There of course is always the option of taking the dissatisfaction to the streets and demand for change through picketing and public rallying.

On the other hand, there is a way of working through civil society expertise by producing analytical products advocated through organizations and networks, of which a country is part. It was this second of the two options which was selected for a project that ultimately "made the day" at the Paris OECD meeting dedicated to the progress review of Ukraine within the Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan (IACAC).

The Istanbul Anti-corruption Action Plan is a sub-regional peer review programme, which took off in in 2003 within the framework of the OECD Anti-Corruption Network and currently includes 9 countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan). The initiative supports anti-corruption reforms through country reviews and continuous monitoring of implementation of recommendations, which promote the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) and other international standards and best practices. So far two full review cycles have been conducted (in 2004-2007 and 2008-2012) and the third round is under way starting from 2013.

Along with the completion of a self-evaluation questionnaire by the government, IACAC welcomes inputs of the CSOs either through interviews during the on-site visits.

To make its voice heard Ukrainian civic experts coordinated by Transparency International Ukraine supported by UNDP Democratization and Human Rights Programme elaborated first for Ukraine (as well as for the whole history of the international instrument) alternative report for the Istanbul Action Plan and presented it at OECD headquarters in Paris.

The expert coalition team spearheaded by TI Ukraine comprised 11 experts from 7 CSOs that are amongst leaders of anticorruption work in the country, and started off its work in October 2013, briefly before the Maidan events erupted. The alternative civil society report had been completed by the end of February and advocacy efforts to be allowed to present this civic vision at the regular session of IACAC in April 2014 were ultimately successful. On 16-18 April, 2014, OECD hosted delegations of IACAC member-countries where authorized state representatives reported on progress in implementation of the anti-corruption reforms in their countries. Alongside the official presentation of Ukraine's self-assessment interim report for 2012 – 2014, the alternative civic vision was allowed for presentation, highlighting concrete recommendations that the civil society deemed most crucial for priority implementation.

The alternative report has noted progress of Ukraine in such areas as engagement of the civil society into anticorruption work, improved quantity and scope of research probing into aspects of corruption, harshened penalties for corruption-related offences, clearer identification of persons and entities subject to liability for corruption-related offences, enhanced mechanisms of public procurement and improved regulations for access to public information.

At the same time, some persistent issues were identified as major hindrances for anticorruption actions in Ukraine. Amongst them are the absence of effectively coordinated architecture for implementation of the existent legislation, low capacity of the existing bodies, excessive immunity for judges and MPs, the need for specialization of prosecutors in anti-corruption, required enhancement of conflict of interest prevention and integrity management systems, execution of improved control over assets declarations, as well as necessary transparency in funding of political parties and elections.

The shadow report presentation has noted that the main reason for poor performance of anticorruption work in Ukraine may be described as the "lack of desire to fight corruption and constant competition of political elites for the right to exert control over anti-corruption sphere." It was further noted that "the measures implemented by the authorities in 2010 – early 2014 indicate the lack of real political will to fight corruption, and the desire to create a favourable impression for the society and the international community."

The precedent of presenting an alternative opinion alongside the state's version of the overall situation caused a potent ripple-effect. Thus, as a result of the presentation, the OECD group came along with an idea of putting together an assistance plan for Ukraine (currently the idea is under discussion). The civic report's persuasive power at times of Ukraine's anticorruption transformations has had an important catalyzing effect and more gains for Ukraine, in the longer run, hopefully are yet to come.