Publisher: 
EITI
EITI Consultation
Publication Type: 
Concluded consultations
Published Date: 
May, 2014

Consultation: A platform for progress?

This consultation is concluded.

The International Secretariat invites EITI stakeholders to submit comments and proposals for improving how EITI implementation is assessed, including EITI Validation. Below are some questions that the EITI is seeking to address through this consultation.

We welcomed comments by 2 May 2014 - to Dyveke Rogan (drogan@eiti.org). Submissions received are listed below

Background

The EITI Standard was adopted in May 2013, with the support of all EITI stakeholders. Relatively limited changes were made to how implementation performance is assessed, except that it was agreed that Validation should take place more frequently and be funded and procured through the International Secretariat.

At the 26th EITI Board meeting in Oslo, the EITI Board’s Implementation Committee submitted the paper EITI – a Platform for Progress? to the Board, outlining some of the challenges with the way implementation is currently assessed. The paper concludes “Thus, there appears to be a need to more broadly consider how the EITI assesses implementation, encourages gradual improvements, and measures effectiveness and impact.” The EITI Board asked its Implementation Committee to propose options for consideration by the Board, but first requested the International Secretariat to seek input from stakeholders.

Questions

We welcome any comments to the paper EITI – a Platform for Progress? and the next steps. You may wish to address the below questions and statements, but do not consider yourself confined to them.

The International Secretariat invites EITI stakeholders to submit comments and proposals for improving how EITI implementation is assessed, including Validation. Below are some questions that the EITI is seeking to address through this consultation. We welcome any comments by 2 May 2014, to Dyveke Rogan (drogan@eiti.org). All submissions will be published unless otherwise indicated.

1. The EITI Standard has a number of requirements that need to be met. It also contains a number of encouragements and recommendations for increased transparency.

  • Should assessment of implementation only focus on whether all the EITI requirements are met?
  • Should effort and progress in meeting the requirements over time be taken into account?
  • Should the EITI recognize achievements that go beyond the minimum requirements?

2. While EITI’s requirements are intended to be minimum requirements, some of the requirements are aspirational.

  • Is there a need to better specify what is expected of countries implementing the EITI Standard? If so, where should the minimum bar be set?
  • Should the bar be the same for all implementing countries or is there a need to reflect the local context in which the EITI is being implemented?

3. To achieve greater relevance and impact, EITI multi-stakeholder groups are asked to agree objectives for implementation that are linked to the EITI Principles, that reflect national priorities for the extractive industries and addresses key challenges and actions to achieve these objectives. Multi-stakeholder groups are asked to document the impact of implementation in annual activity reports.

  • What emphasis, if any, should the EITI and Validation place on progress with achieving national objectives, and the outcomes and impact of EITI implementation?
  • To what extent should EITI assessment reflect progress in integrating EITI reporting in government systems? 

4. The current Validation system assesses compliance with each of the seven EITI requirements, on a met/unmet basis.The concept of compliance is increasingly challenging. Compliance implies that once the EITI’s minimum requirements are met, the EITI’s work is done. It also implies that all compliant countries have perfect systems.

  • Should EITI requirements continue to be judged met or unmet, like now? Or should there be nuance and possibly greater focus on narrative and written comments on the degree to which they have been met?
  • Should the concept of compliance be replaced, and if so with what?
  • How can the EITI incentivize continuous progress and innovative implementation in Compliant countries?

5. The EITI Standard requires implementing countries to work on a wider range of issues related to natural resource governance than before. The current way of assessing implementation is based on the assumption that all countries have the same starting point.

  • To what extent should the EITI allow for more flexibility in how countries implement the EITI Standard, the approach adopted and the time needed?

 6. At present, Validation is undertaken by independent validators accredited by the Board.

  • Should multi-stakeholder groups and/or local and international experts on extractive sector governance have a greater role in Validation?

Received submissions