Board approved the criteria and procedures for assessing extension requests.

The Board approved the criteria and procedures for assessing extension request as outlined below as of 14 April 2020.

1. Criteria for assessing extension requests

a) MSG endorsement

As per Article 7 (1), the request must be endorsed by the EITI multi-stakeholder group (MSG). The request can take the form of an official letter or other written communication to the International Secretariat. The endorsement of the request by the MSG must be documented (e.g. through MSG meeting minutes, signatures or non-objection of decision). The request must be made in advance of the deadline. Where countries have not requested an extension ahead of the deadline and the causes for the delay are not exceptional, the request will not be considered valid. The International Secretariat will encourage implementing countries facing reporting delays to prepare extension requests with sufficient time ahead of the deadline.

b) Continuous progress towards meeting the deadline

As per Article 7 (2), countries must demonstrate progress in implementing the EITI. The Implementation Committee will consider:

i. The functioning of the MSG and clear and strong commitment from government. The assessment takes into account evidence of the frequency of MSG meetings and regular attendance of MSG members to meetings, as well as evidence of active engagement of MSG members and each constituency in all aspects of EITI implementation, including dissemination and outreach activities. Documentation of government commitment can include public statements, regular participation of high-level officials and government representatives to MSG meetings and other EITI activities, government funding to the EITI process, follow-up on recommendations from EITI reporting and Validation, and efforts to ensure the institutionalisation and sustainability of the EITI process.

ii. The status and quality of EITI reporting, including in meeting the requirements for timely reporting. The Board has typically looked at how the MSG and the government have made efforts to overcome barriers to meeting reporting deadlines. The Board has also considered significant achievements in implementation, including efforts to address recommendations for improving reporting. Examples include timely publication of previous EITI Reports, targeted thematic work to advance legislative and regulatory change, and innovations in reporting. 

The Board has typically focused on the publication of EITI Reports as an indicator of timely reporting. Going forward, the Implementation Committee could consider placing more emphasis on systematic disclosures in assessing the status and quality of EITI reporting. This approach would acknowledge the efforts and resources required to transition to systematic disclosure and mainstreaming stakeholder engagement. In granting extensions, the Board could encourage countries to publish information through government and company systems. This could include publishing timely unilateral revenue data ahead of the extended reporting deadline, through government websites and regular government reporting. Some countries might use Summary Data Templates to map existing disclosures and as a tool for interim disclosures. In their extension requests, countries should put forward a clear commitment to publish full disclosures by the agreed deadline and a plan to transition to systematic disclosures with clear milestones and deadlines.

c) Exceptional circumstances

As per Article 7 (3),  the Board considers whether delays in reporting have been caused by unforeseen challenges beyond the control of the MSG and which qualify as “exceptional” circumstances. Extension requests should clearly document and describe what the MSG considers to be exceptional circumstances and how these have directly impacted implementation. The Board can exercise its discretion in deciding whether circumstances qualify as exceptional, taking into consideration the specific context of the country. In the past, the Board has considered the following factors to be relevant:

• Political instability or conflict, when it can be demonstrated that such changes have been exceptional and had a significant impact on EITI implementation, i.e. preventing the process from functioning normally or creating obstacles to data collection and publication. Such challenges may in some but not all cases constitute ongoing conflict or changes in political administration. The direct impact of such changes on the EITI process should be clearly explained and documented (e.g. Mali, Myanmar). Planned or recent elections and ensuing political transitions do typically not qualify as exceptional circumstances. These are events that occur regularly in implementing countries and should be taken into account when the government and MSG agrees its work plan and reporting schedule.
• Challenges related to funding and procurement, only where it is evident that these are outside the control of the MSG. This would include cases where committed funds by partners have not been disbursed as agreed or the Independent Administrator cancels a contract during the assignment. (e.g. Ghana, Chad). Delays caused by lengthy procurement procedures are not considered exceptional, as these could be prevented if adequately planned for.
• Other challenges outside the control of the MSG, which are unforeseen and have disrupted EITI implementation.

d) Maximum candidature period

The granting of the extension should have no impact on the country’s maximum candidature period. Article 6 of the EITI Standard states that an implementing country may maintain a level of overall progress that is less than satisfactory for a maximum of seven years from the date that the country was designated as an EITI country. This includes the 2.5 years ahead of the start of Validation and three Validations with a maximum of 18 months to implement corrective measures following each Validation. The Validation Review Working Group is currently reviewing the Validation model and will consider potential changes to the maximum candidature period.

2. Procedures for considering extension requests

a) Recommendations to the Board and implementing countries

In assessing extension requests from implementing countries, the Implementation Committee has a degree of flexibility in how to formulate the recommended decision to the Board, as well as recommendations to be communicated to implementing countries. For instance, regardless of the length of the extension requested by the country, the Board can exercise its discretion in granting a shorter or longer extension period to publish the report.

In cases where the country requests an extension and would in practice be suspended for a limited period of time (i.e. under four weeks), the Board could use its discretion and agree, where there are reasonable grounds, to issue a warning to the country without immediate suspension. The decision could indicate the date by which the country would be automatically suspended if the outstanding data is not published.

Once the Board has agreed the decision, an official letter signed by the Chair of the EITI is issued to the implementing country’s authorities to announce the decision. In cases where the Board has agreed to suspend the country, Board decisions should consistently note that suspension is temporary (as per Article 8). The Implementation Committee can advise the Secretariat on the content of communications to the country to deliver key messages and encourage progress in meeting the EITI Requirements. In agreeing these deadlines, the Board could also task the International Secretariat with providing targeted guidance and support to ensure that the country makes progress with meeting the EITI Requirements and deadlines.

b) Assessing shorter extension requests

While some countries apply for six-month extensions, many countries apply for shorter extensions. In some cases, the country will have published the EITI Report by the time the Implementation Committee has made a recommendation to the Board. To streamline the process of assessing extension requests, the Board could mandate the International Secretariat to review and approve or deny extensions of the reporting and/or the Validation deadline up to four weeks. The Secretariat’s assessment could be shared with the Implementation Committee for non-objection and the Board by circular. The assessment would be based on the existing criteria. This would lessen the burden on the Implementation Committee and accelerate the process of responding to countries. With regards to Validation, it would allow to take into account new information that would be material for the assessment of progress against Requirements. Extension requests related to longer periods would be assessed by the Board via the Implementation Committee, as is the current practice.

3. Background

At its 46th meeting in Oslo, the EITI Board noted that thirteen countries had not met their 31 December 2019 deadline for submitting their 2017 EITI Report. This represented a significant increase compared to the previous years. Challenges around procurement, funding delays and data collection were cited as recurring causes. Many countries faced challenges with competing priorities, such as efforts to mainstream disclosures and activities aimed at informing public debate. In some cases, it had been difficult to mobilise resources to produce EITI Reports. Article 2 of Section 4 of the 2019 EITI Standard addresses the implications of failing to meet reporting deadlines set by Requirement 4.8.b.

Eleven countries submitted extension requests related to reporting and four countries submitted an extension of the deadline for commencing Validation. In assessing the eligibility of extensions, the International Secretariat and the Implementation Committee considered the criteria set out by Article 7 of Section 4 of the 2019 EITI Standard. In reviewing requests, Board members expressed concerns around alienating implementing countries in the case of suspension, noting that it might deter other countries from implementing the EITI. Others noted that suspension could break the dynamic of implementation in countries and might be unnecessary for short delays, highlighting that upholding deadlines should be weighed against meaningful disclosures at the country level. Some Board members rather emphasised that countries should be treated equitably in accordance with existing rules and that enforcing deadlines was effective in encouraging timely reporting.