Researchers from the USA explain how shadow reports became a grant service

Shadow reporting often becomes a tool for the grant economy and competition for influence on policy. Such «expertise» replaces impartial analysis with the delegitimization of bar self-government, masks conflicts of interest, and is used as a channel for external pressure on the institution.

This is discussed in Section 5 of the research report «The Ukrainian National Bar Association in the context of the rule of law and European integration», which was presented on February 5 at the European Parliament. The report was prepared on the initiative and coordination of the American Armada Network in cooperation with Ukrainian and international stakeholders. The authors combined legal analysis with empirical data and an assessment of risks to institutional stability.

It should be noted that several civil society organizations, with the support of the EU Project «Pravo-Justice», prepare shadow reports each year for the section «Justice and fundamental rights» of the European Commission's Report on Ukraine. The documents contain assessments and conclusions, including those concerning the activities of the bar association and the directions of its reform.

The authors of the research report question the objectivity of these organizations' approach to preparing conclusions, which are broadcast in the media space through affiliated or loyal platforms. There, the conclusions take the form of «public resonance» and media materials are used as additional «independent confirmation» in communications with donors and in political discussions.

«An analysis of shadow reporting in the field of legal reform in Ukraine shows that some of these products serve not so much as an independent assessment of the state of reform implementation, but rather as a tool for competing for influence over policy formation and control over the reform agenda, - the document says. - In such cases, the determining factor is not the completeness of the evidence base or the systematic comparison with current EU standards, but the ability of individual networks of civil society organizations to institutionalize their own interests in the format of ‘expert’ conclusions and promote them as the only legitimate position of civil society».

It is noted that a key feature of this problem is the transformation of shadow reporting into an element of the grant economy, where «analytics» functions primarily as a service product to support the continuity of project funding, rather than as the result of neutral research.

As a result, reform is replaced by management engineering focused on a predetermined outcome: instead of improving institutional procedures, it is proposed to dismantle the existing institution and replace it with a structure that serves the interests of the authors of the recommendations.

«In the field of independent legal professions, the consequences of this approach are particularly sensitive, as they directly affect the guarantees of the right to defense, the preservation of attorney-client privilege, and the institutional capacity of the justice system as a whole, - the research report notes. - The problem is not criticism of advocacy or self-governing institutions, but the transformation of shadow reports from an instrument of accountability into a technology for delegitimizing and redesigning institutions. When reforms are replaced by institutional dismantling and expertise by advocacy, shadow reports cease to be a supporting source for the European Union and become a systemic risk factor for the rule of law».

The full research report «The Ukrainian National Bar Association in the context of the rule of law and European integration» can be viewed at this link.