Bank

a. Accountability and Records Management, Anne Thurston, International Records Management Trust (IRMT)

Anne Thurston, Director of the International Records Management Trust, highlighted the three professions that provide the layers of control essential to ensuring transparency, probity and integrity in financial management systems. Among the three, records management, accounting and auditing, records management is the least understood, even though it is the basis for sound accounting systems and for protecting essential documentary audit trails. Without proper records, it is very difficult to produce evidence and to ascertain accountability. Each phase of financial management produces records that have to be properly managed. Records management addresses this problem by establishing a controlled trail of records from creation to use, storage and finally to disposition of the records.

She also pointed out that especially in the case of computerization there are significant threats to the reliability of data, both as the result of the risk of losing data, as well as the increased possibilities of fraud with electronic data. It is therefore advisable to have a paper-based back up. Another danger of computerization is that software is outdating fast and not all software is compatible to each other. As a result certain data might not be accessible after a certain time. At the moment there is no set of internationally recognized guidelines for electronic data keeping. Especially in the case of transition countries, without existing back-up systems and without storage possibilities for electronic records, guidelines and procedures, based on best-practices, have to be introduced and complemented by training. Without proper evidence and systems to manage records, it is very difficult to improve government finance and to fight corruption.

b. The Accountability Framework and UNDP CONTACT Guidelines, Ato Ghartey, UNDP PACT

Accountability, the responsibility for anyone handling resources, designated office or any other position of trust, to report on the intended and actual use of the resources, office or position, is a fundamental requirement for achieving transparency and good governance. However, for accountability to be meaningful and effective, it must be placed within a framework that takes cognizance of its purpose, audience and target.

Ato Ghartey, in his presentation, proposed a six-pronged approached to developing an accountability framework. The six components are semantics, stakeholders, baseline (origin), goals and ends (intended destination), itinerary, and sustainability/therapeutic measures. Semantics addresses the issues of what is accountability, why it is required, and identifies the accountability components, attributes and linkages. Stakeholders refers to accountability interested parties and partners. Baseline (origin) provides an indication of intended improvements and changes in accountability and integrity enhancement. The itinerary provides the structure/framework, systems, processes and procedures for achieving the accountability goals and ends.

Mr. Ghartey also introduced CONTACT (Mission Guidelines for Financial Accountability and Transparency), a tool developed by UNDP/PACT to guide and assist with diagnostic studies, project formulation and resource mobilization to achieve accountability and integrity goals and ends. He further used the UNDP policy document on governance and the UN system-wide initiative for Africa (UNSIGA) to illustrate the significance of defining a scope or focus for accountability and integrity improvement initiatives.

Finally, Mr. Ghartey concluded that accountability initiatives and efforts should be focused, with the environment, purpose and audience identified and specified, and that the "sprinkler effect" applied only when the intended change in accountability and integrity improvement achieved, and its nourishment needed.

c. Accountability in the National and Regional Context, Kjeld Elkjaer, UNDP PACT-Harare

The current PACT programme before shifting its focus towards accountability and transparency, originated as a programme for accountability of donor aid. Each donor uses a different set of requirements for the management of its funds, and has therefore its own accountability systems. These systems are not imposed upon recipient countries, because of the differences between donor accounting systems and the allocation of donor funds between the private and public sector (e.g., in Tanzania 90% of aid is allocated to the private sector). To diminish duplication of accounting systems, such as harmonized donor accountability vs. government accounting system, National Working Groups (NWGs) have been established to develop one accounting system acceptable to both donors and government. NWGs are typically composed of representatives from donor agencies, the Ministry of Finance and the Supreme Audit Institution of the country. In addition to aspiring for an acceptable accounting system, NWGs aim to coordinate efforts better, reducing overlap and competition and increasing effectiveness of international assistance. NWGs also enable closer focus on national priorities instead of the differing objectives of donors.

Discussion

The ensuing discussion highlighted the following points:

* Records Management - The importance of records management was stressed in the Gambian example, where a record trail of bank accounts, customs documents, etc., traced and provided the evidence for the misappropriation of millions of dollars of public funds. However, although records provide the base for evidence, in situations where courts do not function properly or in cases of military regimes, accountability cannot be ensured by documentation alone.
Definitions of accountability depend on a number of factors, including the government systems being used in a country.

* Coordination of efforts, whether they be targeted at national or regional-level activities or driven by donors, require strong representation from all key stakeholders especially by the government, in order to be effective and results-oriented.

4. Working Models for Regional Collaboration
Moderator: Paul Oquist, UNDP

a. Regional Programme for Central & Eastern Europe and the CIS, Daniel Blais, UNDP PACT-Bratislava

PACT in collaboration with the UNDP Regional Bureau for Europe and the CIS, embarked on a programme last year which addressed the pivotal issues of democratic governance and accountability in the region. Under the Democracy, Governance and Participation (DGP) framework that focused on institutional support to countries in transition, the PACT regional programme tackled assistance to Supreme Audit Institutions as one of the six DGP focus areas. The other five areas of focus under DGP are: democratic governance and public sector reform, decentralization, assistance to Parliaments, Ombudsman type institutions, and participation of civil society organizations.

Since its inception, PACT-Bratislava has developed a regional strategy for financial accountability in governance. The strategy resulted from a preparatory regional workshop on the role of supreme audit institutions in the governance process. From this, PACT-Bratislava is carrying out follow-up activities at the national level in six selected countries and organizing two sub-regional training activities. The programme targets each country’s supreme audit institution (SAI) dealing with accountability as it relates to the financial governance of all national assets. The ultimate responsibility, however, for acting on findings and recommendations of SAIs rests with the duly elected legislatures of the newly democratized countries of the RBEC region.

In its five-year strategy, PACT Bratislava hopes to cover all countries in the region, with its core activity centering on the conduct of needs assessment missions. In this endeavor, supreme audit institutions will be the entry points for accountability issues, and the primary focus of PACT-Bratislava by which other institutions in the area of financial management are assessed. The needs assessment missions will be followed-up by sub-regional workshops, where PACT taps into the best practices available in the region’s more advanced countries. An example of this exercise is found in the recently held training session on audit planning, in which the Audit Office and Government Control Office of Hungary provided information on their experience with audit of the privatization process and internal controls.

b. Regional Programme for Governance in the Pacific, Clay Wescott, UNDP Fiji

In the Pacific region, UNDP has been managing a regional programme for the past 18 months to assist fifteen countries achieve their goals of good governance. Some examples of encouraging developments resulting from this programme include: adoption of a new constitution in Fiji that protects the rights of all citizens; a drastic reduction in the size of the civil service in Cook Islands which rescued its economy from collapse; and the launch of a chapter Transparency International in Papua New Guinea (a nation also looking into setting up an independent commission against corruption). The most interesting changes in the region are taking place, however in Vanuatu, where concrete examples of the Ombudsman’s work in fighting corruption and maladministration are found. (Details are further elaborated in the presentation of the Ombudsman of Vanuatu.)

At the national level, other innovations are also taking place, particularly in mobilizing civil society action towards accountability. An NGO in Vanuatu called Wan Smolbag has been performing plays to sensitize the public about topics such as corruption and the importance of voting as important first steps in increasing accountability. In addition to the plays, videos will be produced addressing governance issues to reach a wider segment of the public. At the regional level, last year’s annual South Pacific Forum endorsed eight principles of accountability. In this forum, a Financial Action Task Force was formed to address the issue of money laundering. This Task Force visited a number of countries to discuss strategies to address this problem.

c. Donor Consultative Group for Financial Management Improvements in Latin America, Sharon Isralow, USAID

In Latin America and the Caribbean region, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) presented the results of a $7.5 m Donor Consultative Group on Accountability/Anti-Corruption project. The Donor Consultative Group (DCG) responds to the need to coordinate activities of multilateral institutions, bilateral agencies and governments involved in government financial management, accountability and anti-corruption activities.

The project’s main objectives center on donors efforts to agree upon unified set of standards, methodologies, and concepts to improve one or more areas of government financial management, accountability or anti-corruption activities, in order to ultimately increase the effectiveness of these projects throughout the region. Closer coordination among the participating institutions is emphasized to make efforts more productive, and thereby improve public sector accountability in Latin American and the Caribbean. The DCG also provides a forum for sharing information, exchange of ideas and technological advances in the field of financial management. Participating donors meet every three months, with each donor representative having equal vote. One of DCG’s keys to success results from engaging professional accounting associations.

However, the Group is not without problems. DCG finds it difficult to gather all members for its regular meetings, and coordinating activities at the country level. Communication, however, is facilitated through the DCG Secretariat as the direct link to participating institutions in the region. The Secretariat also provides a website with information about its activities.

Recently DCG’s focus has increasingly shifted to corruption, with its efforts in assisting the Nicaragua Integrity Unit serving as a best practice model for other countries. Ms. Isralow also added that anti–corruption efforts are more difficult to coordinate, because many parties are involved.

d. Global Perspective through a Regional Lens (Europe and NIS), Keith Henderson, USAID ENI-Bureau

Keith Henderson highlighted the convergence of issues concerning endemic corruption, good governance and best business practices, and proposed a global public-private partnership strategy and targeted regional and country support to less developed countries with systemic corruption. The main thesis is that developed world and multi-lateral companies already recognize, and to some degree, work within a new set of good governance principles and business practices in order to be more competitive, politically and economically. However, most less developed countries do not yet fully appreciate and do not have the resources or capacity to implement these new global "rules of the road."

To illustrate this thesis, Mr. Henderson presented the fundamental causes of corruption in the Former Soviet Union (FSU) to include:

* public cynicism due to political and economic monopolization,
* a history of rule of men instead of law
* weak law enforcement
* an inadequate legal infrastructure, and
* the lack of developed civil society.

He further proposed that the free flow of information (transparency) and oversight (accountability) should be key elements in any anti-corruption programme. He cited a World Bank report which showed that crime, corruption and unpredictable judiciaries are the main factors hindering enterprises to invest and therefore also prevents (higher) economic growth. These three factors are significant in 80% of the NIS countries. In another World Bank survey, the NIS region is perceived as most corrupt, and that management of enterprises spent most time in negotiations with government. High correlation between democratization and economic growth, was another finding mentioned in the survey.

Mr. Henderson proposed an eight-point, crosscutting programme and anti-corruption strategy, grounded on promoting trade and investment, increased transparency and accountability, as well as an engaged civil society. He identified eight high priority areas for intervention including, regulation, public procurement, accounting/auditing, freedom of information, NGO’s and institution building. Other instruments to address corruption issues: business advisory groups or councils, hotlines, independent judiciaries, and quantifying economic costs.

Discussion

In the following discussion, Mr. Henning (USAID) mentioned that since official development assistance (ODA) is limited, donors do not have much leverage in large countries. In such cases, the private sector needs to take leadership and coordinate efforts. Values are a question of interpretation, but that cronyism is not a traditional value (Mr. Alatas). Accountability is linked to cultural values, and for example, Native Americans successfully adopted modern accountability because of its tradition that prevented rent seeking (Mr. Wescott). Mr. Henderson added that corruption is linked to traditions. In Russia, corruption is centuries old because of its bureaucracy, lack of organized civil society, and cynical population. Meanwhile, Alatas mentions that transparency in itself does not lead to diminished corruption. The example of 18^th century France was cited, where everybody in the country was aware of corruption, however no efforts were undertaken to address the issue. Mr. Oquist closed the discussion by observing that independent institutions are the main condition for achieving accountability and good governance.

5. Developments in International Accounting and Auditing Standards,
Moderator: Ato Ghartey, UNDP PACT

a. Environmental Accounting
David Moore, UN Intergovernmental Working Group of Experts on International Standards of Accounting and Reporting - ISAR

David Moore presented the work of UN ISAR (UN Intergovernmental Working Group of Experts on International Standards of Accounting and Reporting) in the area of environmental accounting. Since the late 1980s, ISAR has given extensive attention to issues relating to environmental accounting. In 1995, it noted that although considerable research was already underway, a significant effort was still required to study and evaluate information produced in order to provide appropriate guidance to governments and other parties.

The environment is a resource, and should therefore be managed efficiently. Damage to the environment can result in large amounts of liabilities. In Canada, for example, potential clean up costs accounts for 2 billion dollars (excluding radioactive wastes) for 1996. However, these liabilities are difficult to measure. First, how are environmental costs defined? ISAR defines environmental costs as the "cost of steps taken, or required to be taken, to manage the environmental impacts of an enterprise’s activities in an environmentally responsible manner, as well as costs driven by the environmental objectives and requirements of the enterprise." Second, how is the future obligation of a clean up measured? The difficulty in measuring environmental liabilities has, in the past, been stated as a major reason for not providing for, or setting up, environmental liabilities. Current thinking, supported by UN-ISAR, states that even though it may not be practical to estimate the actual liability, it will often be possible to predict a "range of loss", or at least a minimum amount can be established. UN-ISAR prefers the "present value" approach, but also accepts the "current cost" approach as an alternative. Third, once an amount for the future obligation is determined, how is the liability capitalized if meeting the obligation can not be avoided? If the liability relates to the future performance of the entity or a reduction of future contamination, it should be capitalized. If this is not the case, the direct costs from the current clean-up activities should be charged to the income of the entity. At any rate, stakeholders should be informed of these liabilities.

b. Accounting Standards and Guidelines for Governmental Financial Reporting, Stephen Walker, International Federation of Accountants (IFAC)

Stephen Walker presented the efforts of the Public Sector Committee of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), to provide a sound financial reporting framework that will enable governments to make decisions based on more reliable information. The Committee’s Standards Project aims to develop international accounting guidelines and standards for governments, irrespective of the basis of accounting adopted, and to harmonize government reporting practices. In March 1998, it published the exposure draft of the Guidelines for Governmental Financial Reporting, with the final draft ready for distribution by July 1999. The Guideline was developed to provide a platform for common understanding on each of the four bases of accounting and other key principles. Further, it will provide an introduction to financial reporting guidance for preparers of public sector financial statements who have not been previously exposed to accounting guidance and standards.

In the second phase of the Standards Project, a core set of standards for governments will be developed. These standards are applicable to all levels of government, and will be finalized in the year 2001. These will also apply to the four accounting bases mentioned in the guidelines, and will be based on the IASC standards. Improved reporting by governments, the provision of more reliable information and enhanced accountability are the target benefits of the standards.

Discussion

In the discussion session following these two presentations, Mr. Moore explained that UN-ISAR is not a standard-setting body. Mr. Walker stated IASAC sets standards only for private sector accounting, so that IFAC chose to set standards for public sector accounting. And the Public Sector Committee responsible for this is represented by 12 nationalities. Mr. Schiavo-Campo (ADB) expressed concern by some countries that international standards cannot easily be transferred to their own situation. The main criteria for adopting and implementing international standards should be its relevance to the country. Mr. Walker answered positively to the question of Mr. Bautista (UNDP Manila) about the inclusion of contingent government liabilities in the public sector guidelines and standards. On the question by Mr. Radburn (UNDESA) on how public enterprises are treated under the new standards, Mr. Walker stated that public enterprises fall under public sector accounting and show up in the consolidated government statements.

6. Developments in Information Technology
Moderator: Anne Thurston, IRMT

a. Integrated Financial Management Systems, Mauricio Mathov, Information Technology Consultant

The successful implementation of Integrated Financial Management (IFM) systems depends on the following critical success factors: (i) high level support (procedures and structures have to be changed), (ii) clear assignment of responsibilities and (iii) end-user participation (starting from the beginning). Normalization (standardization) of the IFM systems takes places at the central level, and operations are decentralized. With decentralization, errors occur less frequently and data are more easily available. A central database, linked to all decentralized systems is usually maintained at the Ministry of Finance. In order to arrive at a sustainable IFM system, problems in end-user training, system maintenance, increased complexity and salary structures have to be addressed. In addition, it is advisable for SAIs to participate in the development of IFM systems. SAI staff should therefore have some basic IT knowledge and a good understanding of how the IFM system functions.

b. Use of Internet for Facilitating Policy Discussions, Richard Labelle, Information Technology Consultant

Richard Labelle, in his presentation, attempted to provide answers to the increasingly important question asked by many development practitioners today, "Why is the Internet important in the development process?" Some of the concerns include: diverting precious resources to invest in information technologies that will remain largely inaccessible to the majority in the future, and the appropriateness of information technology in countries where water access, reliable food supply, primary health care and other basic needs are more urgent priorities. How will the Internet and related technologies help eradicate poverty, promote sound environmental management, enhance the role of women, encourage consensus decision making and promote good governance?

Mr. Labelle suggests a few elements that contribute to the answers, elements are based in part on the experience of the UNDP Sustainable Development Network Programme (SDNP):

* For efficiency and increased productivity. Informed decision making is better decision-making. Because in cases where the information gap is so great between the information rich and the information poor, a little information can go a long way.
* The Internet is now a mainstream and rapidly growing application used for communications by millions of users worldwide. It is cost effective and ubiquitous, with only a handful of countries without full Internet access (in Africa, only the Congo Republic does not have full access).
* In terms of governance, the ability to communicate and link freely with counterparts around the corner and around the world using email and the Web has empowered stakeholders for sustainable development in ways that could not have been possible before the late 1980s. The Internet has been used with great effect to influence and change policies.
* Accountability and transparency - For those with access, the Internet is perceived to be a fair and equitable communications vehicle, in part because it is not readily controlled by any one interested party and participation in the Internet is not restricted by membership, although in developing countries, access is limited by availability of expertise and by the cost of equipment and connection fees.
* Governments and other organizations concerned with managing the development process and mobilizing citizens can use the Internet to enhance the delivery of government or other services, as well as information and data that governments and other stakeholders may not be able to share readily with their citizens and other stakeholders for a variety of reasons.

Through the use of the Internet a number of opportunities arise for developing and transition countries, which were not available before. Access to information, that in principle is available to all levels of society, is one of the primary advantages. Because of greater information availability, the development objectives of increasing participation and strengthening civil society is easier to achieve. Further, through the Internet, exchanging information becomes easier, particularly in countries with a less developed communications infrastructure. In this manner, policy discussions can be facilitated. The Internet also offers the possibilities for distance learning and adapting the latest available techniques. This may even take the form of increased efficiency through improved transaction processing. The use of Internet in a large number of developing countries is however still limited to a small percentage of the population. This is due to the high costs of hardware and monthly costs of using the Internet. In addition, the capacity to maintain Internet servers is quite limited.

Discussion

Following the presentations, Mr. Kaufmann (World Bank) pointed out that information technology is only available at relatively high costs and that not every country can afford such investments. He also pointed out that information technology has resulted in increased opportunities for money laundering. Mr. Wescott (UNDP Fiji) meanwhile raised the idea that using the Internet instead of face-to-face meetings and conferences can generate substantial savings. Even those without Internet access can participate in the discussions via alternative means, such as by sending faxes to the chair/moderator of the meeting. In addition, women have been found to be more active in on-line discussions, as compared to their participation in face-to-face meetings.

7. Measuring the Performance of Development Assistance Programmes: Promoting Effectiveness and Accountability
Vinod Sahgal, Office of the Auditor General, Canada

Programmes and projects aimed at strengthening governance systems are perhaps the most critical of all Official Development Assistance (ODA) Programmes. These programmes are in practice difficult to measure, especially in terms of effectiveness. The recent events in Asia have raised the awareness of the need for accountability and effectiveness. The experience of the Office of the Canadian Auditor-General shows that increased accountability alone will not increase the effectiveness of ODA. Some of the lessons learned cited by Mr. Saghal were:

* The existence of strong local champion for proposed reforms at the institutional level is a critical success factor. National ownership (both real and perceived) of development programmes is an important aspect. In addition, strong dedicated leaders are needed, where motivation goes beyond immediate financial gain or short-term opportunity for employment.
* Partners involved in the project must have a relationship built on mutual trust and a common desire for long-term results. The approving authority must independently test this aspect, although there is no easy formula for this kind of assessment.
* The reputation and qualifications of those providing Development Assistance must not be taken lightly. No amount of management practices and controls can replace competence, knowledge of the local scene and the dedication and trust of those directly involved with the delivery of a programme or project.

Qualitative measures, such as shared vision, strong local ownership and commitment, beneficiary perceptions, leadership with clear champions, informed judgments at the local level based on the analyses of causes for success and failures, as well as description of effects and impact, are the kinds of valid indicators that could be used for measuring progress. Developing measures and systems is an ongoing process. Donors and partners should assess performance as best they can now, and use the information on accomplishments and lessons learned for future resource allocation decisions.

8. New Perspectives in Integrity Improvement
Moderator: S.D. Sharma, Transparency International-India

a. Political will: The Core of Anti-Corruption Reforms, Sahr Kpundeh, Anti-Corruption Consultant

Sahr Kpundeh highlighted the importance of political and economic incentives for achieving long-term participation to fight corruption. Political will, he stated, is a critical, fundamental element to develop sustainable and effective anti-corruption strategies and programmes. Without it, governmental efforts designed to improve civil service, strengthen transparency and accountability, and reinvent the relationship between government and private industry, prove to be ineffective. Political will refers to the demonstrated credible intent of political actors (elected or appointed leaders, civil society watchdogs, stakeholder groups, etc.) to attack perceived causes or effects of corruption at a systemic level. The focus is on the actors, their motives and the choices they make to promote and implement anti-corruption reforms.

The types and amounts of corruption vary in accordance with a number of factors affecting the relationship between government and civil society. These linkages are helpful to understand various corruption scenarios and to formulate timely strategies. In addition, they provide insight into the impact of these scenarios on political will. When political will is weak, it may be more productive to design and identify short-, medium- and long-term tasks and opportunities and publicly distinguish their respective goals. In the short term, the tasks are to identify anti-corruption "champions," and provide the occasions, and possibly the protection, they need to begin to act. An intermediary challenge is to formulate broader political, bureaucratic and economic processes and incentive systems that will create alternatives to corruption and encourage personal and societal changes. If the short and medium ranged goals are achieved, strategists can shift their emphasis to long-term targets—programmes that institutionalize anti-corruption forces and incentives in the political and economic arenas. When commitment and action become the rule rather than the exception, then political will to act against corruption will be sustained by lasting support.

The principal challenge, as Mr. Kpundeh mentioned, is in distinguishing between reform approaches that are intentionally superficial and designed only to bolster the image of political leaders and substantive efforts to create change. He highlighted the six indicators to determine existence of political will:

* Degree of analysis that a regime has applied to understanding the context and causes of corruption
* Adoption of a participatory strategy ensuring shared ownership
* Consideration of the strategic dimensions of achieving specific outcomes (ratio between "demonstrative" and "strategic" issues)
* Willingness to include incentives and sanctions in its reform strategies
* Creation of an objective process for monitoring impact of reform, including a system to integrate results
* Level of economic and political competition that provides for checks on arbitrary abuse of power

Strengthening political will requires that reformers begin to rethink how they deploy anti-corruption remedies so as to avoid what has become a familiar pattern of corruption reform, apathy-scandal-reform-apathy. Interestingly, proposals for building political will against corruption merge into broader strategies for social and economic development. As reformers pursue change and seek to institutionalize political will, general issues of development will gain prominence. Sequencing reorganization measures is critical to the goal of building political will. Three phases are envisioned at this stage of reform:

1. Create opportunities for political will to emerge and to include anti-corruption views on the political and development agenda;
2. Develop pivotal systems and incentives that provide reformers with political and economic support; and
3. Build anti-corruption policies into the daily procedures that regulate the economic and political systems.

Most anti-corruption measures are long-term remedies, however, their success depends upon achieving short-term solutions, which oftentimes coincides with the building phases of political will.

b. New Frontiers in Corruption Diagnostic & Programme Design, Daniel Kaufmann, World Bank

Daniel Kaufmann presented new and cutting-edge data, preliminary results of empirical research on the various dimensions of corruption. He highlighted as much as possible, pertinent information and statistics about Asia, in order to concretely illustrate the level and impact of corruption in the region, expound on the role of government in corruption particularly in the context of the financial crisis, present the determinants of corruption, and provide new tools and approaches to diagnose and approach the problem.

Some of Mr. Kaufmann’s findings on the variants of corruption included:

* Bureaucratic and Judiciary corruption - variations exist across countries and time, depending on policies and institutional reform
* The likelihood of losing investment in corruption in the first 5 years varies significantly in different countries
* The main obstacles to enterprise growth are corruption and tax regulation
* Tax evasion and bribery are very strongly correlated, affecting public finances and expenditures

On determinants, Mr. Kaufmann cited the following points:

* A lack of financial market sophistication is prevalent in East Asia correlating positively with financial market regulation/supervision
* Excessive private sector regulation is detrimental to business development and stimulates bribery
* Judiciary independence
* Bribery correlates negatively with professionalism of civil servants
* Civil liberties and bribery correlate negatively, where the ability of media and NGOs to organize themselves a manifestation of civil liberties

Concluding from the empirical data Mr. Kaufmann recommended a comprehensive approach to combating corruption. Such a strategy would address:

* Institutional reforms (customs, transparent privatization)
* Civil service reforms (pay, meritocracy, restructuring)
* Legal-judicial reforms (independence/strengthening, etc)
* Economic policy reforms (Deregulation, tax simplification)
* Financial controls (audit/financial manager, procurement)
* Public oversight (awareness raising, civil society/media, ombudsman, etc)

Revisiting the impact of corruption in East Asia, Mr. Kaufmann stated that corruption and the lack of good governance had not been the cause of the economic crisis but the trigger. The rule of law, according to the empirical data, constitutes a part of the problem of corruption, not its solution. Alternative ways of influencing corrupt behavior were necessary. (Data and statistics from Mr. Kaufmann’s presentation have not been included in this summary, but hardcopies of the information he distributed at the workshop are available upon request.)

c. National Integrity Systems: Integrating Institutional Reforms and Developing a Regional Approach,
Petter Langseth, Economic Development Institute, World Bank

Fighting corruption involves changing attitudes and behavior to empower civil society and to reform institutions, then by reforming institutions, reinforce positive incentives, attitudes and behavior. Anti-corruption or integrity programmes, such as the EDI/TI National Integrity System currently being adopted in 15 development countries, therefore, by definition integrate pre-existing institutional reform and modernization programmes into a broader national effort. More specifically, by focusing on improving service delivery, Integrity Systems sustain a process that while reducing corruption and bolstering substantive reforms, sparks a shift to a more positive citizen-government dynamic based on increased transparency resulting in increased accountability for public service.

The EDI/TI Integrity process or approach, systematically consolidates two seemingly divergent elements: broad public participation and technical institutional reforms. Using surveys, consultations, focus groups and hearings, the citizenry becomes engaged in a process of identifying problem areas in service delivery and setting priorities for change. This consultation process can be administered by an Integrity Unit (this is currently the approach in Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ukraine) reporting to a broad based - government-civil society Steering Committee, and feeds at the same time a National Integrity Workshop. The Workshop brings together a broad based group of citizens and government representatives (as many as a few hundred stakeholders) expressly to design an action plan focused on various key areas or integrity pillars, such as, the Judiciary, the Media, the Legislature, key ministries, the private sector. This National Action Plan, representing a broad consensus on priorities for anti- corruption reform, is then presented to the donor community for funding. Encouraged by the broad base of support and the promise of public participation in an ongoing evaluative process, donors are offered significant assurances that activities will be carried out. These include short and medium term measures, such as, ethics pledges, codes of conduct, declaration and monitoring of assets, introduction of a citizen charter, training programs, as well as, longer term institutional reforms.

The process is initiated by government and civil society jointly inviting the Economic Development Institute (EDI) of the World Bank to advise on the creation of an Integrity System. The Integrity System usually is sustained by the building of a Steering Committee with high-level representatives from the Executive, Judiciary, Legislature, and civil society, and in the best of cases, the political opposition. Out of the Steering Committee an Integrity Unit is organized to administer service deliver surveys, conduct a broad-based citizen consultation, and run focus groups. The Integrity Unit draws on this input in organizing the National Integrity Workshop, where public concern is finally distilled into concrete action plans.

The Integrity Workshop, in most cases, is a two day event that begins with a plenary where a series of expert presentations are made on the state of key sectors of the society, typically: the Judiciary, the Legislature, the Media, given ministries and segments of civil society. Then the participants are broken down into work groups tasked with focusing on defining corruption problems and proposing solutions for each sector or pillar. In the case of the National Integrity Workshop being held in Nicaragua in June, it is anticipated that the pillars to be addressed will be Judiciary-Procuradoría, the Media, Law Enforcement-Police, The Legislature, The Private Sector, NGOs, Taxation-Customs, Financial Management-Contraloria, Youth-Education and Municipal Governments. The ongoing institutional reform programmes will be part of the discussion and integrated into the action plan for each pillar.

As part of the process of drawing together the action plans developed by each pillar into one comprehensive and prioritized National Action Plan, benchmarks and evaluative mechanisms that include civil society - such as hearings and mixed commissions - are established. Finally, the National Action Plan is presented to the donor community, for funding. While usually national in scope, Integrity Workshops have been conducted at the state (province) and municipal level.

d. Ethics in Government Management Decision Making, P.A.M. Diekman, Price WaterhouseCoopers

Peter Diekman started his presentation by mentioning that in the 1970s there were a number of corporate scandals in the United States that called into question the integrity of financial reporting. Government became involved and called for better professional guidelines. The private sector decided to head off this problem, reorganizing its audit practices. From this a decisive feature of that reorganization became a further specialization of auditors toward product specialists, sector specialists and super specialists. The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) was established to improve the quality of financial reporting through a focus on corporate governance, internal controls and ethical standards

Mr. Diekman continued that the management of fraud risk is necessary for an organization to satisfy regulatory requirements, to ensure corporate effectiveness, to guarantee reliable financial information and the safeguarding of assets, requirements for organizational stability. Five components are crucial for risk management: the control environment, risk assessment, information and communication, control activities, and monitoring. The control environment is characterized by the setting of standards and ethical awareness. He introduced a set of seven questions to develop ethical awareness. These questions address identification of the moral core problem, the parties involved, those answerable to the problem, the information required, the relevant arguments, the conclusion and the feeling associated with the outcome of the analysis.

Risk assessment is essential. Unreliable information on risks can lead to the loss of material and immaterial assets. Risk assessment should include management decision processes, systems, measures and controls, organization, policy, and management reporting. According to Mr. Diekman, it should also involve the people on the "working platform".

Control activities should focus on the establishment of financial and operational analysis, records management and training, while the control system itself should be monitored by the supreme audit, compliance audit, internal audit and public audit. Mr. Diekman concluded that the COSO standards are a very powerful instrument to enable Auditors to assess, measure, and control risks and are applicable in both the public and private sectors. According to Mr. Diekman, the COSO standards could be combined with PACT’s CONTACT (Country Assessment in Accountability and Transparency) guidelines.

e. Various mechanisms for combating corruption, Hélène Grandvoinnet, OECD Development Centre

The OECD addresses the problem of corruption through four main mechanisms, which Helene Grandvoinnet briefly summarized:

The Working Group on Bribery since 1989 has been tackling corruption in international business in order to help level the competitive playing field for all companies, and recently prepared the Recommendation & the Convention on Combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions. In December 1997, its work led to the signature of a Convention by 33 countries, including five OECD non-Member countries, making bribery of foreign public officials by national economic actors a criminal offence.

The Public Management Service (PUMA) has been analysing ways to strengthen anti-corruption systems within public administrations of the OECD Member countries. The challenge has been to maintain high standards of ethics in the context of the changing role of the State and of the public sector. PUMA developed the "ethics checklist" in close co-operation with national officials, and approved by the OECD Council on 23 April 1998 as an OECD Recommendation on Improving Ethical Conduct in the Public Service. It consists of 12 principles for managing ethics in the public service to be used as a reference for carrying out reviews of existing functions and elements of the ethics infrastructure. As part of its "ethics infrastructure," the checklist targets support to governments in developing and maintaining an effective ethics infrastructure for the public sector.

The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) has been focusing on the control of corruption, particularly in aid-funded procurement projects, and on building partnerships among donors, local governments, civil society and the private sector in non-Member countries, to improve integrity and the quality of governance. Aid-funded procurement, a major component of official development assistance, is an important focus of the OECD’s efforts in combating corruption and in increasing the efficiency of aid. Aid-funded procurement is one of the areas where the DAC considers itself most able to take concrete action. In 1996, it gave a timely, well placed political signal that reinforced existing aid agency provisions with the approval of the RecommendationConcerning Anti-Corruption Proposals for Bilateral Aid Procurement. This 1996 Recommendation proposed, in brief, that Member countries should require anti-corruption provisions in bilateral aid-funded procurement, promote the proper implementation of anti-corruption provisions in international development institutions, and work closely with development partners to combat corruption in all development co-operation efforts.

The OECD Development Centre is conducting research on the problem of corruption in non-Member countries, addressing causes and consequences, as well as analysing measures and conditions for reform. The Centre’s research has a dual objective: to provide policy recommendations to developing country governments and aid agencies in their fight against corruption; and to provide OECD Member countries with a clearer understanding of the causes and consequences of corruption in developing countries. In order to provide policy recommendations to help non-Member countries curb corruption, the Centre has conducted an extensive analysis of the Hong Kong experience, one of the most successful anti-corruption campaigns. As this particular experience can not be replicated, as such, in other developing countries, it was necessary to complement the Hong Kong study with the analysis of anti-corruption experiences in other developing countries, including their difficulties in implementation. This project is conducted jointly with UNDP/PACT and will comparatively analyse the anti-corruption programmes implemented in the following six countries: Bolivia, Morocco, Benin, Tanzania, Pakistan and the Philippines.

f. The role of civil society, Nihal Jayawickrama, Transparency International (TI) - International Secretariat

Five years ago, when corruption was still an unmentionable word, Transparency International (TI) was formed in the belief that civil society needed to be mobilized if anti-corruption strategies were to succeed; that civil society needed to be empowered if it were to claim and defend its own values. Laws hold little meaning if they do not reflect the aspirations of people. Nihal Jayawickrama suggested that countering corruption is not simply a matter of enacting laws. Countering corruption is a matter of making systems work, of changing the way people behave. If ordinary people expect to pay bribes and are resigned to dealing with the state through pay-offs, a radical change in attitudes will be necessary before any anti-corruption strategy can even get off the ground. Indeed, where genuine attempts to combat corruption have failed, there has generally been one missing ingredient - the involvement of civil society. As the section of the community that bears the brunt of corruption on a daily basis, civil society is best placed to reverse the public apathy and tolerance of corruption. The founders of TI were convinced that the involvement of civil society was vital in re-shaping attitudes, re-constructing expectations and, because of its proximity to, and familiarity with, the issues, in monitoring the performance of public officials.

But civil society alone cannot change systems. Mr. Jayawickrama pointed out that in Asia, people who took to the streets in Manila, Dhaka and Jakarta to drive out their corrupt dictators, and the people who through the ballot box rejected corrupt governments in India, Sri Lanka and South Korea, have yet to experience the transformation of the systems that nourished their corrupt rulers. Only governments can change systems.

Transparency International, therefore, has based its approach to combating corruption on three principles:

* First, it will interest itself in a country only if it is convinced that the government in office has a genuine desire to establish or strengthen its national integrity systems, and is not simply looking to gain some temporary political mileage.
* Second, TI aims to build, on a non-partisan, non-political, and no naming-names basis, a national chapter comprising those elements in the community that constitute civil society: business leaders, journalists, religious figures, academics, non-governmental activists, and members of professional bodies. The national chapter should have the capacity to interact profitably with the government, and to help it to design and implement a programme of reform.
* Third, TI believes that for reform to be effective, it must be driven by local needs and considerations; that those who best understand the problems of corruption in a country are those who live and work there, and who have deep insights into their own society, and the power structures within it. TI, therefore, provides the tools: a corruption or service delivery survey; a national integrity workshop; an action plan; a draft conflict of interests law; a draft access to information law; a review; perhaps a follow-up workshop - these are some of the tools with which TI will facilitate the decision-making process within a country. The reform programme will integrate events and experiences from abroad, but it has to be completely and competently locally owned and locally driven.
* TI’s experience suggests a fourth principle, namely, that there is space for a creative partnership with inter-governmental organizations (i.e., World Bank/EDI and UNDP) that have ready access to governments.

In conclusion, Mr. Jayawickrama linked the issue of human rights with corruption. A repressive government, he indicated, is more likely to be corrupt as well because of the absence of any internal or external checks, and a corrupt government which rejects both transparency and accountability is not likely to be a respecter of human rights. Therefore, the campaign to contain corruption and the movement for the promotion and protection of human rights are not disparate processes. They are inextricably linked and interdependent. The elimination of corruption and the strengthening of human rights both require a strong integrity system.

Discussion

Summary points raised in the discussion:

On matter of political will, Sharon Isralow (USAID) mentioned that from her experience in Latin America, international co-operation and pressure could be effective tools for generating political will. In Latin America, USAID uses international summits and country coordinators in five different fields for that purpose.

Roger Miranda (Nicaragua) expressed his concern about corruption in institutions with missions to promote integrity. This situation undermines the moral authority that is necessary to combat corruption in developing countries. Petter Langseth (World Bank) said his organization created an Oversight Committee, conducted ethics seminars, and implemented severe sanctions to prevent corruption in its own ranks.

Eduardo Veltze (Bolivia) pointed at the far-reaching impact of corruption indices on foreign investment in developing countries, and therefore TI should ensure reliability of information and data it publishes. Nihal Jayawickrama responded that TI publishes a survey of surveys, and TI is constantly seeking ways to perfect its survey/methodology. Princess Adeniram (AABWA) additionally mentioned that industrial countries should use their economic power to influence decision making in developing countries with corrupt practices, and thus prevent "exporting" corruption to industrial countries. She asked if there was something TI could do about this and whether there was an index that quantified those practices. Nihal Jayawickrama (TI) answered that such an index does not exist but should be developed either by World Bank or UNDP.

Fighting corruption, as Keith Henderson (USAID) proposed, entails closer cooperation with business community, especially small business. Petter Langseth (World Bank) interjected that in addition to the private sector, that there are also other important groups to consider, such as the youth, which makes up a large percentage of the population in developing countries. Nihal Jayawickrama (TI) reiterated, however, that the private sector should be an integral part of all anti-corruption initiatives.

In terms of the analysis presented by the World Bank, Mushtaq Khan (UK) noted the critical weakness of focusing only on economic factors. He indicated that country specific political analysis is missing in the World Bank approach. Since external actors (or foreign investigators) usually do not have access to important "inside" information, it is necessary to develop appropriate methodologies for national actors to study the problem on their own. Sharon Isralow (USAID) responded that citizen perception surveys might be a helpful method in this regard.

Michael Henning (USAID) mentioned that support to economic reform was in the focus of most donors whereas political reform did not receive the necessary attention. According to Mr. Henning economic and political reforms should be considered in appropriate sequence and timing.

Country Presentations

1. Mongolia
Davaadorj Ganbold, Member of Parliament, Chairman, Standing Committee on Economic Policy

Mr. Davaadorj Ganbold gave a general background on Mongolia and highlighted the recent developments and socio-economic reforms since the 1990s in the country’s transition into a democratic state. Because of Mongolia’s communist past, the notions of accountability and transparency are lacking. He reported that Mongolia had experienced achievements in terms of creating more transparency in some areas while setbacks were to be asserted in others. Increased transparency has been achieved by televising Parliamentary sessions, and establishing visitors’ centers. Other measures include sending, in greater frequency and numbers, representatives of Parliamentarians to keep in touch with their respective constituencies.

Serious challenges, on the other hand, include growing tax evasion, complicated business registration and licensing, obscure practices in the financial sector, the absence of investigative journalism and continuing lack of transparency in government.

He concluded his presentation by stating that Mongolian democracy is young and still to be fostered. The country has experienced both achievements and setbacks. The government comprehends the importance of securing the positive achievements Mongolian society has made, for the further sustainable development of the country. Sustainable development and good governance require both efficient economy and political will at all levels to engage in real reforms that aim to ensure economic growth and competitiveness of the economy, to strengthen legal frameworks, the judiciary and the law enforcement. The Mongolian government plans to work towards creation of a true civil society with effective partnership of all its participants and a broad public participation in the democratic process.

2. Thailand
Kunnika Sarapanich, Office of the Auditor General, Thailand

Established in 1875, the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) is the supreme audit institution (SAI) of Thailand. It is an independent auditing institution under the general oversight of the Prime Minister, with the role of safeguarding control and performance in all government agencies. In 1979, the State Audit Act was passed, making the OAG responsible for auditing all ministries, departments and other public sector agencies and enterprises, including local government bodies. The 1979 Act also empowered the OAG to independently assess the performance (economy, efficiency, and effectiveness) of auditee bodies.

In addition, the 1979 Act provided a mandate for the OAG to undertake both financial audits and performance audits. Traditionally, the focus was entirely on financial auditing. But recognition of the need to do more than simple report on the correctness of agencies’ annual accounts led to the establishment of a specialist Performance Auditing Division in 1985. The Division was tasked to study the different methodology needed to give effect to section 7(3) of the Act "to give opinion whether audited agencies are in compliance with the objectives, are economical, worthwhile, and within reach of the target".

This important development would not have been possible without serious initiatives undertaken to train staff in the best techniques. OAG staff have been seconded for training in the USA and Canada (Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation) and have attended training seminars conducted by other leading exponents such as the SAI of Australia. The OAG co-operated with the Asian Development Bank in running workshops and seminars to enable specialist staff to become familiar with the techniques for conducting project and programme evaluations. The Government has given strong support to the OAG to enhance its performance evaluation capabilities. Changes in the OAG’s recruiting standards have also been recognized as necessary in order that it can benefit from the input of economists and other social scientists.

The OAG of Thailand has been promoting accountability in the operations of its auditees for a number of years. OAG’s staff are trained accordingly and the Auditor General himself regards accountability of public sector entities as a fundamental principle of public administration. It is expected that the new Act, when it comes into force, will provide further opportunities for the OAG to demonstrate the importance of the concept of the dual roles of accountability and transparency, and thus to play an important role in the ongoing development of policy making and open and accountable public administration in Thailand.

3. Philippines: Initiatives in Improving Transparency and Accountability in Government
Emmanuel Dalman, Assistant Commissioner, Commission on Audit

Emmanuel Dalman, Assistant Commissioner of the Philippine Commission on Audit of the Philippines (COA), reported on the initiatives to improve transparency and accountability in the government. He started off his presentation by noting COA’s constitutional mandate to provide citizens with access to public records and secure the integrity of public officials. He also briefly touched upon the institutions, initiatives and programmes that enhance integrity in the Philippines. These include:

* Code of conduct and ethical standards for public officials and employees – The law covers ethical and moral values; rights duties and responsibilities of public servants; the principles of nationalism and patriotism, justice and human rights, and democracy in a free and just society.
* Anti-graft and corrupt practices act – This law penalizes the acts of: inducing another public officer to perform an act in violation of laws and regulations; receiving gifts or benefits in connection with a transaction he/she is involved in; entering, on behalf of government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to it; and refusing or neglecting to act within a reasonable time on an official matter.
* Law granting immunity to givers of bribes and other gifts and to their accomplices in bribery and other graft cases against public officers – This particular law considers it better to grant the bribe or gift-giver immunity from prosecution so that he/she may freely testify, rather than allow the guilty official to go free and remain in public office.
* Moral recovery programme – Establishes integrity circles as foundation for a moral crusade centred on Filipino core values.
* Economic policy reform and liberalization – Aims at opening up the economy through greater private sector participation and competition. This is mainly achieved in the dismantling of monopolies and cartels, implementing the social reform agenda, and pushing privatization and build-operate-transfer schemes.
* Empowering the local government units (LGUs) – Through the 1991 Local Government Code, the government devolved delivery of basic services from the national government to LGUs with commensurate taxing powers. This also includes provisions that encourage the participation of civil society in local development councils, local pre-qualification, bids and awards committees, local school and health boards, etc.
* Additional examples of administrative reforms implemented by the government to improve transparency include the computerization of various agencies of government, like the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Customs Administration, Department of Budget and Management, Board of Investments, Department of Finance, the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as the Commission on Audit.

Mr. Dalman also presented the work of the Commission on Audit, and its collaboration with UNDP Manila to improve accountability and transparency under the over-all governance programme framework.

4. Fiji
Mose Saitala, National Programme Officer, UNDP Fiji

Mose Saitala presented the work of UNDP Fiji in public accountability, which centres on eight principles approved by the Economic and Finance Ministers of the Pacific and subsequently endorsed by Heads of Government of Pacific Countries in 1997. The principles are as follows

* Budgetary processes, including multi-year frameworks, should be sufficiently informed to ensure that the Parliament or Congress understands the longer-term implication of appropriation decisions.
* The accounts of governments, state-owned enterprises and statutory corporations should be promptly and fully audited. The audit reports should be published and easily accessible to the general public.
* Loan agreements or guarantees entered into by governments must be presented to the Parliament or Congress, with sufficient information to enable Parliament/Congress to understand the longer-term implications.
* All government and public sector contracts should be openly advertised, competitively awarded, administered and publicly reported.
* Contravention of financial regulations should be promptly disciplined.
* Public Accounts/Expenditure Committees of Parliament/Congress should be empowered to require disclosure.
* The Auditor General and the Ombudsman should be provided with adequate fiscal resources and independent reporting rights to Parliament or Congress.
* The Central Bank has the statutory responsibility for non-partisan monitoring and advice, and regular and independent publication of informative reports.

UNDP is spearheading assistance to Pacific Island Countries (PIC) to enable them to implement the eight accountability principles in close collaboration with UNESCAP, South Pacific Forum Secretariat and the Pacific Financial Technical Assistance Centre. To date, the UNDP has assisted PIC to take stock of their situation, and has organized a regional workshop to share the synthesis of the accountability situation and the generic problems facing the 16 PIC in implementing the 8 principles. On the basis of the workshop UNDP has now prepared reports to Regional Ministers on its progress and the suggested future country-specific actions.

5. Slovak Republic
Stephan Balejik, President, Supreme Audit Institution

Stephan Balejik provided a brief and unscheduled statement, which pointed at the global character of corruption. In his statement, he mentioned that Supreme Audit Office of the Slovak Republic has been cooperating with UNDP since May 1997 to promote integrity in the country. A result of this cooperation is a University programme for accountants, treasurers and auditors starting next university year and leading to a recognized Accounting Degree.

6. PACT - TCDC in Eastern Europe and the CIS
Jan Waanders, Associate Expert, PACT Bratislava

Jan Waanders also presented PACT Bratislava’s initiative for a technical cooperation in developing countries (TCDC) in the region. The countries of Eastern Europe and the CIS states are a heterogeneous group, but have similar problems such as: lack of appropriate equipment; insufficient competencies of public servants; inadequate legal frameworks; poor national training capacities; unsatisfactory awareness and application of International Standards; and lack of financial resources.

The TCDC approach is a particularly advantageous way to face these problems. To this end PACT Bratislava promotes a long-term strategy that focuses on internships and expert advisory services to transfer relevant expertise made from countries in the region that are already more advanced in the reform process to those countries that still lack that experience.

Among the most prominent advantages of TCDC that PACT Bratislava has identified so far for the region are: minimal language barrier as Russian is widely spoken; cost-effectiveness as travel costs and fees are below international standards; and similar administrative systems facilitate analysis and transfer of successful experiences.

Report of the Working Groups

A brief summary of the discussions and recommendations from each of the three working groups are presented below:

1. Financial Accountability: Frameworks and Partnerships
Moderator: Oidov Enkhtuya / Rapporteur: Mose Saitala

Group One discussions focused on elaborating further the concept of accountability, and how the proposed framework can be useful (see Table 1 of Annex 3 for the semantic framework). In this regard, the development of any institutional framework should clearly show accountability relationships, as required by the laws of a country. Many are not aware of the accountability relationships, between and among institutions, the government, civil society, and private sector. UNDP/PACT programme may be able to provide the guidance and direction, in this undertaking, particularly at the sub-regional level, in order that accountability initiatives and lessons are shared and coordinated.

The discussions also touched upon other already existing financial accountability principles already exist, such as:

1. IMF Code of Principles of Good Practices on Fiscal Transparency 2. UN accountability principles in aid management >3. IFAC guidelines, etc.

These principles need to be well coordinated so that they reinforce each other and that they can be applied simply.

In addition, accountability initiatives, including those classified as financial accountability activities, should be within the over-all context of a comprehensive reform programme. This ensures that the various critical elements of reforms, including those pertaining to the civil service sector, judiciary, decentralization, etc. integrate and clarify roles and responsibilities in creating enabling institutions for good governance.

Finally, accountability contributes significantly to the over-arching goal of attaining sustainable and equitable development. Programmes that aim to build and strengthen accountability and transparency in governance, such as PACT, should therefore be given priority and recognition.

2. Accountability and Effectiveness: Measuring Performance
Moderator: Kunnika Sarapanich / Rapporteur: Aamir Matin

Group Two was tasked to look into the related issues of accountability and effectiveness, with the end goal of finding mechanisms and sharing experiences. In the exchange, it was highlighted that accountability performance should be seen within the overall context of governance within the country. Performance can be measured, and one needs to measure the right thing. The wrong selection of indicators leads to skewed behaviour on part of the management. Caution is also necessary so that performance measurement is not broken down into too small unit, also indicating that measurement is not merely quantitative.

In addition, performance culture is the objective, where the ethos of performance is important. Critical success factors are necessary to determine if an organization is successful. As a start, the group suggests encouraging organizations to report and publicize their successes. In this effort, auditors should also evaluate themselves and establish their own performance measurement criteria. Some indicators mentioned were: number of reports and recommendations provided, and savings generated. No particular indicator is actually important, but the culture created in measuring success, performance and effectiveness. Each organization should also be given freedom to choose their own indicators, and the selection should be from a standard set of categories and are not changed frequently. Lastly, as part of the culture change, the mindset should also be transformed from a static to a dynamic interpretation of the indicators.

3. Strategies for Integrity Improvement in Governance
Moderator: Sharon Isralow / Rapporteur: Ernesto Bautista

Based on the discussions of the third working group, it is recognized that for any strategy for integrity improvement to be effective, it needs to be holistic or integrated. The strategy should take into account the over-all socio-economic and political reform agenda. It should also include components aimed at reforming economic policies and regulatory frameworks, civil service, improving the functioning of institutions (judiciary, legislative, auditor general), the legal framework and court system that allows for effective redress and administration of justice, and strengthening civil society organizations (CSOs) and private sector. In addition, the strategy also requires changing attitudes.

One suggestion from the discussion highlights the importance of decentralization of political and economic power to local government units to provide stronger impetus for improving transparency and accountability. Some examples of country-level experiences from the Philippines and India indicate the participation of CSOs in planning, budgeting, and monitoring at the local level by creating a venue for dialogue with local officials, provides the incentive for political will on the part of elected officials. Moreover, full flow of information, which is the true test of transparency and an independent press, are indispensable for ensuring transparency and accountability. The Asia Foundation experience underscores the importance of good research. Good research is helpful not only in clarifying the cost of corruption to the people but also shifts the discussion from an emotional/personal level to an interest level.

The group recognized that building constituency for integrity improvements requires:

1. education and an increasing level of public awareness at the grassroots, national and international levels, through information sharing on various initiatives on integrity improvements; and
2. that the donor community has a role to play, even in the absence of conditionality, in supporting and coordinating efforts to develop and implement comprehensive anti-corruption reform programmes.

Summary & Concluding Statements

Before the official closing of the workshop, Fred Schenkelaars, Global Coordinator of the Programme for Accountability and Transparency, thanked the participants, presenters, assigned moderators and rapporteurs for their time and quality contributions. Mr. Schenkelaars also thanked UNDP Thailand and UNOPS for their support and collaboration. Special mention was also given to Ms. Pauline Tamesis, workshop coordinator, in the efficient organization of the event.

Mr. G. Shabbir Cheema, Director of the Management Development and Governance Division of UNDP, delivered the closing statement. In his concluding remarks, he reiterated that the primary aim of the workshop was to provide a forum for exchange of cutting-edge ideas, emerging trends, experiences and best practices among representatives of key stakeholders in accountability and transparency. He synthesized that to achieve this objective, the group identified, reviewed and analyzed factors and tools that facilitate financial accountability and transparency, and identified existing and potential areas of best practices. Mr. Cheema briefly recapped the themes discussed in the last two days of the workshop, and added that the general consensus revealed:

1. That accountability and transparency are relative concepts applicable to specified purposes and circumstances.
2. The purpose of accountability is not to apportion blame but to seek and obtain objective explanations and reports on actions of anyone handling resources, public office or any other position of trust.
3. Combating corruption and improving integrity have economic, political, social and administrative dimensions. They also have direct implications for reducing poverty and protecting the environment, both of which are particularly vulnerable to the corrupt practices. Though it was not discussed in the workshop, evidence suggests that corruption widens the gender gap.
4. Accountability and transparency could be an entry point to introducing reforms at the entity and systemic levels, all leading to changes in individual behavior.

The workshop, in the presentations and discussion, also underscored the relevance and importance of integrity, records management and information technology in accountability. The workshop also provided an exposition of critical issues, institutions and processes that underpin the performance of governments in their management of public affairs and in their relationship to other segments of the national society as well as external actors, both public and private. To optimize the relations between the public and the private sectors it is essentially that the judiciary, the prosecutors, the supreme audit institutions, and the ombudsman be truly independent.

Mr. Cheema briefly highlighted the related UNDP goals which are centered on: support to country-anchored governance programmes; building global, regional and national partnerships and networks; and documenting, analyzing and disseminating best practices to change country experiences into acceptable norms and practices. In closing Mr. Cheema expressed his hopes that the workshop led to further insights and understanding of the concepts of accountability and transparency. Further, he hoped that it had helped to forge professional and regional partnerships and thanked the participants for their contributions.

Feedback & Suggestions

Workshop Content

1. Issues Covered – Did the workshop provide the venue for presenting new and emerging issues in the field of financial accountability and transparency? Which issues did you find relevant? What other topics would you have recommended to be discussed?

Overall, the participants found the workshop a very useful venue for highlighting and presenting the new and emerging issues in the field of accountability and transparency. Although the workshop schedule was found to be "too packed", with a large number of speakers and limited time allotted to each presentation, most found programme rich in information, stimulating and cutting-edge. There were a number of presentations cited as the most relevant. However, there was a clear preference for presentations with rich practical experiences and concrete examples, such as the presentation by Ms. Marie-Noelle Ferrieux-Patterson, the Ombudsman of Vanuatu. The panel on New Perspectives in Integrity Improvement was also considered highly informative and interesting.

2. Speakers / Presentations – Were the presentations useful? Please cite the best presentation and explain briefly why.

The workshop presentations were consistently of high quality and all the speakers were considered well prepared, delivering very useful papers. Daniel Kaufmann was a favorite choice for "best presentation" because of the good quality data that he provided on the extent and nature of corruption and related problems. Most found his use of cutting-edge data and statistics to back-up his thesis on the causes on consequences of corruption, a strong method for providing a good and factual overview of the problem. The Ombudsman of Vanuatu was again voted high marks for sharing real experiences and the concrete actions undertaken to address obstacles encountered. Messrs. Vinod Saghal and Petter Langseth were also cited for their presentations, with Mr. Saghal credited for his excellent ideas in implementing the complicated issue of performance measurement, and Mr. Langseth noted for his clear, concise and visual presentation.

3. Discussions – Were the discussions helpful and relevant? Was there adequate time to go over the issues? What would you suggest to improve discussion sessions in future workshops?

As earlier recognized, the workshop did not allow enough time for discussions nor presentations. However, the limited time given for discussions were found helpful, although there should have been better moderation in the plenary sessions and a better framework provided for the working group sessions. In the future, many suggested that the workshop be extended to three days or limit the number of speakers.

4. Time Management – Were the sessions kept according to schedule? Which sessions would you have wanted to spend more time on?

Even with the constraints on time, the participants considered the workshop efficiently managed with a good control over the tight schedule. Should there have been more time available, some participants would have wished to discuss further: the role of civil society in the fight against corruption; and more practical and concrete country-based experiences in strengthening accountability and transparency.

Logistics and Organization – Over all, how did you find the organization of the workshop? What were the aspects of the workshop logistics that were most/least useful or helpful to you? We would appreciate your constructive comments to help us better organize and plan future workshops?

5. Preparation/Information Received Prior to the Workshop

Most participants found the workshop well organized, with an excellent selection of themes and presenters. However, some participants who have not received their invitations earlier had a less smooth time in linking with the organizers and getting the required preparatory logistics and information in place.

6. Facilities/Venue/Equipment

Very good.

7. Workshop Materials

In general, the participants found the materials excellent and very helpful, some finding them "best that they’ve ever seen". However, the materials could have been more useful had they been organized in binder format, and made available electronically on diskette or on PACT’s website.

8. Over-all Feedback and Suggestions

In terms of follow-up, the organizers should consider a system to provide information on the status of research provided by the presenters, particularly in sharing success stories and negative experiences. For the next global workshop, focus should be on new developments, action-orientation, and specific and well-focused themes.

To facilitate further networking, the organizers may consider putting together a social event where the participants can interact on a less formal basis.

Acknowledgments

The UNDP/PACT team would like to extend its heartfelt appreciation to all that have helped in making this workshop productive and successful:

-to UNDP Thailand, our deepest gratitude for hosting the workshop, and in going the extra mile to make this activity truly worthwhile. We greatly appreciate the special personal attention given by the Resident Representative, Mr. Michael Heyn, and by the UNDP Thailand team: Ms. Netnarumon Sirimonthon, Mr. Vishwa Khanna, Ms. Duangkae Chaimankong, Ms. Wimonrat Kreingsontikul, Ms. Pranee Trikul, Ms. Tanawan Sarabuddhi and Mr. Patanapong Siriwatananukul. Thank you for your dedication, hospitality and camaraderie.

- to the speakers and resource persons, many, many thanks for sharing your valuable expertise and time

- to the participants of the workshop, without the country presentations, the exchange of experiences and lessons would not have been possible

- to PACT’s partners who worked hard to make this activity possible:

the WAASE Division of the UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS), specifically Ms Roswitha Newels and Ms. Gloria Wightman, for efficiently overseeing logistics of the participants (even at the last minute) and for their guidance on most UNDP procedures and regulations; and

- to Mr. Jan Waanders and Mr. Tom Kerscher for functioning as rapporteurs at the workshop, your assistance in taking down good notes helped tremendously in putting together this report.

- Last but not least, we would like to recognise the hard work of the workshop coordinator, Ms Pauline Tamesis, whose energy, dynamism and vision made possible a successful and productive event. Her commitment is also appreciated in writing and finalizing this workshop report.

Electronic Dissemination

Please send us your email address if you wish to receive information and materials electronically. We hope to post this report to the PACT Homepage soon at <http://magnet.undp.org/Docs/efa>.

Annex A
Workshop Programme

Day 1 (July 2)
8:30-9:00 Registration
9:00-9:10 Welcome Remarks
Michael Heyn, UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative, Thailand
9:10-9:20 Opening Statements
Shabbir Cheema, Director, Management Development & Governance Division, UNDP
9:20 – 9:30 Overview of Agenda
Fred Schenkelaars, Global Coordinator, Programme for Accountability and Transparency, MDGD, UNDP
9:30-9:45 Key Accountability issues in the Pacific
Ms. Marie-Noelle Ferrieux-Patterson
Ombudsman, Vanuatu
9:45-10:00 Asian Financial Crisis: Role of Accountability and Transparency in Sustainable Development
Dr. Manuel Montes, Senior Fellow Institute for Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore
10:00-10:30 Questions/Discussion
10:30-10:45 Break
10:45-11:30 Emerging Programmes and Activities in Financial Accountability
Facilitator: Peter Dean
- Accountability and Records Management
Anne Thurston, International Records Management Trust, UK
- Accountability Framework and CONTACT Guidelines
Ato Ghartey, UNDP/Controller and Accountant General-Ghana
- Accountability in the National and Regional Context
Kjeld Elkjaer, Regional Specialist, PACT-Harare
11:30-12:00 Questions/Discussion
12:00-1:00 Working Models for Regional Collaboration: Promoting Accountability and Transparency in Governance
Moderator:Paul Oquist
- Programme for Accountability and Transparency (PACT): Regional Programme for Central & Eastern Europe and the CIS
Daniel Blais, PACT Bratislava
- Regional Programme for Governance in the Pacific
Clay Wescott, Adviser, UNDP/UNOPS
- Donor Consultative Group for Financial Management Improvements in Latin America
Sharon Isralow, US Agency for International Development
- Global Perspective through a Regional Lens (Europe and Newly Independent States)
Keith Henderson, US Agency for International Development, Europe and Newly Independent States Bureau
1:00-1:30 Questions/Discussion
1:30-2:30 Lunch
2:30-3:00 Developments in International Accounting and Auditing Standards
Facilitator: Ato Ghartey
- Environmental Accounting
David Moore, Intergovernmental Working Group of Experts on International Standards of Accounting and Reporting (ISAR)
- Accounting Standards and Guidelines for Governmental Financial Reporting
Stephen Walker International Federation of Accountants (IFAC)
3:00-3.30 Questions/Discussion
3:30-3:40 Break
3:40-4:10 Revolutionizing Financial Governmental Management Systems: Developments in Information Technology
Facilitator: Anne Thurston
- Total electronic financial management accounting
Mauricio Mathov
Consultant, Informatics for Development
- Use of the Internet in facilitating policy discussions
Richard Labelle
Consultant, Information Technology for Development
4:10-4:40 Questions/Discussion
4:40-4:55 Measuring the Performance of Development Assistance Programmes: Promoting Effectiveness and Accountability
Vinod Sahgal
Office of the Auditor General Canada
4:55-5:15 Questions/Discussion
5:15-5:30 Wrap Up
Jan Waanders (Workshop Rapporteur)
Day 2 (July 3)
9:00-11:00 New Perspectives in Integrity Improvement
Moderator: S.D. Sharma, TI- India
- New Frontiers in Corruption Diagnostics & Programme Design
Daniel Kaufmann, World Bank
- The Role of Civil Society
Nihal Jayawickrama
Executive Director, Transparency International
- Political Will: The Core of Anti-Corruption Reforms
Sahr J. Kpundeh, Anti-Corruption Consultant
- Ethics in Government Management Decision Making
Peter Diekman, Price WaterhouseCoopers
- National Integrity Systems: Integrating Institutional Reforms and Developing a Regional Approach
Petter Langseth, World Bank/Economic Development Institute
- Various Mechanisms for Combating Corruption
Helene Grandvoinnet, OECD Development Centre
11:00-11:30 Questions/Discussion
11:30-11:45 Break
11:45-12:45 Country Presentations
- Mongolia
- Philippines

Thailand
Fiji
Slovak Republic (special statement)
TCDC in CEE & CIS (additional presentation)

12:45-2:00 Lunch
2:00 – 4:00 Working Group Discussion Sessions
1. Financial Accountability: Frameworks and Partnerships
Moderator: Oidov Enkhtuya
Rapporteur: Mose Saital
2. Accountability & Effectiveness: Measuring Performance
Moderator: Kunnika Sarapanich
Rapporteur: Aamir Matin
3. Strategies for Integrity Improvement in Governance
Moderator: Sharon Isralow
Rapporteur: Ernesto Bautista
4:00-4:15 Break
4:15-5:15 Presentation and Discussion of Group Reports
5:15-5:30 Wrap-Up (Tom Kerscher, Workshop Rapporteur)
5:30-5:45 Closing Statements
G. Shabbir Cheema and Fred Schenkelaars

Annex B
List of Participants

BANGLADESH
Mr. M. Hafizuddin Khan
Comptroller & Auditor General
Supreme Audit Institution of Bangladesh
189 Shaheed Syed Nazrul Islam Sarani (43 Kakral), Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh
Tel: (880 2) 834653 or 833799
Fax: (880 2) 832690
Email: saibd@citech.co.net

Ms. Parag
National Programme Officer
UNDP Bangladesh
House 60, Road 11/A, Dhanmondi R/A, Dahka 1209, Bangladesh
Tel: (880 2) 818600 or 818632
Fax: (880 2) 813196
Email: parag@undp.un-bd.org

BOLIVIA
Mr. Eduardo Rodriguez-Veltze
Counsel
Contraloris General-Bolivia
Colon esq. Indaburo 5to PISO
La Paz, Bolivia
Tel: (591 2) 331414
Fax: (591 2) 392187
Email:

CANADA
Mr. Richard Labelle
Consultant, Information Technology for Development
6, Rue Therien, Aylmer, Quebec
Canada J9H 5Z6
Tel: (1 819) 684 8980
Fax: (1 819) 684 2834
Email: rlabelle@web.net

Mr. David Moore
Research Studies Director
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants
277 Wellington Street West
Toronto, Canada M5V 3H2
Tel: (416) 204-3299
Fax: (416) 977 8585
Email: david.moore@cica.com

Mr. Vinod Sahgal
Principal
Office of the Auditor General of Canada
240 Sparks St.
Ottawa, OMT-KIA 096,
Ontario, Canada
Tel: (613) 995 3708
Fax: (613) 947 6887
Email: sahgalv@oag-bvg.gc.ca

CAMBODIA
Mr. Hean Sahib
Director of Economics and Finance Institute, Ministry of Economy and Finance
St. 92, Sangkat Wat Phnom
Duan Penh Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Tel: (855 23 018) 814 075/430 168
Fax: (855 23) 430 168
Email: sahibh@camnet.com.kh

CHINA
Mr. Liu Jinyun
Deputy Division Chief
Comprehensive and Reforming Department, Ministry of Finance
Sanlihe Street, Xicheng District
Beijing 100820, P.R. China
Tel: (86-10) 68552330
Fax: (86-10) 68513428
Email: statists@public.bta.net.cn

FIJI
Mr. Clay Wescott
Programme Manager
UNDP/UNOPS
Private Mail Bag
Suva, Fiji
Tel: 679) 312500
Fax: (679) 302994
Email: cwescott@undp.org.fj

Mr. Mose Saitala
UNDP Fiji
Private Mail Bag,
Suva, Fiji
Tel: (679) 312500
Fax: (679) 301718
Email: msaitala@undp.org.fj

Mr. Francois d’Artagnan
Deputy Resident Representative
UNDP Fiji
Private Mail Bag,
Suva, Fiji
Tel: (679) 312500
Fax: (679) 301718
Email: fdartagnan@undp.org.fj

FINLAND
Mr. Pirkka Tapiola
Second Secretary
Embassy of Finland, Bangkok
Amarin Tower
16/F, 500 Ploenchit Road
Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Tel: (662) 256 9306-9
Fax: (662) 256 9310

INDIA
Mr. Ashok Malhotra
Programme Officer
UNDP New Delhi
55, Lodi Estate
New Delhi 110003, India
Tel: (91 11) 462 8877
Fax: (91 11) 462 7612
Email: ashok@undp.ernet.in

Mrs. Soma Roy Burman
Deputy Secretary (Budget)
Ministry of Finance
Dept. of Economic Affairs
Government of India
70-D, North Block
New Delhi 110001, India
Tel: (91 11) 301 2649
Fax: (91 11) 301 3457
Email: srburman@finance.delhi.nic.in

Dr. S.D. Sharma
Secretary General T.I. India
& Working Chairman,
Transparency International India
and Lok Sevak Sahgh
Lajpat Bhawan, Lajpat Nagar IV
New Delhi 110 024, India
Tel: (91 11) 646 0825
Fax: (91 11) 4638899
Email: rsbansal@del2.vsnl.net.in

IRAN
Majid Hamedani Second Secretary
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Department of Specialized Agencies
Imam Khomeini Street
Tehran, Iran
Tel: (9821) 3212693

Ms. Anna Moradi Assistant Resident Representative
UNDP Tehran
Ghaem Magham Farahani
No. 185, P.O. Box 15875-4557
Tehran, Iran
Tel: (9821) 8731583
Fax: (9821) 8738864
Email: annamoradi@yahoo.com

LAOS PDR

Mrs. Vilaythong Sounnalath
Deputy Director of Accounting Department
Ministry of Finance, P.O. Box 46
Vientiane, Lao PDR
Tel: (856 21) 213813/213818
Fax: (856 21) 213818

Mr. Jan Meelker
Management Adviser
UNDP Capacity Building Assistance to the National Assembly
P.O. Box 345
Vientiane, Lao PDR
Tel: (856 21) 416234
Fax: (856 21) 416235
E-mail: meelker@loxinfo.co.th

MALAYSIA Dato’ Mohd. Zawawi bin Mohd. Nordin
Deputy Director-General
Anti-Corruption Agency of Malaysia
Persiaran Duta, P.O. Box 6000
50988 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: (60 3) 651 1982
Fax: (60 3) 6513552
Email: bpr@po.jaring.my

Mr. Mustafar Ali
Senior Suprintendent
Planning and Policy Coordination Div.
Anti-Corruption Agency of Malaysia
Persiaran Duta, P.O. Box 6000
50988 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: (60 3) 6512488
Fax: (60 3) 6513552
Email: bprupkd@po.jaring.my

Prof. Syed Hussein Alatas National University of Malaysia
Dept. Anthropology and Sociology
Bangi, Selangor
137 Setiakasih Road
50490 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: (60 3) 252 4622
Fax: (60 3) 254-5340
Email: alatas@pc.jaring.my

MONGOLIA
Ms. Oidov Enkhtuya
Member of Parliament
State Great Hural
Government House Room No. 428
Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
Tel: (976 1) 322 777
Fax: (976 1) 372-8625
Email: enhtuya@mail.parl.gov.mn

Mr. Nyamaa Enkhbold
Head, Press and Public Relations Department
Office of the President
Government House
Ulaanbaatar 12, Mongolia
Tel: (976-1) 320193
Fax: (976-1) 311121
Email: enkhbold@presi.pmis.gov.mn

Mr. Davaadorj Ganbold
Member of Parliament
Parliament of Mongolia
Government House
Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar
Tel: (976 1) 320 879
Fax: (976 1) 328 172
Email: ganbold-da@mail.parl.gov.mn

Mr. Bruno Pouezat
Deputy Resident Representative
and Programme Director
UNDP Mongolia
P.O. Box 49/207
Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
Tel: (976 1) 327585
Fax: (976 1) 326 221
Email: registry@undp.org.mn

NEPAL
Mr. Mukunda Prasad Aryal
Financial Comptroller General
Officer of the Financial Comptroller General
Babar Mahal, Kathmandu, Nepal
Tel: (977 1) 225840
Fax: (977 1) 228238

NETHERLANDS
Mr. Peter Diekman
Price WaterhouseCoopers
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel: (31 20) 568 6873
Fax: (31 20) 568 6778
Email: diekm009@wxs.nl

NICARAGUA
Mr. Roger H. Miranda
Director-General
International Relations and Projects
Office of the Comptroller General
Republic of Nicaragua
Aptdo Postal 48
Managua, Nicaragua
Tel: (505) 265 2075
Fax: (505) 265 2075
Email: rogerm@ibw.com.ni

NIGERIA

Princess Agnes Adeneki Adeniran
President, International Federation of Women and Association of Accountancy Bodies in West Africa (AABWA), Plot 16, Idowu Taylor Street, Victoria Island Lagos, Nigeria
Tel: (234 1) 2614235
Fax: (234-1) 2610304
Email: info@ican.edu.ng

PAKISTAN
Mr. Salah-uddin
Controller Accounts, Lahore Region
Office of the Auditor General of Pakistan, Constitution Avenue
Islamabad, Pakistan
Tel: (92 51) 921 9160
Fax: (92 51) 922 4085

Mr. Aamir Matin
Coordinator, SURF
UNDP Pakistan
61-A Jinnah Avenue
Saudi Pak Tower
Islamabad, Pakistan
Tel: (92 51) 821 816
Fax: (92 51) 279 080
Email: amatin@un.org.pk

Mr. Paul Oquist
Chief, Governance Unit
UNOPS/UNDP Islamabad
61-A Jinnah Avenue
Saudi Pak Tower
Islamabad, Pakistan
Tel: (92 51) 279 076
Fax: (92 51) 279 080
Email: poquist@un.org.pk

PHILIPPINES
Mr. Emmanuel M. Dalman
Assistant Commissioner
Commission on Audit
COA Building, Commonwealth Avenue
Quezon City, Philippines
Tel: (632) 931 9290
Fax: (632) 931 9223
Email: dbox@pacific.net.ph

Mr. Aristides M. Achacoso
Assistant Commissioner
Commission on Audit
COA Building, Commonwealth Avenue
Quezon City, Philippines
Tel: (632) 951 0458
Fax: (632) 932 7235

Mr. Rodolfo Q. Agbayani
Provincial Governor
Provincial Government of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines
Tel: (63 78) 321 2552/321 2310
Fax: (63 78) 321 2758
Email: rqagbayani@itgate.stii.dost.gov.ph

Mr. Ernesto D. Bautista
Assistant Resident Representative
UNDP Manila
106 Amorsolo St., Makati, Philippines
Tel: (632) 892 0611-25
Fax: (632) 816-4061
Email: ernesto.bautista@undp.org

ROMANIA
Mr. Ioan Voicu
Ambassador of Romania
Embassy of Romania
150 Soi Charoenphon 1
Pradipat Road
Bangkok 10400, Thailand
Tel: 662 279 790
Fax: 662 618 2458

SLOVAK REPUBLIC
Mr. Stephan Balejik
President
Supreme Audit Office of the Slovak Republic
Priemyselna 2, Slovak Republic
SK 824 73
Tel: 421-7-542-4189
Fax: 421-7 542-3005

Julius Molnar
Director
Foreign Relations Department
Supreme Audit Office of the
Slovak Republic
Priemyselna 2, 824 73 Bratislava
Slovak Republic
Tel: (421-7) 542-4628/3064/69
Fax: (421-7) 542-30051/566-2365
Email: juluis@controll.gov.sk

SRI LANKA
Mr. G. Jinadasa
Director General of State Accounts
General Treasury
Ministry of Finance & Planning
Colombo 01, Sri Lanka
Tel: (94 1) 432 026
Fax: (94 1) 3220042

TANZANIA
Mr. R.P. Mwasha
National Programme Co-ordinator
Aid Co-ordination and Accountability Programme

Ministry of Finance
P.O. Box 9111, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania
Tel: (255 51) 113 671
Fax: (255-51) 113 671

THAILAND
Ms. Kunnika Sarapanich
Senior Expert in Performance Auditing
Office of the Accounting General
Soi Areesampan, Rama VI Road
Bangkok 10400, Thailand
Tel: (662) 618 5780
Fax: (662) 618 5775
Email: kunni 598@vayu.mof.go.th

Mr. Prajuck Boonyoung
Senior Auditor
Office of Auditor General
Soi Areesampan Raman VI Road
Bangkok 10400, Thailand
Tel: (662) 273 9674 to 86 or
618 5837 to 51
Fax: (662) 6185837-51

Ms. Orapin Patamalikitskul
Assistant Director
Audit Development Office
Office of the Auditor General
Soi Areesampan Raman VI Road
Bangkok 10400, Thailand
Tel: (662) 273 9018-9
Fax: (662) 273 9693
Email: oat@vayu.mof.go.th

Mr. Michael Heyn
UN Resident Coordinator and Resident Representative
UNDP Thailand
UN Building, Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel: 662 288 1234
Fax: 662 280 1414

Ms. Netnarumon Sirimonthon
Assistant Resident Representative
UNDP Thailand
UN Building, Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel: 662 288 1814
Fax: 662 280 1414
Email: dpns@undp-nt.undp.or.th

Ms. Parichart Siwaraksa UNDP Thailand
UN Building, Rajdamnern Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel: 662 288 1234
Fax: 662 280 1414

USA
Mr. Sahr John Kpundeh
Anti-corruption Consultant
4343 Swindon Terrace
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772
Tel: 301 574 1733
Fax: 301 574 0307
Email: skpundeh@idt.net

Mr. Mauricio Mathov
Consultant, Informatics for Development
5003 Warren St., NW
Washington, DC 20016, USA
Tel: 202 255 6646
Fax: 202 237 0758
Email: mmathov@hotmail.com

VANUATU
Marie-Noelle Ferrieux-Patterson
Ombudsman of Republic of Vanuatu
Office of the Ombudsman of Vanuatu
P.O. Box 126, Port Vila, Vanuatu
Tel: 678 27200
Fax: 678 27140

Email: ombud.vt@vanuatu.com.vu

VIET NAM
Mr. Dang Thai Hung
Deputy Director
Accounting and Auditing
Policy Department
Ministry of Finance
7 Phan Huy Utu, Hanoi
Viet Nam
Tel: (84-4) 826-4525
Fax: (84-4) 826-2266

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS/ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS/PROFESSIONAL NETWORKS/MEDIA
Mr. Nihal Jayawickrama
Executive Director
Transparency International (International Secretariat)
Otto-Suhr-Allee 97-99
D-10585 Berlin, Germany
Tel: 49-30 343 8200
Fax: 49-30 347 03912
Email: nihalj@transparency.de

Ms. Rudi Jeung
Assistant Director
The Asia Foundation
1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 815, Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202 588 9420
Fax: 202 588 9409
Email: rjeung@dc.asiafound.org

Dr. Mushtaq Husain Khan
Lecturer, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Thornhaugh Street
London WC1H OXG, UK
Tel: 44-171-637 2388/323 6180
Fax: 44-171-323-6277
Email: mk17@soas.ac.uk

Mr. Manuel F. Montes
Senior Fellow
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS)
30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace, Pasir Panjang, Singapore 119614
Tel: 65 778 0955
Fax: 65 775 6264
Email: montes@merlion.iseas.edu.sg

Mr. Philip Segal
Correspondent
International Herald Tribune
9^th Floor, Ming Fat Building
74 Wellington St.
Central Hong Kong, China
Tel: 852 – 22349366
Fax: 852 – 22349558
Email: psegal@hk.super.net

Ms. Anne Thurston
Executive Director
International Records Management Trust, 12 John Street
London WC1N 2EB, UK
Tel: 44 171 831 4101/5998
Fax: (44-171) 831-7404
Email: athurston@irmt.btinternet.com

Mr. Stephen Walker
Technical Manager
International Federation of Accountants (IFAC)
535 5^th Avenue, 26/F
New York, NY 10017
Tel: 212 286 9344
Fax: 212 286-9570
Email: stephenwalker@ifac.org

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Salvatore Schiavo-Campo
ADB Advisor on Public Management
Asian Development Bank
6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong, MM
Philippines
Tel: 632 632 6557
Fax: 632 636 2182
Email: sschiavocampo@mail.asiandevbank.org

ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION & DEVELOMENT (OECD)
Ms. Hélène Grandvoinnet
Consultant
OECD Development Centre
94 Rue Chardon Lagache
75016 Paris, France
Tel: (33-1) 4524-9647
Fax: (33-1) 45247943
Email: cendev.contact@oecd.org

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (USAID)
Mr. Keith Henderson
Senior Advisor
USAID ENI Bureau
1300 Pennsylania Ave., NW 2.06(a)
Washington, D.C 20523
Tel: 202 712 5167
Fax: 202 216-3065
Email: kehenderson@usaid.gov

Ms. Sharon Isralow
Project Manager – Americas’ Accountability and Anti-corruption Project, USAID
1300 Pennsylania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C 20523-5900
Tel: 202 712 5736
Fax: 202 216 3262
Email: sisralow@usaid.gov

Mr. Michael Henning
Political Development Officer
USAID Manila
Government of Governance and Participation
1680 Roxas Blvd., Malate 1004
Manila, Philippines
Tel: 632 522 4411 x 4155
Fax: 632 521 5241
Email: henning@usaid.gov

Mr. James H. Redder
Financial Controller
USAID Manila
1680 Roxas Blvd., Malate 1004
Manila, Philippines
Tel: 632 522 4411 ext 3501
Fax: 632 521 4811
Email: jredder@usaid.gov

THE WORLD BANK
Mr. Peter N. Dean
World Bank
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433
Tel: 202 473 3354
Fax: 202 477 3387
Email: pdean@worldbank.org

Mr. Daniel Kaufmann
Lead Economist

World Bank
DECRG, N-11-049
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433
Tel: (202) 473-0992
Fax: (202) 522 1159
Email: Dkaufmann@worldbank.org

Mr. Petter Langseth
Sr. Public Sector Management Specialist, World Bank/Economic Development Institute
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20433
Tel: 202 473 8277
Fax: 202 676 9874
Email: plangseth@worldbank.org

UNITED NATIONS
Mr. William F. Radburn
Interregional Adviser
Governance Accounting and Auditing
UN Department for Economic and Social Affairs
One UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 963 8801
Fax: (212) 963 2916
Email: radburn@un.org

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
Mr. G. Shabbir Cheema
Director
Management Development and Governance Division, United Nations Development Programme
304 East 45^th Street, 12/F
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 906-5054
Fax: (212) 906-6471
Email: g.shabbir.cheema@undp.org

PACT-New York
Mr. Fred Schenkelaars
Global Coordinator
Programme for Accountability and Transparency, Management Development and Governance Division, United Nations Development Programme
One UN Plaza, Rm DC1-2082
New York, NY 10017
Tel: 212 906 5094
Fax: 212 906 5023
Email: fred.schenkelaars@undp.org

Mr. Ato Ghartey
Principal Adviser
Programme for Accountability and Transparency, Management Development & Governance Division, United Nations Development Programme
One UN Plaza, Rm DC1-2084
New York, NY 10017
Tel: 212 906 5027
Fax: 212 906 5023
Email: ato.ghartey@undp.org

Ms. Pauline Tamesis
Programme Coordinator
Programme for Accountability and Transparency, Management Development and Governance Division, United Nations Development Programme
One UN Plaza, Rm DC1-2084A
New York, NY 10017
Tel: 212 906 5349
Fax: 212 906 5023
Email: ptamesis@undp.org

PACT Bratislava
Mr. Daniel P. Blais
Regional Programme Specialist
UNDP/PACT-Bratislava
Grosslingova 35 – 5^th Floor
81109 Bratislava, Slovak Republic
Tel: (421-7) 4347432
Fax: (421-7) 4347450
Email: dblais@undp.sk

Mr. Jan Waanders
Associate Expert
UNDP/PACT-Bratislava
Grosslingova 35-5^th Floor
81109 Bratislava, Slovak Republic
Tel: (421-7) 4347434
Fax: (421-7) 4347450
Email: jwaanders@undp.sk

PACT-Harare
Mr. Kjeld Elkjaer
Regional Programme Specialist
PACT/UNDP/Harare
9^th Floor, Takura Building
67-69 Union Avenue, P.O. Box 4775
Harare, Zimbabwe
Tel: 263-4 792681
Fax: 236-4 728695
Email: kjeld.elkjaer@undp.org

Mr. Thomas Kerscher
Associate Expert
UNDP/PACT-Harare
9^th Floor, Takura Building
67-69 Union Avenue, P.O. Box 4775
Harare, Zimbabwe
Tel: 263-4 792681/6
Fax: 236-4 728695
Email: tkerscher@undp.org.zw

UN OFFICE FOR PROJECT SERVICES (UNOPS)
Ms. Roswitha Newels
Focal Point Management Development and Governance
UN Office for Project Services
220 East 42^nd Street, 15^th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel: 212 906 6563
Fax: 212 906-6906
Email: roswithan@unops.org

Ms. Gloria Wightman
Senior Fellowship and TOKTEN Specialist
UN Office for Project Services
220 East 42^nd Street, 15^th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel: 212 906 6137
Fax: 212 906 6501
Email: gloriaw@unops.org

Annex C
Working Group Discussion Outline

1. Financial Accountability: Frameworks and Partnerships
-Outline and define the principal types of accountability we are most likely to come across?
-Compare and contrast financial accountability with the other types of accountability?
-How should financial accountability be measured, recorded and reported? Please state and outline measurement, recording and reporting bases, processes and procedures.
-How do we develop strategies to:

(a) Form partnerships, to develop global, regional and institutional cooperation, coordination and collaboration, to avoid duplication and waste, and achieve synergies
(b) strengthen capacity and ownership of responsibility and the achievement and sustainability of financial accountability to the national government and its citizenry

Note either: (refer to Table 1 attached)

Build-up from the proposed semantic, structural and environmental frameworks (by adding or subtracting with reasons from the proposed semantic, structural and environmental framework)

Give reasons for rejecting the proposed semantic, structural and environmental frameworks and develop an alternative framework(s), recording, measurement, and reporting bases, processes and procedures.

2.Accountability & Effectiveness: Measuring Performance

-What is accountability performance measurement?
-Why do we need accountability performance measurement?

-What is to be measured, e.g., inputs, outputs, outcomes, impact?
-Who should do the measurement and for whom?
-How should the measurement be done, e.g., indicators, benchmarks, results areas, evaluation?
-What are the new developments? How have others measured performance? How have these measures been used to improve accountability and effectiveness?
-How do we develop strategies to:

(a)Form partnerships, to develop global, regional and institutional cooperation, coordination and collaboration, to avoid duplication and waste, and achieve synergies
(b) strengthen capacity and ownership of responsibility and the achievement and sustainability of financial accountability to the national government and its citizenry

3. Strategies for Integrity Improvement in Governance

-What are the new approaches and innovations?
-How do these differ from former strategies?
-How do we secure political will?
-How do we get ‘teeth’ in the new initiatives and make them effective?
-How do we ensure that the efforts do not become dysfunctional, or counter-productive?
-How do we avoid "over-kill", overlaps, and duplication of efforts?
-How do we develop strategies to:

(a)form partnerships to develop global, regional, and institutional coordination, cooperation, collaboration to avoid overlap and duplication and achieve synergies?

(b)strengthen capacity and ownership of responsibility for the achievement and sustainability of integrity enhancement to the national government and the citizenry.

TABLE 1: SEMANTIC FRAMEWORK: DEFINITION, COMPONENTS, ATTRIBUTES AND LINKAGES

DEFINITION

COMPONENTS

ATTRIBUTES

LINKAGES

Obligation /responsibility of anyone handling resources, public office or any position of trust, to report on the intended and actual use of the resources or the designated office.

Synergy of a number of interrelated components (inputs, outputs outcomes and impact), complementary attributes (probity, transparency and good governance), and performance appraisal criteria linkages (indicators, benchmarks, results areas and evaluation). Inputs: identifies what is to be in accounted for (the resources or the designated office or position of trust, the intended use, goals, and objectives, and internal control and performance evaluation criteria).

Outputs: measures and reports on what has been achieved, and how it was achieved.

Outcomes; explains and reports on why a particular result was achieved, the implications of the results achieved, and determination of action required.

Impact : is a further measure of the change in people, institutions, status or environment brought about by the outcomes of accountability. Normally, apparent 2-3 or more years after outcomes are observed, and are usually difficult to attribute directly to a specific input. Probity: means integrity; upright; without bias.

Transparency: means openness; processes and procedures must be clear, easily understood and implemented without guile or concealment.

Good Governance: UNDP defines good governance as the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority in the management of a country’s affairs at all levels. Governance comprises the complex mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, mediate their differences, and exercise their legal rights and obligations. Indicators: are specific tractable and measurable signs that show whether outcomes are being achieved and the related change is going in the right direction. Indicators do NOT, however, explain results and need to be supplemented by special surveys and evaluations. In cases where outcomes are difficult to measure directly, proxy indicators are used to track changes that contribute towards rather than describe the outcome itself.

Benchmarks: are reference points or standards against which to compare performance.

Result Areas: identify the categories within which thematic areas are structured, and outputs, outcomes and impacts are assessed.

Evaluation: is the objective, systematic and in-depth examination of the outcome and impact of the project or programme.

DEFINITION	COMPONENTS	ATTRIBUTES	LINKAGES
Obligation /responsibility of anyone handling resources, public office or any position of trust, to report on the intended and actual use of the resources or the designated office. Synergy of a number of interrelated components (inputs, outputs outcomes and impact), complementary attributes (probity, transparency and good governance), and performance appraisal criteria linkages (indicators, benchmarks, results areas and evaluation).	Inputs: identifies what is to be in accounted for (the resources or the designated office or position of trust, the intended use, goals, and objectives, and internal control and performance evaluation criteria). Outputs: measures and reports on what has been achieved, and how it was achieved. Outcomes; explains and reports on why a particular result was achieved, the implications of the results achieved, and determination of action required. Impact : is a further measure of the change in people, institutions, status or environment brought about by the outcomes of accountability. Normally, apparent 2-3 or more years after outcomes are observed, and are usually difficult to attribute directly to a specific input.	Probity: means integrity; upright; without bias. Transparency: means openness; processes and procedures must be clear, easily understood and implemented without guile or concealment. Good Governance: UNDP defines good governance as the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority in the management of a country’s affairs at all levels. Governance comprises the complex mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, mediate their differences, and exercise their legal rights and obligations.	Indicators: are specific tractable and measurable signs that show whether outcomes are being achieved and the related change is going in the right direction. Indicators do NOT, however, explain results and need to be supplemented by special surveys and evaluations. In cases where outcomes are difficult to measure directly, proxy indicators are used to track changes that contribute towards rather than describe the outcome itself. Benchmarks: are reference points or standards against which to compare performance. Result Areas: identify the categories within which thematic areas are structured, and outputs, outcomes and impacts are assessed. Evaluation: is the objective, systematic and in-depth examination of the outcome and impact of the project or programme.