Criteria and procedures for assessing Validation extension requests

In accordance with Part 2, Section 1, Article 7 of the 2023 EITI Standard, an implementing country may apply for an extension if it is unable to meet reporting or Validation deadlines.

This page presents the criteria and the procedure for assessing Validation extension requests and the consequences of such assessments.

As per Part 2, Section 1, Article 7.1 of the 2023 EITI Standard, the Validation extension request must be made in advance and 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 (for example, through MSG meeting minutes, signatures or non-objection of the decision). Where countries have not requested an extension ahead of the deadline for the commencement of Validation and the causes for the delay are not considered “exceptional circumstances”, the request will not be considered valid. The International Secretariat will encourage implementing countries facing delays in preparing for Validation to submit extension requests with sufficient time ahead of the deadline.

As per Part 2, Section 1, Article 7.2 of the 2023 EITI Standard, countries must demonstrate progress in implementing the EITI. The following aspects will be considered:

• The functioning of the MSG and clear and strong commitment from government. The assessment takes into account input to and attendance at MSG meetings, submission of data required for the EITI reporting process, commitment to resolving bottlenecks such as legal barriers to disclosure or procurement issues, provision of funding for the EITI process, outreach to stakeholders that are not members of the MSG, use of EITI data and other information to promote public debate, etc.
   
• The status and quality of preparations for EITI Validation. The assessment takes into account how the MSG and the government have made efforts to overcome barriers to meeting the Validation deadline. In particular, the assessment will consider the progress made in preparing the required documentation and canvassing of stakeholder views for the conduct of EITI Validation, using the Board-endorsed data collection templates for Validation. The assessment will also consider significant achievements in implementation, including efforts to address recommendations from previous Validation (where applicable), targeted thematic work to advance transparency and accountability, and innovations in EITI disclosures.

The Board will also consider efforts related to systematic disclosures and their impact on preparation for the Validation. This approach will acknowledge the efforts and resources required to transition to systematic disclosure and mainstreaming stakeholder engagement.

As per Part 2, Section 1, Article 7.3 of the 2023 EITI Standard, the Board considers whether the request is based on 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 and preparation for Validation. 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 constitute, for example, an ongoing conflict or changes in political administration. The direct impact of such changes on the EITI process should be clearly explained and documented. 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 agree 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 could, for example, include cases where committed funds by partners have not been disbursed as agreed or the Independent Administrator cancels a contract during the assignment. 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 and preparation for Validation. This includes for example the impact of health pandemics on progress in EITI implementation in the country, where the MSG’s operations have been severely impacted.

Failure to demonstrate improvements since the previous Validation is not considered an “exceptional” circumstance. Part 2, Section 1, Article 6 of the 2023 EITI Standard on the consequences of Validation states: “If a country has not improved its score on at least one of the three components or there has been material deterioration in any of the components, the Board may temporarily suspend the country until it demonstrates progress.” Progress in addressing corrective actions from the previous Validation will be taken into consideration in assessing Validation extension requests, but significant delays in addressing the corrective actions will not be considered grounds for the Board to grant a Validation extension.

In assessing Validation extension requests from implementing countries, the Validation 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 implementing country, the Board can exercise its discretion in granting a shorter or longer extension period. The assessment of Validation extension requests will also take into account the International Secretariat’s capacity and the overall Validation schedule.

In cases where exceptional circumstances are not adequately demonstrated, the Validation Committee can consider whether there are significant concerns that adherence to the EITI Principles and Requirements is compromised. In such cases, the Validation Committee can recommend to the Board that a targeted assessment be undertaken focusing on specific EITI Requirements, in accordance with Part 2, Section 1, Article 8 of the 2023 EITI Standard. In cases where a country has not submitted the required data collection templates for Validation, the Validation Committee has the discretion to recommend to the EITI Board that the country be suspended pending the submission of templates and commencement of Validation.

Once the Board has agreed the decision, an official letter signed by the EITI Board Chair 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 Validation Committee can advise the International Secretariat on the content of communications to the country to deliver key messages and encourage further implementation progress. 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 in meeting the EITI Requirements according to the Board-agreed deadlines for Validation.

In case of a request for short extensions to Validation deadlines, the International Secretariat will review and approve or deny extensions of the Validation deadline of up to four weeks, in order to streamline the process of assessing extension requests. The Secretariat’s assessment will be shared with the Validation Committee and the Board for information. The assessment will be based on the same criteria used for assessing all Validation extension requests. This would lessen the burden on the Validation Committee and accelerate the process of responding to countries, while allowing to take into account new information that would be material for the assessment of progress against EITI Requirements. Extension requests related to longer periods would be assessed by the Board via the Validation Committee.