Adopt regional anti-corruption programmes (UA0042)
Action Plan: Ukraine Second Action Plan 2014-2015
Lead Institution: Regional and Kyiv City State Administrations
Support Institution(s): Ministry of Justice, NGO All-Ukrainian Special College on Combating Corruption, other unspecified NGOs and international organisations
Anti-Corruption Institutions, Public Participation
IRM Report: Ukraine End-of-Term Report 2014-2016
Early Results: Did Not Change
Developing, with the involvement of members of the public, anti-corruption regional programmes
10. Adopt regional anti-corruption programmes
Commitment Text: 10. Developing, with the involvement of members of the public, anti-corruption regional programmes.
Expected result: programmes approved by oblast city councils and Kyiv city council.
Lead institution(s): Regional and Kyiv City State Administrations
Supporting institution(s): Ministry of Justice, NGO All-Ukrainian Special College on Combating Corruption, other unspecified NGOs and international organisations
Start Date: Not specified End Date: 31 March 2015
Commitment aim
The commitment attempted to improve anti-corruption actions at the sub-national level by developing regional anti-corruption programmes. In Ukraine, corruption is widespread at the local and regional levels, and national policy measures are insufficient to tackle that corruption. Regional programmes could become an important anti-corruption tool if developed in a participatory manner and effectively implemented.
Midterm: Limited
In its self-assessment report, the government mentioned programmes adopted in 13 regions, and nine draft programmes that were published for public consultations. It was not clear whether the programmes were new or had been adopted since the enactment of the 2014-2015 OGP action plan. The previous OGP plan included a similar commitment. The self-assessment report provided no details on the substance of the regional programmes or whether they were developed in cooperation with civil society, as required by the commitment. An NGO representative noted that there were very few new anti-corruption regional programmes, such as a new programme in the cities of Kyiv and Dnipropetrovsk. There was also doubt about the inclusion of the commitment in the action plan in the first place because it was too extensive, and required significant coordination efforts the OGP mechanism could not provide.[Note 44: Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) Progress Report 2014-15: Ukraine, 46-47.]
End of term: Substantial d
In its self-assessment report, the government states that 17 out of 24 Oblasts have approved anti-corruption programmes (as a standalone document or as part of programmes on law enforcement). Of these, 10 administrations have further adopted measures to implement the national anti-corruption strategy for 2014-2017. In December 2016, the Kyiv city council adopted a Framework Programme of Governance Reform and Measures to Prevent Corruption. It was developed jointly by civil society experts and groups and the Kyiv City State Administration. However, it is unclear how many of these programmes were created as a direct result of the commitment. Many of the anti-corruption programmes were developed prior to the implementation of the action plan as part of ongoing anti-corruption polices.
It should be noted further that, in 2014, a Law on Corruption Prevention was passed (and enacted in April 2015). The law required that all executive-level authorities in Oblasts adopt anti-corruption programmes. The law described what such programmes should include, and required their endorsement by the National Agency on Corruption Prevention. Although the OGP commitment related to a different set of regional authorities — the regional representative bodies (oblast councils) — it remains unclear which activities were carried out as part of the implementation of the law, and which were the results of the commitment.
Did it open government?
Civic Participation: Did not change
Public accountability: Did not change
Local and regional anti-corruption programmes (action plans) can be a useful instrument for preventing and combating corruption at the sub-national level. However, similar programmes developed in the past have shown that they are often approved formally, but do not represent a genuine commitment to change on the part of local authorities. In general, plans are not developed with civil society involvement, although there are some exceptions (e.g., the 2015 anti-corruption action plan of the city of Kyiv, and the 2016 Framework Governance and Anti-Corruption Programme of the city of Kyiv). Government practice with regard to civic participation has not, therefore, changed beyond the baseline level that pre-existed this commitment.[Note 45: Ibid, 47.] The government's self-assessment report specifies which regions have adopted anti-corrpution programmes, but include no information on what actions have been taken by ministries and agencies to implement the adopted programmes. There has been no change in practice resulting from the commitment .
Carried forward?
This commitment was not carried over to the new action plan.