The Global Forum carries on peer reviews to assess the standard of exchange of information on request and rates the jurisdictions’ compliance with the international standard of transparency and exchange of information on request. Four ratings can be allocated to a jurisdiction:
- Compliant: the jurisdiction’s EOIR practice is effective. This does not demand perfection. A jurisdiction can be rated overall Compliant with the standard even though some recommendations are issued, but there should be no material deficiencies identified.
- Largely compliant: The standard is implemented to a large extent but some improvements are needed. The deficiencies identified are material but have limited impact on EOIR.
- Partially Compliant: The standard is only partly implemented. At least one material deficiency has been identified which has had, or which is likely to have, a significant effect on EOIR in practice.
- Non-Compliant: Fundamental deficiencies are identified in the implementation of the standard.
A rating is allocated to a jurisdiction once it has undergone a full peer review. Since 2017, all the reviews of the Global Forum result in a rating.
In 2010-2016, the Global Forum carried on a first round of peer reviews in two phases: For Phase 1, where the legal and regulatory framework is examined, each of the ten essential elements of the Terms of Reference of the standard receives a determination, which can be: “The element is in place”, “The element is in place, but certain aspects of the legal implementation of the element need improvement”, or “The element is not in place”. For Phase 2, which looks into the implementation of this framework in practice, each essential element is rated as “compliant”, “largely compliant, “partially compliant”, or “non-compliant”. In addition, a jurisdiction that has completed both Phase 1 and Phase 2 reviews was assigned an overall rating, assessing the general level of compliance with the standard. The results of these reviews is reflected in the first column of the table below.
In this round, the Global Forum completed 268 peer reviews and assigned compliance ratings to 119 jurisdictions that have undergone both Phase 1 and Phase 2 reviews or the Fast-Track Review procedure. A few jurisdictions have been reviewed in Phase 1 but not in Phase 2 because they joined the Global Forum during the last years of the first round of reviews; they have not received an overall rating but will receive one in Round 2. Some other jurisdictions joined the Global Forum too late for being reviewed during the first round and will be reviewed in the second round. These two types of jurisdictions appear in the last line of the table below.
Since 20016, a second round of peer reviews is now underway, and the first outcomes were published in August 2017. All jurisdictions are subject to a full review that covers both the examination of the legal and regulatory framework and the allocation of determinations for the ten essential elements, and an assessment of the implementation of this framework and the standard in practice, with the allocation of a rating for the ten essential elements. All reviews lead to the allocation of an overall rating reflected in the second column of the table below.
The table below shows the latest rating allocated to each jurisdiction.
|Overall Rating Following Peer Reviews against the standard of EOIR (as at November 2019)|
|Ratings based on First round of reviews||
Ratings based on Second round of reviews
China (People’s Republic of), Colombia, Finland, Iceland, Korea, Lithuania, Mexico, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden
|Bahrain, Estonia, France, Guernsey, Ireland, Isle of Man, Italy, Jersey, Mauritius, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, San Marino, Singapore||Compliant|
|Albania, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, Cook Islands, Cyprus, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Gabon, Georgia, Gibraltar, Greece, Grenada, Israel, Kenya, Latvia, Lesotho, Macao (China), Malta, Mauritania, Montserrat, Morocco, Nigeria, Niue, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Slovak Republic, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Switzerland, Uganda, Uruguay||Andorra, Aruba, Australia, Austria, The Bahamas, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Cayman Islands, Costa Rica, Croatia, Curaçao, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Germany, Hong Kong (China), Hungary, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Japan, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, North Macedonia, Micronesia, Nauru, Netherlands, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turks and Caicos Islands, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States||Largely Compliant|
|Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica||Provisionally* Largely Compliant|
|Anguilla, Sint Maarten, Turkey||
Botswana, Ghana, Kazakhstan, Panama, Vanuatu
|Trinidad and Tobago**||
The following jurisdictions recently became a member of the Global Forum. A rating will be applied according to the Schedule of reviews.
Armenia, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Eswatini, Faroe Islands, Greenland, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jordan, Kuwait, Liberia, Madagascar, Maldives, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Niger, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda, Serbia, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Ukraine
* These jurisdictions have been reviewed under the Fast-Track review procedure and assigned a provisional overall rating. The Global Forum completed its first round of peer reviews in 2016, and subsequently established a Fast-Track review procedure, which was a one-time process to allow jurisdictions to quickly demonstrate the progress made in implementing the international standard on exchange of information on request (the EOIR standard). The Global Forum’s fast track process was conducted in 2016. It was a rigorous process and informed by peer input but did not involve an on-site visit and does not substitute a full peer review. All jurisdictions with an overall rating of “Partially Compliant” or “Non-Compliant” (or the jurisdictions with a deemed “Non-Compliant” rating, or without a Phase 2 rating because of being blocked from a Phase 2 review for a long time) during the first round of reviews were eligible to apply for a Fast-Track review under the procedure adopted by the Global Forum. It allowed a jurisdiction demonstrating sufficient progress to have a “provisional” overall rating assigned to be taken into account for preparation of lists of jurisdictions not complying with international standards of transparency and exchange of information. Some of the jurisdictions concerned have already been reviewed in the second round of reviews and confirmed progress, some others still have serious difficulties implementing the standard. The remaining of the jurisdictions which benefited from fast track will be reviewed soon. These fast track results marked the end of the first round of EOIR peer reviews.
** This jurisdiction applied for the Fast-Track review, but the progress it demonstrated was not sufficient to justify an upgrade of its rating beyond Non-Compliant.