Burkina Faso

There is a strong political commitment on behalf of the government. The government has enacted legal reforms to facilitate EITI implementation, and provided adequate funding for EITI implementation.

Mining companies are actively and effectively engaged in the EITI process, as providers of information and implementation and monitoring the EITI process. The establishment of EITI focal points in each material company demonstrates sustained industry engagement by stakeholders consulted. Industry representatives are taking part in outreach efforts to promote public debate, both at a national and regional level. Revisions to the Mining Code in 2015 have made participation in EITI reporting mandatory for all mining licenses-holders.

There is a strong and vibrant civil society in Burkina Faso, which is adequately represented in the MSG. Through their active and savvy campaigning, civil society has effectively influenced policies and shaped the reform agenda for the government, including transparency provisions and new mechanisms for revenue redistributions in the new mining code. Civil society participate actively and effectively in the design, implementation and monitoring of the EITI process in Burkina Faso.

The MSG adopted terms of reference that are aligned with all aspects of Requirement 1.4.b. The industry constituency, as well as civil society clarified procedures for nominating and renewing members on the MSG. Elaboration of the civil society code of conduct seems to have been the fruit of an open, transparent, and inclusive process. Outreach activities, consultations and communication between constituency members sititng on the MSG and those not represented on the MSG is limited.

Stakeholders on the MSG consider that the elaboration and drafting of the triennial work plan (2019 -2021) was the fruit of an inclusive, open and collaborative process. The work plan reflects the national priorities for the mining sector. The 2019 -2021 work plan is fully costed, includes measurable results, funding sources and is published on the EITI website.

The 2015 EITI Report includes a summary description of the fiscal regime, including the level of fiscal devolution, an overview of the relevant laws and regulation and information on the roles and responsibilities of the relevant government agencies. The report also includes coverage of ongoing reforms.

The 2017 EITI Report describes the statutory license allocation and transfer procedures. However, it does not highlight non-trivial deviations from the statutory procedures for awards and transfers in 2017. The DGCM note confirms awards were made in accordance with the statutory licence allocation process.

The EITI Report provides a list of mining licenses active in 2017, as well as information on license holders, dates of award and expiry, commodities and decree awarding the license, but not dates of application or license coordinates. In order to disclose missing data points on licences, the MSG has published all licence award decrees.

The 2015 EITI Report clarifies the government’s policy on contract disclosure in the mining sector, although it does not clarify whether this 2015 policy is applied retroactively to contracts concluded prior to 2015. While the report comments on actual disclosure practice, noting that decrees approving and summarizing key terms of contracts are published but full-text of contracts are not (aside from Newmont’s Tambao contract), it does not provide guidance on how to access the full text of any contracts.

The 2015 EITI Report notes that there is no clear government policy on beneficial ownership disclosure in extractives companies but provides information on the legal ownership of all but three material companies. While the MSG piloted beneficial ownership reporting in the 2015 EITI Report, only two companies reported details of physical owners.

The 2017 EITI Report provides an explanation of the prevailing rules and practices regarding the financial relationship between the government and SOEs, lists state participations in the mining sector, and describes the terms associated with the state’s 10% free-carry equity in mining projects. None of the SOEs generated material payments and the state did not provide any loans or guarantees to SOEs or mining companies in 2017.

The 2015 EITI Report includes an overview of the extractive industries, including any significant exploration activities.

The 2015 EITI Report provides official production volumes for gold, zinc and quarrying minerals (granite, limestone, clay and feldspar) but production values are not disclosed for granite, limestone, clay and feldspar. Given the significant difference between gold production volumes between official government sources and EITI reporting, likely due to the large size of artisanal-mined gold production, it cannot be concluded that the production values reported in the 2015 EITI Report are comprehensive.

The 2015 EITI Report discloses export volumes and values for the two largest mineral exports in 2015 (gold and zinc), sourced from material companies’ EITI reporting, but only provides official statistics on the export values of these two minerals, not export volumes. Meanwhile the volumes and values of “other mineral exports” is only provided in aggregate, rather than disaggregated by mineral commodity, although the aggregate value of these exports appears marginal at USD 1,801. There is no distinction between industrial and artisanal production in the report.

The 2015 EITI Report includes a definition of the materiality threshold for payments and companies to be included in reconciliation. The MSG was involved in setting the materiality threshold for payments and for companies and all revenue flows listed in Requirement 4.1.b have been included in the scope of reconciliation. The companies that did not report are named and the value of their payments to government is provided relative to government-reported revenues. The share of non-reporting companies appears to be insignificant. The 2015 EITI Report states that all material government entities reported all revenues. The report also includes the IA’s commentary on the comprehensiveness of the EITI report.

The 2015 EITI Report states that the Mining Code and model mining contract do not provide for the possibility of paying any mining-related taxes or fees in kind.

This Requirement 4.3 is not applicable to Burkina Faso in the year under review (2015), given the lack of evidence of any payments related to infrastructure provisions of the Tambao contract and the consensus amongst stakeholders consulted over the absence of such payments in 2015.

The 2015 EITI Report states that the government does not receive transportation revenues related to the transport of mineral commodities, in the sense of Requirement 4.4.

State’s participation in the extractive sector is managed directly by the treasury (DGTCP), which received USD 4,589,454 in dividends from mining companies in 2015. The newly created SOE, SOPAMIB that would manage state participation in the future was not operational during the period under review (2015), therefore no dividends transited through SOEs. Other SOEs operational in the mining sector (BUMIGEB and SEPB) receive government funding rather than make payments to the government.

The 2015 EITI Report clearly states that municipal taxes are not specific to mining companies and thus not considered extractives-related direct subnational payments.

The data in the 2015 EITI Report is disaggregated by individual company, government entity and reporting entity.

All of Burkina Faso’s EITI Reports under the EITI Standard have been published within two years of the close of the fiscal year(s) under review.

The MSG appears to have approved the selection of the IA for the 2015 EITI Report, including ToRs consistent with the Board-approved template, as well as the reporting templates. While the IA appears to have reviewed material entities’ statutory audit procedures prior to agreeing quality assurance procedures for ensuring the reliability of reconciled data in the 2015 EITI Report, there is no evidence that the IA reviewed reporting entities’ actual audit practices. The 2015 EITI Report assesses the materiality of payments from entities that did not comply with the agreed quality assurance procedures and provides an overall assessment of the comprehensiveness and reliability of the 2015 EITI Report. The IA has not prepared summary tables of data in Burkina Faso’s EITI Reports.

The 2015 EITI Report indicates that all extractive industry revenues are recorded in the national budget, highlighting non-extractives revenues that are not recorded in the national budget.

The 2015 EITI Report describes statutory subnational transfers of mining revenues, provides the general formula and the central government’s unilateral disclosures of actual transfers for 2015, disaggregated by subnational government. While the 2015 EITI Report does not provide the value of budgeted subnational transfers disaggregated by subnational government (only in aggregate), it provides sufficient information to calculate what each subnational government should have received according to the formula.

The 2015 EITI Report clearly describes and discloses the value of earmarked extractives revenues in 2015 and provides some information on the government’s budget-making and audit procedures.

There is a case for considering that Requirement 6.1 was not applicable to Burkina Faso in 2015, given that the 2015 EITI Report and stakeholder consultations confirmed that there were no mandatory social expenditures required by law or contract in 2015. However, given the MSG’s efforts to address “encouraged” aspects of the requirement by presenting companies’ unilateral disclosures of their voluntary social expenditures, albeit without reconciling these, the International Secretariat considers that Burkina Faso has made satisfactory progress in meeting this requirement.

While the 2015 EITI Report does not sufficiently address the issue of quasi-fiscal expenditures, stakeholder consultations confirmed that SOEs did not undertake such expenditures in 2015.

The 2017 EITI Report provided comprehensive disclosures on employment in the mining sector, in absolute terms and as a share of total employment, as well as on artisanal and small-scale mining. All other data listed in Requirement 6.3 have also been publicly disclosed.

Burkina Faso’s EITI Reports are comprehensible, actively promoted through varied channels (including print, online and through active outreach), publicly accessible and have tangibly contributed to public debate on the extractive industries in the country, particularly on the issue of subnational transfers. The government has published a clear policy on the access, release and re-use of EITI data and the EITI report is available online in an open data format.

Burkina Faso’s EITI produces brief summaries of EITI Reports and has undertaken capacity building efforts to support the use of EITI data. As encouraged by the 2016 EITI Standard, the initiative is now considering automated online disclosure of production and export data through the Burkina Open Data Initiative.

The MSG published a self-assessment report to review progress in addressing corrective measures, as well as implementation of recommendations stemming from EITI reporting and Validation.The MSG published an addendum to the EITI Report presenting its mechanism to monitor and follow-up on recommendations.

The 2016 annual progress report includes a summary of activities and assessments of progress in meeting EITI Requirements, in achieving the objectives set out in the EITI work plan and in addressing the recommendations from reconciliation and Validation.