Guinea

There is no evidence of back-sliding since the previous Validation, in which Requirement 1.5 was assessed as “satisfactory progress”. The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 1.5 remains fully met. The work plan is widely available to the public via the national EITI website, and the latest version has been presented in March 2021. It is reviewed and updated annually. Stakeholders confirmed that the process is inclusive and considers the issues raised during previous years. Civil society or Company representatives noted no financial capacity constraints that could limit their ability to fully participate in delivery of activities. The work programme and activities of the EITI work is funded by various actors, from central government to government agencies and donors. The work plan includes a clear description of how activities will deliver outcomes to achieve the objectives, although more would be welcomed for how activities will address legal and regulatory obstacles (1.5.c.iii) and could be more precise for some areas such as beneficial ownership. A results-based approach to the work plan including a monitoring and evaluation framework would also help to strengthen implementation, particularly on the follow-up of activities delayed or not implemented, such as the work on beneficial ownership (activities 1.10 to 1.19 of the work plan). The communications and outreach strategy could be more aligned with the work plan to target stakeholders relevant to the policies and practices that Guinea EITI activities are designed to change or influence.

There is no evidence of back-sliding since the previous Validation, in which Requirement 7.1 was assessed as “satisfactory progress”. The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 7.1 remains fully met. EITI in Guinea has undertaken active and innovative communication, outreach and dissemination efforts that enable evidence-based public debate on extractive industry governance, in line with the objective of the requirement. The EITI Reports are comprehensible and actively promoted through public events and podcasts. The language of activities varies according to regional needs, and Guinea EITI has developed different types of communication products to ensure that data is accessible to different groups. With the support of GIZ, EITI has provided training for journalists speaking regional languages to strengthen the awareness of EITI at the local level. Interactive broadcasts in local languages with private media and local radios (rural and community) were also conducted, where findings of EITI Reports are shared. The Covid 19 has had impact on the regularity and the number of these activities in 2020. EITI data is used by a wide range of actors including academics, civil society and parliamentarians leading to the fulfilment of the EITI Principles by contributing to wider public debate. Stakeholder consultations and the Validation submission show that EITI can be used to inform decision-making and drive reforms in extractive industry governance. Stakeholders consulted highlighted that government institutions consider the EITI as a reliable technical actor and regularly discuss publications. The Secretariat’s assessment is that all aspects of the Requirement 7.1 have been addressed.

Guinea EITI has agreed and published an open data policy (https://opendataitie-guinee.org/). The 2018 EITI Report, its summary data, and various 2018 annexes are available in excel and csv format through the open data portal of the EITI. In addition, some contextual data for the 2018 report such as the contribution of the extractive industries to the economy (Requirement 6.3) and data on production (Requirement 3.2), are available in various formats including .xlsx and .csv, as well as Export data (Requirement 3.3) and subnational payments to the development fund (FODEL). Extractive revenues are also published through the data portal (Requirement 4.1), disaggregated by agency, revenue stream and company, in percentage and absolute values. The accessibility of the data is mainly due to EITI means of publication, but production and export figures are also systematically disclosed through the BSD quarterly reports. Stakeholder consultations and the Validation template did not highlight any particular concern related to the accessibility of the data for analysis. The Secretariat’s assessment is that all aspects of the requirement have been addressed and that the objective to enable the broader use and analysis of information on the extractive industries is fully met.

The MSG has made efforts to strengthen the impact of EITI implementation by acting upon lessons learned. A plan to follow up on recommendations from EITI reporting and corrective actions from Validation has been set up, and an ad-hoc committee within the MSG has been created to monitor this process. The plan identifies the responsible entities and lists the activities, indicators and actual actions undertaken to address each corrective actions. The MSG’s committee oversees implementation of recommendations and identifies remedy actions. The MSG has compiled the recommendations dating back to 2016 as part of their 2018 EITI Report (see section 6). In total, 17 recommendations have been made from the 2018 Reporting exercise, ranked by priority. 6 of the 15 recommendations from previous reports have been fully addressed, while 9 remain in progress. Out of the corrective actions from the previous validation, 6 have been fully implemented, while 2 remain in progress. A report published by PWYP reviewed the implementation of gender aspects from the requirements 1.4, 6.3, 7.1 and 7.4 in Guinea, noting a slow progress of the gender question during the dissemination activities, as well as a slight improvement in the representation of women in the various institutions and debate instances related to extractive industries. To further improve the reliability of the production and export volume and values, the MSG accompanied the creation of inspectors charged to check the volume of exports of mineral products, in order to increase the reliability of mining statistics and the taxes depending on these figures. The statistics on production and exports by the BSD align also with the same recommendation. Therefore, the Secretariat’s assessment is that the corrective action has been addressed and that the objective of Requirement 7.3 is fully met.

The MSG collects feedbacks from the dissemination and outreach activities and discuss them during follow-up meetings. The MSG also reviewed progress and outcomes of implementation in its annual progress reports over the past 3 years. Guinea’s 2029 and 2020 EITI annual progress report provided a summary of activities, an assessment of each corrective actions undertaken, an overview of responses to Validation and reconciliation recommendations, an assessment of progress in meeting workplan objectives and a narrative account of efforts to strengthen EITI implementation. Stakeholders consulted on and offfrom the MSG were satisfied with the level of inclusion in reviewing the impact of EITI implementation in Guinea. All were able to provide feedback on the EITI process and have their views reflected in the annual progress report. Although some follow-up on specific requirements such as the beneficial ownership roadmap or project-level reporting are lacking, the outcomes of EITI implementation and past Validation seem to represent the clear focus of MSG activities. There could be a clearer link between EITI activities and the results presented in the impact review documentation. The impact review of the EITI implementation, conducted by a consultant from the GIZ, has been discussed during an MSG meeting but is not available to the public. The Secretariat’s assessment is that Guinea has addressed the corrective action and has fully met the objective of Requirement 7.4.

There was consensus among stakeholders consulted that the government had continued to play a leading role on the MSG and in leading policy reforms related to EITI since the last Validation. Review of MSG meeting minutes and stakeholder consultations confirmed that government engagement in EITI implementation continued without impact from the political tensions of the past two years, including the controversial referendum on Constitutional provisions on presidential term limits in March 2020, national elections in October 2020 and the coup d’état in September 2021. There have continued to be high-level government statements of support for EITI throughout the period. The leader of the military junta Colonel Doumbaya delivered a speech to mining investors on 16 September 2021 that confirmed the junta’s commitment to the existing legal framework of the sector and reiterated support for the EITI’s principles of transparency and good governance. Stakeholders consulted explained that the EITI in general and the EITI Guinea secretariat and MSG specifically had not faced specific challenges in their operations since the coup d’état, except for the temporary suspension of international aid since the coup. Despite political developments in 2020-2021, the Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 1.1 remained fully met in the period since the last Validation.

The industry constituency appears to be fully and effectively engaged in the EITI process. With its 60 member companies, the Chamber of Mines appears representative of the structure of the mining sector in Guinea. However, of the 18 material mining companies in the 2018 EITI Report, two fifths (7) of companies are not members of the association even if all mining companies at the production phase are members including the three Chinese-owned companies (SMB-Winning, Henan Chine SA and Chinalco) and two Russian-owned companies owned by the Rusal Group. As follow-up on the corrective action from the last Validation, the constituency adopted its own ToR to codify its engagement in the EITI. The Chamber of Mines has conducted ad hoc outreach to non-Chamber companies, including on EITI, although there has been no institutional framework for this outreach. Decree D/2021/233/PRG/SGG of 14 July 2021 re-establishing the EITI has created an enabling legal environment for company participation in Guinea’s EITI implementation, while the 2013 revisions to the 2011 Mining Code have made EITI reporting of audited figures mandatory for all mining licenses-holders. The companies are engaged in the EITI process, and all the material companies fulfil their EITI reporting requirement. There has consistently been attendance of three of the five industry MSG representatives at each meeting of the MSG, even if participation from two MSG members has been weaker. Companies have provided funding for EITI implementation in the past, although they have ceased doing so pending the formalisation of no conflict-of-interest rules, according to stakeholders consulted. Companies have contributed to EITI outreach and dissemination efforts in the mining regions, both by participating and in providing funding for activities. Some industry stakeholders consulted explained that they used EITI data for capacity building of their staff and for communications with their investors.

Civil society is actively engaged in the EITI and codified its participation through the recently established civil society constituency called the “Coordination” committee. Civil society influences the scope of the EITI, uses EITI data for advocacy and analysis and actively participates in the MSG’s work. The assessment notes a potential breach of provision 2.1 of the EITI Protocol: participation of civil society, as well as the general objective of Requirement 1.3 that any actor engaged in the EITI process can express opinions without restraint, coercion or reprisal. Further details are provided in Annex A. In its comments on the draft assessment, the civil society members of the MSG insisted on the absence of restrictions or reprisals for citizens engaged in EITI related issues and topics. The eleven members of the college unanimously considered that the incidents noted above were not linked to the EITI in a separate set of comments on the draft assessment submitted in annex to the MSG comments. In light of these clarifications, the Secretariat’s assessment is that Guinea has fully met the objective of Requirement 1.3.

The MSG appears to be functioning in an effective and equitable manner, in accordance with the MSG internal rules. The objective of having an independent MSG that can exercise active and meaningful oversight of all aspects of EITI implementation has been fulfilled. The MSG’s internal rules adopted in June 2021 and the Ministry of Mines and Geology document codifying the structure of MSG membership on 9 September 2021 are both consistent with the constituency’s own rules in the number and type of MSG member. A report published by PWYP reviewed the implementation of gender aspects of the EITI Standard noted that gender considerations had yet to be included in constituency MSG nominations procedures but that each constituency was in the process of revising their guidelines to include these aspects. While the number of women on the MSG has grown by 50% between 2018 and 2021, it remains at 18% of the total, seven of 38 MSG members. Since the last Validation, the civil society and Industry constituencies have formalised their constituency coordination mechanisms and nominated their own representatives to the MSG in an entirely independent way following each constituency’s own rules for the first time. Supported by an independent facilitator, civil society established a constituency “Coordination” committee, bringing together 36 member organisations working on extractive issues, of which around half were based in resource-rich regions according to stakeholders consulted. For the first time, the civil society constituency nominated its own representatives in an independent, transparent and open manner, based on a process following the constituency’s new Code of Conduct adopted in July 2020, which include clauses against conflict of interest and to boost youth and women representation. For the first time, the industry constituency appointed its own MSG representatives in an independent manner in February 2019, under the aegis of the Chamber of Mines. Stakeholder consultations confirmed that the second election of the 11 members to MSG in May 2021 were held in accordance with the constituency’s ToR formalised in June 2021. There is no evidence of communication by the Chamber of Mines to the broader constituency, aside from ad hoc outreach by the Chamber. There is limited evidence of coordination within each constituency on EITI issues in practice, and more could be done to ensure the accountability of MSG members to their broader constituencies. For most of the period under review, the MSG operated in accordance with Decree 2012/014/PRG/SGG on 3 February 2012, which was revised in Decree D/2021/233/PRG/SGG on 14 July 2021. Despite provision in the revised internal rules agreed in June 2021 (similar to the previous rules), some MSG members consulted noted that they had not signed the EITI Code of Conduct. Stakeholder consultations did not highlight any particular deviations from the MSG’s ToR in practice. Guinea EITI’s governance documents do not provide specifically for conflicts of interest or rules for their treatment of confidential information. With regards to conflict of interest however, the civil society constituency enacted a rule banning civil society stakeholders who were also civil servants to be MSG members, which resulted in the replacement of two MSG civil society members who launched political careers. The MSG continued to operate despite the difficult pandemic context, although some stakeholders consulted noted delays in delivering on various work plan activities and funding challenges in 2020-2021. Stakeholders consulted considered that the objective of an independent MSG with oversight of all aspects of EITI implementation that balances the three main constituencies’ interests had been fulfilled as a result of follow-up on the corrective actions from the last Validation. Thus, the Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 1.4 is fully met.

There is no evidence of any backsliding since the previous Validation, in which Requirement 3.1 was assessed as “satisfactory progress”. The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 3.1 continues to be fully met in Guinea. Since the last Validation, The Ministry of Mines website also includes an overview of the mining and petroleum potential but not of significant exploration activities, which remains disclosed through the EITI Report.

There is no evidence of any backsliding since the previous Validation, in which Requirement 6.3 was assessed as “satisfactory progress”. The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 6.3 continues to be fully met in Guinea. Guinea has fully complied with all aspects of this requirement by publishing the contribution of the extractive industries, in absolute and as a percentage of GDP, government revenue, exports, and employment, both in its 2018 EITI Report and on its open data portal. The government makes available information on the main regions where production is concentrated on the website of the Ministry of Mines and Geology.

There is no evidence of any backsliding since the previous Validation, in which Requirement 2.1 was assessed as “satisfactory progress”.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 2.4 is mostly met in Guinea. The government’s policy in favour of publishing the full text of both mining and petroleum contracts is described in the 2018 EITI Report. The full text of contracts is disclosed in both the mining and petroleum sectors, although Guinea’s EITI reporting highlights the MSG’s inability to confirm that all mining contracts have been published due to the lack of a publicly accessible list of all active contracts in the mining sector. However, the MSG has sent to the International Secretariat a document reviewing all active contracts, including riders and amendments, indicating their publication status, the state of availability and the remaining gaps in the text of each document. While the MSG’s review does not specifically confirm the public disclosure of all contract annexes, a spot check by the International Secretariat confirmed that all contractual annexes appear to have been published. The document lacks a reference or a link to the location of the contract or license, but all seem available at the Guinea Resource Contracts database. This review does not seem to be publicly available on the website of the Ministry or the EITI website. While the MSG’s comments on the draft assessment state that all active extractive licenses have been published in the official gazette (Journal officiel), it did not provide a comprehensive list of all active licenses with references to where each license is publicly accessible. An overview or a list of all active contracts and licenses, including exploration contracts, indicating which contracts and licenses are publicly available, and which are not, does not appear to be yet publicly available. All mining and petroleum contracts published to date relate to awards prior to 1 January 2021 and none of the mining and petroleum licenses appear to have yet been published. No new mining or petroleum contracts or licenses have been awarded or amended between 1 January and 31 September 2021.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Guinea has addressed some encouraged aspects related to the environmental impact of the extractive industries, but that Requirement 6.4 should remain ‘not assessed’ given that the objective of the requirement is not yet exceeded. The 2018 EITI Report provides some information on the management and monitoring of the environmental impact of the extractive industries, including relevant legal provisions and administrative rules related to environmental management and monitoring of extractive investments in the country, but no information on actual practices such as adherence to environmental impact assessment requirements. The report does provide four of the 25 material companies’ unilateral disclosures of their contributions to environmental rehabilitation funds and other types of environmental expenditures. While Guinea’s EITI reporting has provided some information on regular environmental monitoring procedures related to the extractive industries, information on administrative and sanctioning processes of governments, as well as environmental liabilities, environmental rehabilitation and remediation programs have yet to be comprehensively disclosed.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 2.2 is mostly met in Guinea. The 2018 EITI Report lists the 123 mining licenses awarded in 2018 and confirms the lack of new oil and gas license or contract awards as well as the lack of license and contract transfers in both the mining and petroleum sectors. None of the license awards in 2018 were conducted through competitive tender. The report provides an overview of the statutory procedure for awarding and transferring licenses in both mining and petroleum, including the specific technical and financial criteria assessed in mining license awards. The report confirms that the specific criteria assessed for oil and gas license awards are codified in the decree announcing the opening of specific oil and gas blocks. There is an inconsistency between the EITI Report’s statement that no criteria are assessed for mining license transfers and a note by CPDM in 2018 that described a set of financial criteria assessed in mining license transfers. However, the Secretariat understands that the same technical and financial criteria are assessed for mining production license transfers as for awards, while mining exploration licenses cannot be transferred. The 2018 EITI Report’s statement that the IA was not able to assess non-trivial deviations from statutory procedures in the 123 mining license awards in 2018 is a concern. However, subsequent to the start of Validation, the MSG’s diagnostic report on mining license awards to a sample of seven companies in 2018 was published on the Guinea EITI website, confirming the lack of non-trivial deviations from statutory procedures. Guinea’s EITI reporting does not reference any additional commentary by the MSG on the efficiency of the current mining and petroleum licensing systems. However, the Secretariat’s assessment is that Guinea has not yet fulfilled the objective of providing a public overview of whether the statutory procedures for license awards and transfers are followed in practice given the cursory nature of the assessment of non-trivial deviations and the lack of detailed information on the MSG’s findings from its review of non-trivial deviations in mining licensing activities. Nevertheless, the MSG’s diagnostic of mining license awards has improved since the last Validation by ensuring proactive participation of MSG members.

There is no evidence of substantial backsliding since the previous Validation, in which Requirement 2.3 was assessed as “satisfactory progress”. The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 2.3 continues to be fully met in Guinea. While the dates of application are not publicly disclosed for some of the licenses held by six material companies included in the scope of the 2018 EITI Report, the MSG has been transparent about this issue and is undertaking efforts to ensure that the missing dates of application are disclosed in future.

Guinea has partly met the requirement’s objective of enabling the public to know who ultimately owns and controls the companies operating in the country’s extractive industries and to help deter improper practices in the management of extractive resources. Several aspects of the initial criteria for Validation of Requirement 2.5 have not yet been addressed in Guinea, including finalizing the legal framework and establishing reporting practices for beneficial ownership disclosures. A draft law has been prepared in 2019 but remains in discussion. Nonetheless, the draft legislation has been published. The project includes the definition of beneficial ownership and identify the CPDM as the national agency responsible for setting up the register. In the absence of a firmly established legal framework or reporting practices enshrined in law, the Ministry of Mines and Geology has invited all extractive companies to declare the identity of their beneficial owners as part of the 2018 EITI Report data collection. Reporting forms prepared by EITI Guinea have been sent to all extractive sector licensees. No additional support to encourage them to disclose this data is documented, and companies applying for a license since 1 January 2020 do not appear to have been solicited. Based on the beneficial ownership section in the 2018 EITI Report, of the 25 extractive licensees with significant revenues, only 9 submitted information on their beneficial ownership. Section 4.7.2.2 of the 2018 EITI Report (dedicated to Requirement 2.5.c.) provides an assessment of the completeness and reliability of beneficial ownership disclosures, although it remains limited to the material companies’ submission. Information on legal owners can be accessed through the portal of the OHADA Commercial Register. The 2018 EITI Report questions the exhaustivity of the OHADA register for Guinea, and the cost of information on legal owners (GNF 20000 / EUR 30 per company) could be considered a constrain. Guinea EITI has published on its website a list of legal owners for more than 80% of the extractive licenses existing in Guinea. Regarding requirement 2.5.f.iii, links to the stock exchange filings of the extractive companies in Guinea that are wholly owned subsidiaries of publicly listed companies have not been disclosed through the 2018 summary data file or on the national EITI website (only general links to the company websites). None of stakeholders consulted commented on the progress on Beneficial Ownership disclosures, asides for noting the slow progress since 2019. It is therefore the view of the Secretariat that Guinea has partly met the objective of Requirement 2.5.

There is no evidence of back-sliding since the previous Validation, in which Requirement 2.6 was assessed as “Satisfactory Progress”.

There is no evidence of back-sliding since the previous Validation, in which Requirement 4.2 was assessed as “Not applicable”.

There is no evidence of back-sliding since the previous Validation, in which Requirement 4.5 was assessed as “Satisfactory Progress”.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Guinea has fully met the objective of the requirement. The 2018 EITI Report identifies several types of expenses covered by ANAIM, including the provision of non-commercial services (social services), financing of public infrastructure, public debt services, and subsidies in the form of the sale of products at a loss or at prices below market prices. All these transactions are detailed in the 2018 EITI Report, broken down by type of work, for a total of GNF 21.264 billion. The other state-owned enterprises operating in the sector, SOGUIPAMI, claims to have made no quasi-fiscal expenditure for 2018, although the justification for reaching such a conclusion is absent. Stakeholders consulted confirmed that the SOGUIPAMI did not undertake any quasi-fiscal expenditures for the year under review.

There is no evidence of any backsliding since the previous Validation, in which Requirement 3.2 was assessed as “satisfactory progress”. The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 3.2 continues to be fully met in Guinea. Guinea has addressed all aspects of this requirement: Mining production data is disclosed comprehensively in the 2018 EITI Report, by volume and value, disaggregated by commodity, by region and by company. The quarterly statistical bulletins of the Bureau of Strategy and Development (BSD) provide a routine publication of this data in the same level of disaggregation and allow an understanding of the evolution of the production level for each commodity. Production data is also available on the EITI Guinea open data portal, disaggregated by commodity, and in some cases by company. Granite and limestone production data are not disaggregated to the required level.

There is no evidence of any backsliding since the previous Validation, in which Requirement 3.3 was assessed as “satisfactory progress”. The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 3. continues to be fully met in Guinea. Data related to mining exports are published comprehensively in the 2018 EITI Report, disaggregated by commodity and company, but also by region and destination. Export volumes are also available in the quarterly statistical bulletins of the BSD, by commodity and by company – including for the artisanal and small-scale mining sector - and on the EITI Guinea open data portal, in a lower level of detail.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Guinea has fulfilled the requirement’s objective of ensuring comprehensive disclosures of company payments and government revenues from the extractive industries as the basis for a detailed public understanding of the contribution of the Extractive industries to government revenues. There is no evidence of back-sliding since the previous Validation, in which Requirement 4.1 was assessed as “satisfactory progress”.

The Secretariat’s assessment concludes that Guinea has fully met the objective of Requirement 4.3. The infrastructure agreements and renting of mining infrastructure in the Kansar complex contracted by the two state-owned companies in the mining sector (ANAIM and SOGUIPAMI) are described in detail in the 2018 EITI report. The view of the International Secretariat is that these agreements do not consist in barter of infrastructure provisions according to the definition of the requirement 4.3. Regarding the “accord cadre” signed between China and Guinea for a total amount of USD 20 billion, the MSG included an explanatory note in the EITI report and on its website providing key elements previously not available to the public, such as the value of infrastructures built each year, interest rates of the loan, nature of the projects.

The Secretariat’s assessment concludes that Guinea has fully met the objective of Requirement 4.4. The MSG has included revenues from the transport commodities in the scope of the reporting for the 2018 fiscal year, and the payments for the use of infrastructure paid to ANAIM are presented in the 2018 EITI Report, without being reconciled. Additional information on the terms of transport, including the tariffs and the volume/value transported, is also provided p.67 of the 2018 EITI Report. There is no evidence of back-sliding since the previous Validation, in which Requirement 4.4 was assessed as “satisfactory progress”.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Guinea has mostly met the objective of requirement 4.7. Financial data is adequately disaggregated in the EITI Report per government agency, company and revenue stream. On project-level reporting, the MSG has approved a clear definition of project in the country, in line with the 2019 EITI standard. On the methodology aspect, the MSG has designed an overview of individual revenue streams that should be reported by project, and the government agency responsible for the collection of the revenue flow. However, the actual practice of disclosure in 2018 only includes five material companies, which reported all their payments for their respective unique project, not disaggregated by revenue stream. Although licenses substantially interconnected or overarching seem do exist in Guinea (ref. four licenses of COBAD in the license register of Guinea), there does not seem to have been any discussion from the MSG if it should be considered as one single project. There are no traces of outreach from the MSG towards government agencies responsible for the collection of the identified revenue streams, nor any challenges that government institutions currently face to disclose revenues disaggregated by project.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Guinea has fully met the objective of this requirement in producing 2018 EITI Report within two years of the end of the calendar year covered and given the MSG’s approval of the reporting period. There is no evidence of back-sliding since the previous Validation, in which Requirement 4.8 was assessed as “satisfactory progress”.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Guinea has fully met the objective of Requirement 4.9. There is no evidence of back-sliding since the previous Validation, in which Requirement 4.9 was assessed as “satisfactory progress”.

There is no evidence of any backsliding since the previous Validation, in which Requirement 5.1 was assessed as “satisfactory progress”.

There is no evidence of any backsliding since the previous Validation, in which Requirement 5.3 was assessed as “not assessed”. The 2018 EITI Report provides information on earmarked extractive revenues and the budget and audit procedures but does not provide additional information on production and commodity price assumptions and revenue sustainability, resource dependence, and revenue forecasting, which would be required for an assessment of ‘exceeded’.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 4.6 remains mostly met in Guinea, albeit with considerable improvements over the previous Validation. The 2018 EITI Report contains a reconciliation of extractive company payments directly to subnational governments, in the form of the land tax (‘redevance superficiaire’) defined in the Mining Code. Companies making material payments to the national government were selected to disclose their subnational direct payments, and the local government beneficiaries of those payments were selected for the reconciliation. However, a significant share (40%) of companies’ disclosures of subnational payments could not be reconciled with local government receipts given weaknesses in government reporting. The level of detail in the disclosures has nevertheless improved since the last Validation.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 5.2 remains not applicable in Guinea in the period under review (2018), given the enactment of implementing regulations for statutory subnational transfers of mining revenues only at the end of 2018. However, Requirement 4.6 is expected to apply for all EITI reporting starting 2019 given the implementation of the subnational transfer provisions of the law.

There is no evidence of any backsliding on social expenditure disclosures since the previous Validation, in which Requirement 6.1 was assessed as “satisfactory progress”. The Secretariat’s assessment in this Validation is that Requirement 6.1 remains fully met in Guinea, with no indication of material payments to government related to the environment in the period under review. Company contributions to environmental rehabilitation funds are covered under Requirement 6.4.