10th Anniversary of GRECO
Check against delivery

Speech by Drago KOS, President of GRECO

Strasbourg, 5 October 2009

[Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen]

It gives me great pleasure to welcome you all to GRECO’s anniversary conference. I am delighted to see that so many high-level representatives from member and non-member states as well as from international key institutions in the fight against corruption honour us with their presence.

I had the privilege to represent Slovenia at GRECO’s first plenary meeting, which, on 4 October 1999, brought together 21 Council of Europe member States. Already at that time I was impressed by the professionalism, the thoroughness and the spirit of fairness characterising this Group of States.

It has been gratifying to witness over the years GRECO’s growth, in terms of membership, experience and range of issues dealt with; and it has been an honour for me to contribute to this process as the Group’s President since December 2002.

You will understand that in this capacity, my views regarding the results of the last ten years may well be slightly biased – but I am confident that you will humour me for continuing to be enthusiastic about the work completed and thrilled at the challenges ahead.

It is a remarkable achievement that almost all Council of Europe members are now subject to GRECO peer review.

The process itself generates transparency, and transparency is one of the most important tools for holding political leaders, public officials and business stakeholders accountable for their actions and to avoid impunity.

Carrying out all this work – which has in no small way impacted on the anti-corruption landscape in Europe and beyond – would not have been possible without the active commitment of our member States and the unwavering political support provided by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and GRECO’s Statutory Committee.

I would also like to use this opportunity to thank both the current and the previous Executive Secretary of GRECO, Wolfgang RAU and Manuel LEZERTUA, as well as their very able team members for their invaluable input and support. They have also been a driving force behind a number of our achievements.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In addition to the commitment of our 46 member States to fight corruption, I would like to highlight some of the more technical assets which, according to my experience, contribute to the credibility of the GRECO process, namely its multidisciplinary perspective, the value attached to the collection of solid information, and the premium placed on the follow up to the evaluation work proper. Let me explain these points briefly:

Due to its wide thematic scope, which reflects the comprehensive nature of the Council of Europe’s six anti-corruption instruments, GRECO has dealt with and is dealing with virtually all the key issues relevant to any sound anti-corruption policy. This range covers legislation, its practical implementation and the requisite institutional arrangements.

The quality of the reports resulting from the GRECO process relies to a large extent on the collection of solid information. On-site country visits are the backbone of this process. They enable evaluation teams to engage in thorough discussions with domestic key players, to request clarifications on-the-spot, and to shed light on often blurred and contentious issues. Moreover, on-site country visits clearly serve as a “confidence-building measure”, often facilitating exchanges with the member undergoing evaluation.

Regarding the critical issue of follow up to country evaluations I am deeply convinced that the systematic verification of what members have actually done to act on our recommendations is one of our strongest points. And I will do my utmost to maintain and even to further strengthen the credibility of this process.

Nevertheless, talking about the implementation of recommendations, my overall optimistic approach is slightly mitigated when looking at the conclusions of the Second Round Compliance reports adopted to date. It can be disappointing to see that some of our member States are reticent and sometimes very slow to implement concrete measures in response to GRECO’s findings. More could and should be done by a number of them to translate the Group’s recommendations more vigorously into domestic legislation and practice.

That said, there is evidence of legislative and other initiatives which should eventually lead to the full implementation of the recommendations concerned – however with some delay. I would therefore wish to see more sustained efforts to step up the pace of reforms. We will not fail to encourage such efforts and to critically reflect on their outcome. Clearly, GRECO’s mission is of a long-term character and I am confident that we will have the necessary political support to our important work.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would now like to address three challenges which GRECO will have to face in its capacity as a monitoring body. Obviously, there are more challenges around, and I am sure the conference will add valuable reflections to what I have to say at this point.

Firstly, from my perspective it would be highly desirable to rethink current working procedures in order for GRECO to be in a position to provide comprehensive and up-to-date pictures of anti-corruption policies in Europe at shorter intervals, for example every 2 years. This would require a clear focus on a limited range of key-issues which should represent the core-elements of rational anti-corruption policies. I am convinced that such an approach, which would be both comprehensive and focused, would greatly assist our members as well as other international players. In this connection we should also pay attention to the critical issue of conflicts of interest regarding elected representatives which would no doubt be an essential complement to our previous work.

My second point concerns all international organisations and institutions active in the anti-corruption field. We clearly need to make a collective effort to ensure that the powerful and still growing international anti-corruption movement is not paralysing itself, by duplicating efforts, setting conflicting standards and subjecting member States to ever-increasing reporting duties; this will almost certainly generate monitoring fatigue, lead to a progressive weakening of existing and yet-to-come review processes and eventually minimise our clout.

Claims by international actors that they approach the monitoring issue from different angles do not convince me. This is more window-dressing than a sincere assessment. I can only appeal to all of us to face this threat with an open mind and in a constructive manner. The main objective must be, as expressed by the Ministers of Justice on the occasion of their 29th Conference on 18-19 June 2009 in Tromsø, to ensure “coherence, synergies and the best possible use of available resources”.

The third challenge I would like to address could be termed the “central level bias” of current anti-corruption policies and monitoring. Let me explain: for obvious and legitimate reasons the international anti-corruption movement has focused its attention on national policies; in response, policy-makers at central level have generally tried to respond positively to the recommended policies. The time has come to step up our efforts to ensure that anti-corruption principles recognised and implemented at national or central level are also applied and enforced at sub-national levels, and, as a corollary, to seriously think about ways of subjecting these policies and procedures to proper monitoring.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

To conclude on a more political note, it is certainly good news that the international anti-corruption movement does not show any signs of flinching. We must therefore build on the current momentum to ensure sustainable and well-designed anti-corruption policies. Such policies must include credible prevention strategies, backed and carried by strong and independent institutions, and vigorous law-enforcement. But such policies also require a clear commitment, at the highest political level, to the belief that corruption is an evil which needs to be addressed with determination (and not with symbolic legislation, solemn declarations and paper tiger institutions). It goes without saying that local and regional authorities which often face significant corruption risks in their daily operations must be included in, and contribute to, such endeavours.

I trust that this conference will contribute to these important objectives.