Skip to main content
Fallback image

Implementation Committee #10 - Thursday 19 January 2017

Publisher
EITI
January 2017

    Meeting agenda:

    1. Project level reporting (for discussion)

    At the Board meeting in Astana, the Board considered the preliminary analysis of project-level reporting in EITI in Board paper 35-4-E. It was agreed that the Implementation Committee should continue to work on this issue, with the view of coming to the Board with a recommendation on options for implementing project-level reporting under the EITI Standard. The Secretariat seeks directions from the Implementation Committee on the next steps.

    2. Reporting deadline extension requests (for decision)

    Afghanistan, Indonesia, Timor-Leste and Ukraine did not meet the deadline of 31 December 2015 to publish their EITI Reports and have requested an extension of the deadline. The Secretariat has completed the assessment of the extension requests for Indonesia, Timor-Leste and Ukraine.

    IC paper 10-2-A: Indonesia

    Indonesia has sought an extension of the deadline (31 December 2016) for publishing their EITI Report. The Secretariat has assessed the extension request in accordance with the EITI Standard (Requirement 8.5). The Secretariat’s assessment is that Indonesia is not eligible for an extension. It is proposed that the Implementation Committee recommends to the EITI Board that Indonesia is suspended. As per previous practice, the Secretariat recommends that the suspension is not enforced if the EITI Report is published prior to the Board taking a decision.

    IC paper 10-2-B: Timor-Leste

    Timor-Leste has sought an extension of the deadline (31 December 2016) for publishing their EITI Report. The Secretariat has assessed the extension request in accordance with the EITI Standard (Requirement 8.5). The Secretariat’s assessment is that Timor-Leste is not eligible for an extension. It is proposed that the Implementation Committee recommends to the EITI Board that Timor-Leste is suspended. As per previous practice, the Secretariat recommends that the suspension is not enforced if the EITI Report is published prior to the Board taking a decision.

    IC paper 10-2-C: Ukraine

    Ukraine has sought an extension of the deadline (31 December 2016) for publishing their EITI Report. The Secretariat has assessed the extension request in accordance with the EITI Standard (Requirement 8.5). The Secretariat’s assessment is that Ukraine is eligible for an extension. It is proposed that the Implementation Committee recommends to the EITI Board that Ukraine has its deadline extended by three months, i.e. until 31 March 2017.

    3. Draft beneficial ownership roadmap analysis (for discussion)

    IC paper 10-3 Draft beneficial ownership roadmap analysis; Annex A - Country by country BO roadmap assessment

    EITI implementing countries had a deadline of 1 January 2017 to publish roadmaps detailing plans for achieving beneficial ownership transparency by 2020. As of 11 January, 42 countries have published beneficial ownership roadmaps. 20 of these roadmaps envisage establishment of public registers by 2020.  Most of the roadmaps address all aspects of requirement 2.5.b.ii, which sets out the directions for roadmap content. Five countries have submitted draft roadmaps and are expected to publish final roadmaps shortly. Four countries have yet to make substantial progress with this work.

    This draft paper provides an analysis of the roadmaps submitted so far, highlighting key features of the roadmaps and assessing the content of the roadmaps against the requirements of the EITI Standard (Country-by country details are available in Annex A). The paper also highlights issues for consideration and recommended next steps. This includes suggested recommendations from the Implementation Committee to the Board on consequences for countries that have not met the deadline or have submitted roadmaps that do not meet the expected standard, as well as suggestions for addressing ambiguities in requirement 2.5 on beneficial ownership transparency.

    4. Future meeting schedule

    The next Implementation Committee is scheduled to take place on Thursday 9 February 16:00-17:30 CET from 16.00-17.30.

    5. AOB

    Minutes

    Attendance 2017  
    NameConstituency19.01.2017
    Zainab AhmedCountries 
    Olga BielkovaCountriesA
    Stuart BrooksCompaniesA
    Maria Ulloa CruzCountriesv
    Ana Carolina Gonzalez EspinozaCivil societyv
    Sören DenggCountries v
    Laurel GreenCompaniesv
    Daniel KaufmannCivil societyv
    Faith NwadishiCivil societyv
    Agnes Solange Ondigui OwonaCountriesA
    Quorum v

    v – attending

    A – apologies         

    W – comments provided in writing

    Observers: Kokou Didier Agbemadon

    From the Secretariat: Anna Herbert de la Portbarre, Dyveke Rogan, Eddie Rich, Gay Ordenes, Gisela Granado, Ines Marques, Jonas Moberg, Oliana Valigura.

    1. Project level reporting (for discussion)

    The Chair, Maria Isabel opened the meeting wishing everyone a happy new year, and called on the Secretariat to give some background on the first agenda item. Dyveke explained that the paper presented to the Board in Astana outlined issues for consideration for transitioning to project-level reporting. The Board had tasked the Implementation Committee with developing recommendations for the Board to discuss in Bogota. The Secretariat was seeking guidance on how to take this further.

    The Chair reminded participants that the Board tasked the Committee with bringing a recommendation to the Board in Bogota, and called on Committee members to come with suggestions for next steps. She highlighted that one alternative would be to turn the previous Board paper into a recommendation from the Committee to the Board.

    Dani stated his preference for moving forward and agree a recommendation by Bogota, since this is an issue that had been pending for years. He suggested to prepare an options paper, or to convene a working group with a representative from each stakeholder group, for example consisting of Stuart, Maria Isabel and himself. Laurel agreed that a working group would be good, and suggested that it includes an oil and gas representative to look at technical questions that have come. The Chair also agreed to the suggestion and to be part of the group. Responding to Dani’s suggestion to have representation from Germany, Soren agreed to participate by email.

    The Committee agreed that the International Secretariat would send an invitation for participation in a working group and support the working group with developing a recommendation to the Board ahead of Bogota.

    2. Reporting deadline extension requests (for decision)

    Maria Isabel reminded the Committee about the three tests for assessing eligibility for an extension: 1) The request needs to be endorsed by the MSG; 2) The request needs to demonstrate that the MSG has made continuous progress towards meeting the deadline, 3) the request needs to demonstrate that the delays are caused by exceptional circumstances.

    IC paper 10-2-A: Indonesia

    Gay explained that according to the MSG, the extension had been requested because of delay in the signing of the Grant Agreement from the World Bank, although it is not clear why this took so long. According to the World Bank this was due to internal review and processing of the grant agreement by the government. The assessment of the International Secretariat was that these circumstances were not exceptional, and that Indonesia was not eligible for an extension. According to the MSG the factors causing the delays were beyond their control, although in the Secretariat’s view similar delays had  happened in the past and could have been foreseen. The International Secretariat’s recommendation was that Indonesia is suspended.

    Maria Isabel asked about the Board’s practice in terms of taking decisions on extensions via circulars. Dyveke explained that most decisions on extensions had been taken via circular in the past. Dani asked for a clarification regarding when the suspension of e.g. Indonesia would kick in if the decision was taken through circular. Dyveke clarified that in accordance with past practice, the current recommendation was that the suspension would not be enforced if the outstanding report was published prior to the date of the Board decision. If the decision was taken at the Board meeting in Bogota, the suspension would not kick in if the outstanding report was published before 8 March. If the decision was taken by circular, the date of the Board decision would be equivalent to the deadline for no-objection stated in the circular and a country would not be suspended if the report was published by this date. Dani suggested that the Committee would recommend to the Board to suspend Indonesia and notify the government and MSG, but that the no objection date would be 1 March, allowing the countries some time to finalise the report. Jonas commented that it would be important to note the precedent, and that the consequence would in effect be that the Board changes the way it enforces the deadlines.

    Faith noted that in cases like Indonesia where the country had been suspended before, there should be advice given on how the country can avoid the situation again, and that funding seemed to be a problem causing delays.

    The Committee decided to recommend to the Board that Indonesia is not eligible for an extension and is therefore suspended. As per previous practice, the Implementation Committee recommends that the suspension is not enforced if the EITI Report is published prior to the Board taking a decision. The decision should be made via circular on a no objection basis by 1 March.

    IC paper 10-2-B: Timor-Leste

    Gay explained that the delays as outlined by the MSG was caused by discussions within the MSG related to the performance of the previous Independent Administrator and that companies had asked that in accordance with confidentiality agreements they should approve the company data cited in the report before allowing for the draft report to be circulated to the MSG. Additionally, according to the Interim Petroleum code, 2015 data could only be disclosed after 2 years. Gay further explained that these were issues that could have been addressed internally by the MSG and did not, in the Secretariat’s view, constitute exceptional circumstances. The International Secretariat’s assessment was that the issue of confidentiality has been raised before in the Validation and the adapted implementation request, and that these issues should have been foreseen and addressed by the MSG.

    The Committee decided to recommend to the Board that Timor-Leste is not eligible for an extension and is therefore suspended. As per previous practice, the Implementation Committee recommends that the suspension is not enforced if the EITI Report is published prior to the Board taking a decision. The decision should be made via circular on a no objection basis by 1 March.

    IC paper 10-2-C: Ukraine

    Oliana highlighted the continuing economic and military crisis in Ukraine, and that the adapted implementation request granted by the Board in October 2016 did not seek an exemption related to coverage, even if the Board recognized that reporting would not be comprehensive. She explained that the military conflict was destabilizing and posed challenges not only for collecting data from the east of the country but also for other aspects of reporting. Nonetheless, the government continueds to fulfill its commitment to implement the EITI, and the MSG had decided that the report should be published by 321 February. The Secretariat’s assessment was that Ukraine faces exceptional circumstances and unforeseen challenges beyond the control of the government and the MSG, and therefore eligible for an extension.

    The Committee decided to recommend to the EITI Board that Ukraine has its deadline extended by three months, i.e. until 31 March 2017. The decision should be made via circular on a no objection basis by 1 March.

    3. Draft beneficial ownership roadmap analysis (for discussion)

    The Chair called on the International Secretariat to provide an outline of the roadmap analysis.

    Dyveke explained that the paper provides an analysis of the roadmaps submitted so far, highlighting key features of the roadmaps and ambiguities in requirement 2.5. 43 countries had by now published roadmap (Iraq since paper was circulated), and the remaining ones were expected to be published in the coming months. A handful of the roadmaps had some minor deficiencies, but the Secretariat considered that these could be addressed quite quickly. Section 3.2 of the papers highlighted additional features of the roadmap. Dyveke welcomed further suggestions for issues to be considered. 20 countries had committed to establishing public registers, which is significant as this goes beyond what is required by the EITI Standard. Some countries were planning to make necessary legislative amendments, and there were differences in institutional approaches. Some plan to work with sector-specific ministries and agencies, while others such as Ghana had decided to cover all sectors and was therefore working with general company registries. Costs ranged from USD 70,000 to USD, 1.3 million.

    Section 4 of the paper highlighted some questions regarding the consequences for countries that had not published roadmaps by the deadline, or that had roadmaps which did not fully address the requirements. Another question was whether new implementing countries should prepare a roadmap as part of their candidature preparations. The Secretariat had also flagged some ambiguities related to the scope of the requirement and which companies it should apply to, as well as the need to ensure technical and financial assistance to the implementation of the roadmaps.

    Faith commended implementing countries for having come a long way on beneficial ownership, and that they are now hitting the ground running.

    The Committee agreed to provide comments on the paper in writing by 30 January, and that the Secretariat would then update the paper to be discussed in the next meeting.

    4. Future meeting schedule

    The next Implementation Committee is scheduled to take place on Thursday 9 February 16:00-17:30 CET. An in-person meeting would be scheduled for 8 March 7.30 am in Bogota (venue tbc). The Secretariat would also circulate a suggested schedule for meetings post-Bogota.

    5. AOB

    Documents