Central African Republic

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 1.5 is mostly met. The MSG’s ‘Outcomes and impact’ template considers that the objective of ensuring that the annual planning for EITI implementation supports implementation of national priorities for the extractive industries was mostly met. Most stakeholders consulted from all constituencies considered that the objective was fulfilled. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with the MSG’s self-assessment in considering the objective as mostly met, given the work plan’s expansion of the scope of EITI implementation to forestry, even if the Central African Republic (CAR) EITI work plan objectives could be better aligned with national priorities and consultations in the development of the work plan could be significantly strengthened. In its response to the draft Validation report, the MSG noted that it will take into account all the points of improvement expressed in the Validation report for for future work plans. The 2021-2024 CAR EITI was developed in early 2021 and approved in August 2021 to support the MSG’s request for the country’s suspension to be lifted and for adapted implementation. The work plan is published on the CAR EITI website, but was not updated since originally agreed in 2021, as confirmed in the MSG’s ‘Outcomes and impact’ template. The CAR EITI work plan includes a narrative report and a detailed spreadsheet listing activities and timelines. Although the CAR EITI website was not operational until end-2022, the global EITI website published the CAR EITI 2021-2024 work plan on the MSG’s behalf in August 2022 pending reactivation of the CAR EITI website. The MSG’s ‘Outcomes and impact’ template explains that the CAR EITI work plans have been published in local newspapers (L’Aurore and RCA Actualités) to ensure that the document was publicly accessible. On 28 March 2024, the MSG approved its April 2024-March 2025 work plan, containing both a narrative report and a details spreadsheet of activities. While the MSG’s ‘Outcomes and impact’ template concedes that the EITI work plan was not updated annually in the 2021-2024 period, it highlights that the work plan’s implementation was reviewed annually as part of the MSG’s regular meetings, with delayed activities rolled over into the 2024-2025 work plan. There is however little evidence of work plan reviews in the minutes of MSG meetings. The CAR’s 2021-2024 EITI work plan includes one over-arching objective for EITI implementation to contribute to sustainable development through a responsible and transparent management of extractive resources and forestry. However, the work plan’s nine sub-objectives are more narrowly related to EITI implementation than to national priorities or the EITI Principles, aside from the second sub-objective that aims to provide citizens with information to enable them to hold the government to account in the governance of the mining and forestry sectors. The CAR’s 2024-2025 EITI work plan has similar objectives and sub-objectives for EITI implementation as the 2021-2024 work plan. The MSG’s ‘Outcomes and impact’ template highlights the EITI work plan’s alignment with the CAR’s Recovery and Peacebuilding Plan, noting that the EITI is generally a tool for improving transparency and accountability in the extractive industries, but without articulating how the EITI work plan’s sub-objectives align with these national priorities. Several stakeholders from all constituencies noted that the focus of the CAR’s EITI implementation since 2021 had been for stakeholders to familiarise themselves and build capacities on the EITI Standard, rather than an explicit focus on aligning EITI implementation objectives with national priorities. Thus, the alignment of CAR EITI implementation objectives could be better aligned with national priorities for the extractive industries and public finance management. The CAR’s 2021-2024 work plan includes a sub-objective (number 4) related to strengthening the systematic disclosures of government and extractive companies, but the constituent activities relate to mapping existing systematic disclosures and awareness raising, rather than activities led by government agencies and companies to strengthen systematic disclosures – indeed the CAR EITI Secretariat is marked as lead for all activities in this category. The 2024-2025 work plan maintains the same sub-objective and types of activities as the 2021-2024 work plan. The 2021-2024 work plan’s narrative report (section 3) refers to “multiple sessions of consultation with all stakeholders”, but does not provide additional details on the number, timing or methodology of consultations with the broader constituencies, nor an overview of the types of input provided to the work plan’s development by each of the three broader constituencies. The 2020 and 2021 EITI Reports confirm that the work plan was developed on the basis of consultations with the three constituencies, who provided input based on their “respective preoccupations and expected outcomes”, but without specifying in more detail the type of input provided by the broader constituencies. The MSG’s ‘Outcomes and impact’ template confirms that the broader constituencies were consulted, but only in developing the national priorities for EITI implementation. The 2024-2025 work plan’s narrative report only refers to consultations of working groups and the MSG in developing the work plan, not consultations with the broader constituencies. Several industry and civil society stakeholders consulted explained that they had canvassed their broader constituencies in developing the work plan, but that this engagement had focused more on sharing information on the EITI process rather than collecting input to the development of the workplan. Several MSG members consulted explained that they consulted their broader constituencies individually, but considered that they had the constituency’s mandate in developing and agreeing the EITI work plan. There is thus significant scope to strengthen consultations of the three broader constituencies in developing the annual CAR EITI work plan. In its comments to the draft report, the MSG noted that ‘vast consultations’ with civil society were carried out which contributed to the definition of national priorities. The comments did not note which those were. The CAR’s 2021-2024 work plan confirms that it covers the period from August 2021 to July 2024, while the detailed spreadsheet presents activities planned per quarter, with deadlines included. However, many of the activities do not appear time-bound or measurable, as they relate to ongoing activities. The work plan appears to be broadly aligned with timelines for EITI reporting and Validation. This is also the case for the 2024-2025 work plan. The CAR’s 2021-2024 work plan includes activities related to addressing capacity constraints, albeit specifically targeting the national secretariat and government entities, rather than also including companies or civil society. The work plan includes activities related to awareness raising of specific stakeholder groups, but does not describe additional capacity building activities. The 2024-2025 work plan includes similar capacity building activities targeting the national secretariat, government revenue-collecting entities and the MSG, not members of other constituencies like companies or civil society. Beyond general activities related to mapping systematic disclosures, the CAR’s 2021-2024 work plan does not address the scope of EITI implementation and does not include any activities related to the comprehensiveness and reliability of EITI disclosures. The lack of activities related to the scope of EITI implementation is a particular concern given directions in the EITI Board’s decision lifting the CAR’s suspension in 2021 that recommended that the CAR EITI take steps to collaborate with the Kimberley Process to expand transparency in the extractive industries. The detailed activities in the CAR EITI work plan do not reference the Kimberley Process. This is also the case in the 2024-2025 work plan. In response to the draft Validation report, the MSG highlighted that a Kimberley Process representative participates in the MSG, citing that this has contributed to a more efficient data collection for the ongoing EITI Report and preparations for Validation. Nevertheless, the CAR’s EITI work plan expanded the scope of EITI implementation to the forestry sector. Development partners praised this expansion to forestry, noting that the sector faced many similar challenges to mining. The CAR’s 2021-2024 EITI work plan describes two key legal barriers to EITI implementation: confidentiality provisions that prevent the disclosure of contracts and licenses, and the lack of an enabling legal framework to establish a public beneficial ownership register. The work plan includes only general activities related to “overcoming obstacles” in these two areas, but without more specificity in the actions planned to address these legal barriers. The work plan does not refer to plans to reform the country’s Mining Code, for instance. This is also the case in the 2024-2025 work plan. The CAR’s 2021-2024 and 2024-2025 work plans only include one general activity planned for the third quarter of each year, to organise workshops to follow up on recommendations from EITI reporting. However, the work plans do not include actionable, timebound or measurable activities to follow up on EITI recommendations. The CAR’s 2021-2024 work plan includes general references to work on contract disclosure and beneficial ownership transparency, but only includes activities related to taking steps to lift any legal constraint on the publication of this information, rather than more actionable plans. The 2024-2025 work plan includes more specific activities related to engaging a consultant to prepare a study on contract disclosure, and a consultant to prepare a beneficial ownership roadmap. The CAR’s 2021-2024 work plan includes costings of all activities and identifies the source of funding for all but 15 of the activities listed. The 2021-2024 work plan indicates a budget of around XAF 150m per year (around USD 270,000). The government budget is identified as the source of funding for all activities in the 2021-2024 work plan. The work plan identifies needs for (unspecified) technical assistance for some capacity building activities. The 2024-2025 work plan increases the proposed budget to XAF 440m (around USD 724,000), of which only XAF 118.4m is expected to come from the state and the remaining 326m from development partners like the World Bank and AfDB.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 7.1 is partly met. The MSG’s ‘Outcomes and impact’ template considers that the objective of enabling evidence-based public debate on extractive industry governance through active communication of relevant data to key stakeholders in ways that are accessible and reflect stakeholders’ needs is partly met. While most stakeholders consulted did not express views on progress towards this objective, several government and industry stakeholders explained that the primary focus of CAR EITI had not been on outreach and dissemination, given the need for stakeholders involved in the MSG to understand the EITI process better and financial resource constraints that hindered more proactive outreach to broader constituencies. Several CSOs consulted considered the objective in process of being fulfilled given civil society’s regular engagements on radio broadcasts to raise awareness about the EITI process. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with the MSG’s self-assessment in considering the objective as still far from being fulfilled, given the very limited number of activities carried out by the MSG and the three constituencies related to EITI outreach and dissemination in the period under review. In its comments to the draft Validation report, the MSG acknowledges that public debate is limited because of the low capacity of MSG members on governance and EITI issues. The MSG reinforced the message that this is due to financial constraints and called to the International Secretariat to support them to mobilise funding. The CAR EITI website has published the four reports published since the country’s suspension was lifted in October 2021, including the 2020 EITI Report published in January 2020, the contract and license transparency report and the 2016-2019 EITI Report published in December 2022 and the 2021 EITI Report published in December 2023. Although the CAR EITI website was not operational until 2022, the Ministry of Mines website has published the EITI Reports online in the meantime. None of these EITI Reports have been broken down into thematic reports to date, however. There is little documentation available online or in the MSG’s Validation templates about EITI dissemination events held to raise awareness and facilitate dialogue on the governance of extractive resources, beyond annual high-level EITI Report launch conferences held in December 2022 and December 2023. Prime Minister Felix Moloua chaired the 2021 EITI Report’s launch conference in December 2023, where he pledged that the report would be discussed by the Council of Ministers according to local press coverage, which was done in March 2024. At the event, National Coordinator Moïdokana shared highlights of the 2021 EITI Report. The CAR EITI MSG has not agreed a communications strategy to date. The MSG’s ‘Outcomes and impact’ template noted plans for the translation of EITI Reports in the Sango local language, although stakeholder consultations confirmed this had not yet been completed as of May 2024. There do not yet appear to be any plans to produce summaries of EITI Reports to improve their accessibility to key target stakeholder groups. The events held by CAR EITI for stakeholders beyond those directly represented on the MSG have focused on the mechanics of EITI reporting rather than to spread awareness of and facilitate dialogue about governance of extractive resources. For instance, CAR EITI held a workshop in July 2023 to build material companies’ capacities to complete and submit EITI reporting templates, based on minutes published on the CAR EITI website. Many stakeholders from all constituencies called for more training events to be held to build capacities of stakeholders in all three constituencies about the EITI process. While several CSOs consulted noted that civil society was often invited to radio broadcasts to raise awareness about the EITI process, they explained that they had not documented these engagements to date. Some industry representatives consulted noted that they did not conduct particular outreach or dissemination of EITI findings aside from their normal contacts with their broader constituency. There is evidence of public debate about extractive industry governance in the CAR, but little evidence of the EITI process supporting this public debate. For instance, during the campaign on constitutional reforms in the first half of 2023, the media reported robust public debate over plans to remove Article 60 of the 2016 Constitution related to parliamentary oversight of extractives contract from the new Constitution. However, there is no documented evidence of use of EITI findings to support this debate, nor of stakeholders substantially engaged in the EITI process engaging in this debate.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 7.2 is partly met. The MSG’s ‘Outcomes and impact’ template considers that the objective of enabling the broader use and analysis of information on the extractive industries, through the publication of information in open data and interoperable formats is mostly met. Stakeholders consulted did not express any views about progress towards this objective. The International Secretariat’s view disagrees with the MSG’s self-assessment in considering the objective as still far from being fulfilled. While the importance of publishing data in open format is lower in the CAR given weak internet connection, other efforts to improve the accessibility of data through active outreach and dissemination have been very limited in the period under review (see Requirement 7.1). In its comments to the draft Validation report, the MSG notes that given the efforts of a recent capacity building workshop (June 2024) it views that the objective of this requirement has mostly been met. Given the lack of results in terms of more available datasets, the International Secretariat maintains that this Requirement is only partly met. The lack of publication of most CAR EITI data (in both summary and full data sets) in open format is a weakness, notwithstanding the MSG’s recent adoption of a CAR EITI open data policy. At its 28 March 2024 meeting, the MSG agreed an open data policy for CAR EITI, which is published on the CAR EITI website. The policy defines the terms for release, use and reuse of CAR EITI data. However, while summary data files had been prepared for older EITI Reports covering 2006-2010 (prior to the CAR’s suspension in 2013), none of summary data files for the years (2016-2021) covered by the CAR’s EITI reporting since the lifting of its suspension in 2021 have been prepared to date. The CAR EITI website has published the annexes to the 2020 EITI Report in open format, but not those of the 2021 EITI Report, although the open format version of the 2021 annexes were published on the Ministry of Mines and Geology website in late March 2024. Thus, the majority of the CAR’s EITI disclosures since 2021 have not yet been made publicly available in open format. While there has been little improvement in systematic disclosures of EITI data to date, the CAR EITI 2024-2025 work plan includes a specific objective (number 3) on integrating EITI data in routine government disclosure systems.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 7.3 is partly met. The MSG’s ‘Outcomes and impact’ template considers that the objective of ensuring that EITI implementation is a continuous learning process that contributes to policymaking is mostly met. Some government stakeholders consulted considered that the objective was still far from being achieved, but that there was open debate about delays in following up on recommendations from EITI reporting. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with those government stakeholders in considering the objective as still far from being fulfilled, given the ad hoc approach to following up on EITI recommendations, driven by government mandate rather than genuine multi-stakeholder oversight. In its comments to the draft report, the MSG noted that there are already steps underway to implement recommendations, for example with regards to the mining cadastre and that other recommendations will be taken forward. There were a total of eight recommendations in the 2020 EITI Report and 14 recommendations in the 2021 EITI Report. The 2021 EITI Report does not includes a section the IA’s review of the status of follow-up on recommendations from the 2020 EITI Report, indeed many of the same recommendations were maintained in both reports. The IA explained that there had been little follow-up on recommendations from the 2002 EITI Report by the time of preparing the 2021 EITI Report. There does not appear to be a multi-stakeholder mechanism for following up on EITI recommendations. A status update of CAR EITI 2021-2023 work plan activities was published on the CAR EITI website In 2024, although this does not cover the status of individual EITI recommendations. The MSG’s ‘Outcomes and impact’ template describes the mechanism as consisting of the senior government officials designating ministries and agencies to follow up on specific EITI recommendations relevant to them. According to a minute of Minister of Mines and Geology Benam Beltoungou’s meeting with CSOs in October 2023, all recommendations from the 2020 EITI Report aside from that related to publishing extractive contracts could not be followed up on pending finalisation and enactment of the long-planned new Mining Code, which was yet to be enacted in May 2024. Yet there is little evidence of MSG discussions of follow-up on recommendations from EITI Reports as recorded in meeting minutes on the CAR EITI website. The April 2023 minutes only record a presentation by civil society of the recommendations in the 2020 EITI Report, albeit without much description of the substance of the meeting or the nature of civil society members’ input. In its comments, the MSG said that it had taken note of the International Secretariat's observations and indicated that the recommendations were being implemented step by step, taking into account the government's resources. According to the MSG, implementation of recommendations undertaken with the assistance of the World Bank on the mining cadastre, is underway. While there appear to have been some reforms partly as a result of the EITI process in the period under review, there does not seem to have been a mechanism for EITI implementation to lead to such outcomes and impacts. For instance, several clauses in the draft new Mining Code are reportedly related to the EITI process, such as provisions for the public disclosure of contracts and beneficial owners, the inclusion of these clauses appears due to the engagement of certain EITI stakeholders in the reform process, rather than as a result of the MSG’s mechanism for following up on EITI recommendations. A development partner noted that it was helpful that the Minister National Coordinator of the EITI was also the person leading the technical committee on the new Mining Code, which enabled him to include references to EITI Requirements on beneficial ownership transparency among others. The International Secretariat notes that the Mining Code, which was adopted in August 2024, does contain some provisions requiring newly concluded contracts to be published and information on beneficial ownership to be submitted. However, the provisions are only partially reflected, as it does not specify that contracts that were amended are also to be published. Art 21 requires the submission of beneficial ownership information to applicants, but not its publication, which is a key shortcoming of the new provision. Stakeholder consultation found (as noted above) that the changes in the Mining Code are not a result of advocacy from the MSG.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 7.4 is mostly met. The MSG’s ‘Outcomes and impact’ template considers that the objective of ensuring regular public monitoring and evaluation of implementation, including evaluation of whether the EITI is delivering on its objectives, is mostly met. Several stakeholders consulted from government, industry and civil society considered that the EITI had led to impacts and that the objective of Requirement 7.4 was in the process of being fulfilled. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with national stakeholders in considering the objective as in the process of being fulfilled, even if the process for MSG review of outcomes and impact should be strengthened in broadening consultations with the wider constituencies and ensuring at least annual publication of the results of the MSG’s outcomes and impact review. The MSG’s annual review of outcomes and impacts should inform refinements of in the CAR EITI’s annual work planning. In its comments to the draft report, the MSG noted that it has taken a two-step approach, whereas in the first phase only MSG members were consulted, and that this will be broadened to stakeholders outside of the EITI in a second step and that the need for annual review is noted. Right before the start of this Validation at its 28 March 2024 meeting, the MSG adopted three annual progress reports covering 2021, 2022 and 2023, published on the CAR EITI website. However, these (short) annual progress reports only recall the objectives of the CAR EITI work plan and provide a general update on execution of activities. The only commentary included on the impact of EITI implementation relates to the EITI being a driving force for the publication of extractive contracts, which the report states is “in process”, and that this will lead to an opening of the sector to public debate. The extent to which such limited commentary reflects the views of the three broader constituencies is unclear, given that the level of consultations involved in producing these annual progress reports is unclear. Consulted stakeholders did not highlight engagement with the broader constituencies in developing the three annual progress reports but confirmed that the MSG had approved them in late March 2024. Many stakeholders consulted described outcomes and impacts of EITI implementation to date, but did not note that this was the focus of discussions of the MSG since 2021.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 1.1 is fully met. The MSG’s ‘Stakeholder engagement’ template considers that the objective of full, active and effective government lead for EITI implementation, both in terms of high-level political leadership and operational engagement, is fully met. The MSG supports this assessment by highlighting the state’s re-engagement to lift the suspension, the seniority (Prime Minister) of the MSG chair, and the state’s funding of the EITI process, including EITI reporting. Several stakeholders consulted from government, civil society and development partners considered that the objective was fulfilled given the government’s strong, consistent and high-level engagement in the work of the MSG. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with national stakeholders in considering the objective as fulfilled, given the seniority of the government’s engagement and the resources devoted to EITI given the government’s severe fiscal constraints, even if certain operational weaknesses in the government’s engagement have constrained multi-stakeholder oversight over all aspect of EITI implementation (see Requirement 1.4). In its comments to the draft Validation report, the MSG highlighted that the government's commitment is illustrated by the publication of some contracts and the inclusion of provisions relating to the implementation of the EITI in the new Mining Code. The new Mining Code includes provisions requiring applicants and license holders to declare their beneficial owner, a ban for PEPs to participate directly or indirectly into mining operations, and the publication of newly concluded contracts – a provision which had been removed from the Constitution (art. 60) . There have been regular statements of engagement and support for the EITI from senior government officials in the CAR since President Faustin-Archange Touadéra addressed the EITI’s 8th Global Conference in person in Paris in June 2019, including when Prime Minister Félix Moloua chaired the MSG’s 9 April 2022 meeting and opened the 2021 EITI Report’s launch event in December 2023. Prime Minister Henri-Marie Dondra had previously chaired the MSG’s 9 August 2021 meeting. Minister of Mines and Geology Leopold Mboli Fatran participated in the 9th EITI Global Conference in Dakar in June 2023 and reiterated President Touadéra’s commitment to the EITI. The justification of the CAR” s commitment to the EITI has consistently been framed around the state’s efforts against illicit financial flows, the financing of terrorism, and the illegal exploitation of the country’s natural resources. There has consistently been a senior government lead appointed as EITI champion given the Prime Minister’s ex qualite appointment as MSG Chair, with the Minister of Finance and Budget serving as Deputy Chair. However, in practice, the MSG’s ‘Stakeholder engagement’ template explains that the chairing of MSG meetings can be delegated to other senior government officials in case the MSG Chair and Deputy Chair are unavailable, although this appears to always consistently be at a Ministerial level (e.g. the Minister of Communications and Media in November 2023). The EITI government lead appears to have the confidence of all stakeholders, although the availability to all constituencies is unclear. The National Coordinator, Robert Moïdokana, has been in position since 2007 and holds the rank of Minister for the EITI. The National Coordinator appears to be accessible to all constituencies and to have the trust of stakeholders. There is evidence that the government has provided some operational leadership of the EITI process, although there appear to be weaknesses in data disclosures by government entities (see Requirement 4.1), opportunities for the government to take further actions to overcome barriers to EITI implementation (see Requirement 7.3), and scope for further expansion in technical and financial resources allocated to the EITI given budget constraints, whether from the government directly or facilitating support from development partners. Yet the government is strongly represented on the MSG at a very senior level, including from ministries whose relevance to the EITI process is unclear. In accordance with the government decree (16.318) of 29 August 2016 institutionalising the EITI, the appropriate government representatives hold seats on the MSG, including five Ministers alongside the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and Budget as MSG Chair and Deputy Chair, eight Directors-General of relevant government agencies , the Inspector-General of Finance, two Parliamentarians, and the representative of the Supreme Audit Institution (SAI - Cour des Comptes). Government attendance at MSG meetings appears to have been broadly consistent throughout the 2021-2024 period, even if the number of MSG meetings has been lower than planned in the MSG’s governance documents (see Requirement 1.4). The government constituency held five separate meetings in June-July 2021 to prepare for the MSG’s request for the EITI Board to lift the CAR’s suspension and to agree on national priorities for the 2021-2024 EITI work plan. Review of MSG meeting minutes indicates that government representatives actively engage in the MSG’s work, including through input to the scoping of applicable EITI Requirements in 2021 and issuing a letter from the Minister of Mines confirming the absence of extractive SOEs. Likewise, there is evidence of government representatives attending annual launch events for the EITI Report since 2021, but little evidence of the government independently promoting EITI findings and information aside from highlighting the government’s engagement in the EITI as part of its engagements with international partners, in the MSG’s ‘Outcomes and impact’ template (see Requirement 7.1). There have been weaknesses in translating the senior engagement in the MSG into effective engagement in the technical aspects of EITI reporting. The government’s provision of data for EITI reporting has faced considerable challenges in the EITI Reports published since 2021 (covering 2016-2021). Although the four revenue-collecting government entities in the mining and petroleum sector submitted reporting templates for the three EITI Reports published (2016-2019, 2020, and 2021), none of the entities comprehensively provided all disclosures required of them in the reporting templates, nor the quality assurances agreed by the MSG for government’s EITI reporting (i.e. including the detail of data requested, with certification from the SAI). As a consequence, the EITI Reports include a statement from the IA that the reconciled financial data on government revenues disclosed in the EITI Reports is neither comprehensive nor reliable (see Requirements 4.1 and 4.9). Some stakeholders consulted explained that weaknesses in data disclosures by government entities was partly due to high staff turnover in the ministries. The Secretariat considers weaknesses in government data disclosures as more linked to the weak institutional framework in the CAR rather than a reflection of weaknesses in government commitment. The Secretariat also notes that Article 60 was deleted from the 2023 Constitution, having been added in 2016. While the Secretariat sees this as a step backwards in terms of transparency, civil society believes that the draft mining code includes a provision on contract transparency that could be more effective. The government has consistently provided funding for the EITI process since 2021, despite significant fiscal constraints and the low level of revenues from the mining and oil sectors (USD 2.6m in 2021). The MSG’s ‘Stakeholder engagement’ template highlights the consistent budget line of XAF 100m (around USD 160,000) in each annual government budget in the 2021-2024 period. The government has resourced the CAR EITI Secretariat to support the MSG’s work, covering the secretariat staff salaries and office costs in-kind. The government has provided some support to civil society, including developing an EITI website administered by civil society in 2023. This government funding is in the context of severe fiscal constraints: usually relying on donor funding for around 60% of its budget, the government has faced the suspension of budget support from the World Bank and European Union in 2021. However, the three CAR EITI annual progress reports covering 2021, 2022 and 2023 all state that the government does not provide sufficient funding for all work plan activities that are necessary to progress against all EITI Requirements. Some government officials consulted noted that the funding available for EITI implementation covered production of the EITI Report and maintaining the CAR EITI website, it did not extend to outreach and dissemination. Government officials also highlighted the significant economic and security challenges facing the government amidst budget constraints, which constrained the resources available for the EITI process. The Secretariat considers that, while insufficient to cover all aspects of EITI implementation, the government has provided as many technical and financial resources within its disposal, including designating the CAR EITI National Coordinator with a ministerial rank. Thus, while more could be done to translate the government’s high-level leadership of the EITI process into operational engagement at the technical level throughout the process, the Secretariat considers that this reflects broader weaknesses in technical and financial capacities in the country rather than a reflection of weaknesses in government engagement.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 1.2 is mostly met. The MSG’s ‘Stakeholder engagement’ template considers that the objective of full, active and effective industry engagement in all aspects of the EITI, both in terms of disclosures and participation in the work of the MSG, is mostly met. Stakeholders consulted from all constituencies considered that the objective was fulfilled in the unique context of the CAR with a predominantly artisanal and semi-mechanised mining sector. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with the MSG’s self-assessment in considering the objective as mostly met, given the inadequate mechanisms for coordinating the broader constituency of mining companies, artisanal miner cooperatives, buying houses as well as the larger holders of large-scale exploration and production licenses. The MSG emphasises in its response to the draft Validation report that the government is committed to organising fortnightly meetings with extractive and forestry companies to regularly review all issues related to EITI implementation. Much of the extractive industries, particularly mining, remain dominated by artisanal and semi-mechanised activities, as noted consistently in all of the CAR’s EITI Reports and the MSG’s Validation templates. The 2016 decree institutionalising the EITI lists six representatives for industry, including one representative each from companies in mining, petroleum and forestry, from the mineral buying houses, from the artisanal mining cooperatives and from the Chamber of Commerce. All industry MSG members appear to have been appointed in 2016, without renewals since then according to the MSG’s ‘Stakeholder engagement’ template. The selection process for industry MSG representatives appears to have been driven by government, which convened meetings with each sub-constituency for them to select their MSG members (as appears reflected in the official letters nominating industry MSG members). Industry stakeholder consultations confirmed that the process was relatively informal, with a meeting of buying houses convened to select the representative to the MSG. Although there were dozens of buying houses registered with the government, only around five were actively exporting in practice, which simplified the selection process. Stakeholders explained that, while the MSG nomination procedure was not codified publicly, there were minutes of the nomination meeting even if these had not been published. There has been attrition of industry MSG members in practice since 2016, with the two Chinese oil and gas companies having left the country several years ago and elderly representatives facing health issues. Coordination of the industry constituency appears to be relatively ad hoc. Industry MSG members consulted explained that they canvassed individual members of their constituency for input, rather than larger meetings to discuss the EITI. The industry constituency held four meetings in July 2021 to gather input to the development of the national priorities for the CAR EITI work plan, although the minutes of the meetings do not identify any input from the broader constituency to the substantive items of the CAR EITI work plan. The industry constituency’s meetings appear to have all been initiated by government invitations, for instance when the Minister of Mines and Geology invited companies to attend a national workshop in October 2021 on the proposed reforms to the Mining Code. In addition, the industry constituency appears to have held three meetings (one each in 2021, 2022 and 2024), whose minutes are published on the CAR EITI website. At the October 2021 meeting, mining cooperatives representatives met with Ministry of Mines officials as part of the government’s awareness-raising around the EITI. At the March 2022 meeting, a working group of government and mining industry representatives was established to review diamond quality and pricing standards for export. At the January 2024 meeting, CAR EITI Secretariat staff presented the Validation procedure to industry and encouraged the constituency to demonstrate its engagement in the EITI. Beyond these meetings, it is unclear whether and how the industry constituency coordinates as a whole on the EITI process. Industry MSG members consulted noted that Chinese and Russian mining companies were not represented in the EITI industry constituency. The MSG’s ‘Stakeholder engagement’ template states that the industry constituency is involved in disseminating EITI Reports to companies that are not directly represented on the MSG. However, the template also notes that the constituency’s primary communication priority has been to advocate for the lifting of the Kimberley Process and EITI suspensions of the CAR, rather than more proactive communications with national stakeholders. The CAR has faced challenges in ensuring comprehensive EITI reporting by all material companies included in the scope of EITI implementation since 2021. In the 2016-2019 EITI Report, only one of the 16 material mining companies, six of the 13 material mineral buying houses, neither of the two material mining cooperatives and all three material oil and gas companies participated in EITI reporting. The 2020 EITI Report was produced on the basis of ‘flexible’ EITI reporting, on the basis of unilateral government disclosures without company reporting of their payments to government. In the 2021 EITI Report, the level of industry reporting increased to 11 of the 16 material mining companies and two of the three material oil and gas companies. However, the weaknesses in company reporting in 2021 meant that only around half (56.29%) of government mining revenues could be reconciled. Stakeholder consultations did not indicate that companies or government officials followed up with the material companies that did not participate in the 2021 EITI Report. The MSG’s ‘Stakeholder engagement’ template argues that there are no government legal, regulatory or administrative constraints on companies’ engagement in EITI reporting. Rather, the template only argues that the Kimberley Process embargo on most diamond exports from the CAR poses a barrier to company engagement given that it disincentivises the diamond buying houses. Both the MSG’s template and industry stakeholder consultations highlighted that companies consider that they can influence public decision-making on extractive industry governance, for instance through its input to the proposed reforms to the Mining Code in 2021. However, when discussing the removal of Article 60 of the 2016 Constitution related to parliamentary oversight of extractive contracts, most stakeholders consulted noted that this was simply the will of the people expressed through the 2023 constitutional referendum.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 1.3 is partly met. Although the MSG’s ‘Stakeholder engagement’ template considers that there is an enabling environment for civic space and that the objective of full, active and effective civil society engagement in all aspects of the EITI is fully met the International Secretariat’s finding based on broad stakeholder consultations, and informed by the findings of an external expert, is that there is a pattern of government constraints on civil society’s freedoms of expression and of association. The Secretariat’s assessment also considers the constituency’s technical and financial capacity constraints, and weak links between Bangui-based CSOs and their constituents, particularly in mining areas. While the MSG agrees with the description of the situation in Annexe C of the draft report, it does not come to the same conclusion on its implications. In its comments to the draft Validation report the MSG strongly affirms that there are no constraints on civil society’s freedom to operate in the context of EITI implementation. On the limitation on the freedom of movement, the MSG notes that access a mining site requires a permit to travel delivered by the Ministry of Mines. The MSG highlights that the government objective is to limit the movement of citizens with the aim of protecting them against violence, given that the Ndassima mine and others are located in conflict zones. In its comments the MSG also noted its agreement on the finding that civil society lacked technical capacity on questions of governance of the extractive industries. The International Secretariat however notes the findings from consultations with civil society organisations that are specialised in the mining sector and notes that those have not been solicited by the CSOs on the MSG, nor asked to put forward a nomination for an MSG seat. The MSG adds that it is for lack of financial means that civil society did not carry out any activities related to the EITI. The MSG requests that therefore the International Secretariat should tailor the Validation to take into account the national context of a post-conflict country. Broader context: International assessments of broader civic space in the CAR have remained relatively constant in the 2021-2024 period, with the country’s ranking in Freedom in the World declining modestly from 10/100 to 7/100 while its ranking by CIVICUS improved marginally from ‘closed’ to ‘repressed.’ Having declined markedly in the 2016-2019 period, the CAR’s rating by Reporters without Borders (RsF) remained relatively constant at 98/198 in 2023. The international civic space rankings highlight the continuation of bans on public demonstrations, criminalisation of press offenses and human rights abuses by the state armed forces and their military contractors, combined with pressure, threats, violence and cyber-harassment against journalists in the country on the part of both government officials and non-state actors. Expression: Whereas the CAR’s 2016 and 2023 Constitutions protect freedom of expression, international civic space rankings highlight restrictions in practice, with reprisals resulting from public expressions critical of the government by both state and non-state armed groups. Prosecutions under criminal defamation provisions of the 2020 Law on Freedom of Communication have targeted journalists and civil society activists. There appear to be extractive industry issues considered too sensitive to discuss in public, including the ownership and operations of the country’s sole large-scale industrial mining license for the Ndassima gold mine. There is evidence of public statements by CSOs related to extractive industry governance, although the only critical views appear to be focused on the Kimberley Process and EITI suspensions and embargos on the country’s extractive industries. The Secretariat considers that there is evidence of breaches of the EITI protocol: Participation of civil society related to freedom of expression. The external expert who assessed Civil Society protocol in CAR context, came to similar conclusions. The expert noted that there were limited opportunities for critical voices to be expressed, and that there were also restrictions on their freedom of expression through arrests and intimidation which sometimes led to self-censorship. One example cited is a civil society representative who was held in custody, interrogated and denied travel for her research on minerals. The external expert also noted an increase in repression against journalists investigating mining issues. The lack of CSO engagement on critical issues related to mining governance, such as sector reforms, omission of Article 60 in the Constitution, and ownership of a mining company were considered by the expert as signs of self-censorship. Operation: The CAR’s 2016 and 2023 Constitutions protect freedom of operation. The legal framework for establishing NGOs is a regime of declaration, without requirements for official state registration of CSOs. There do not appear to be government constraints on CSO establishments, functioning, access to funding or ability to communicate within the constituency. Despite some international NGOs’ general allegations of illegal state surveillance of some journalists, there is no evidence that CSOs engaged in the EITI process have faced such constraints in 2021-2024. While civil society appears to face significant technical and financial capacity constraints, these appear to be due to the availability of funding for CSOs rather than state constraints. However, there is evidence that armed groups supporting the state security forces have obstructed civil society access to key mining sites such as Ndassima in recent years. The external expert confirmed this and noted in his report that CSO representatives said they could go around Ndassima area to interview local inhabitants discreetly but that it would be too dangerous to make a proper investigation. The Secretariat considers this as restriction on freedom of movement which constitutes breach of the Civil Society Protocol. Association: The CAR’s 2016 and 2023 Constitutions protect freedom of association. Yet international civic space rankings highlight restrictions in practice, with bans on public demonstrations by groups considered political opponents and violent repression of some demonstrations since 2013. The external expert mentioned that CSOs both outside and inside the EITI-CAR do no report having experienced any legal restriction or intimidation against their right to collaborate and communicate with each other. The Secretariat’s assessment, however, is that while the CSOs engaged in the EITI process appear to be able to collaborate in relation to EITI activities, such engagement appears to take place only in the capital Bangui, not in other cities or mining areas. In fact, access to some mining areas have been restricted. Therefore, the Secretariat concludes that restrictions on access to mining sites where issues on resource governance take place and where public debates should happen, affect civil society’s freedom of association in these areas and therefore constitute a breach of the CSO protocol. Engagement: Civil society appears generally able to contribute to MSG discussions and participate in EITI activities, despite their technical and financial capacity constraints. The MSG’s ‘Stakeholder engagement’ template refers to meetings organised by civil society to disseminate information on the EITI process to CSOs not directly represented on the MSG. However, the more substantive civil society discussions appear to have been convened by the CAR EITI secretariat or government. Civil society’s input to the EITI process appears to have been focused on the development of the CAR EITI work plan in 2021, the scoping of EITI reporting, procurement of the IA and finalisation of the EITI Report. The constituency has also held meetings on the status of follow-up on EITI recommendations, but has not engaged on other aspects of the EITI process like outreach and dissemination, which the constituency explains as due to its capacity constraints. The external expert similarly concludes that attendance to these numerous meetings demonstrates that the CSO constituency can actively attend and participate in the EITI process. Access to public decision-making: Civil society appears to be able to influence public decision-making on extractive industry governance through its participation in the EITI process. Indeed, civil society has been able to provide input to the development of the reforms to the Mining Code and has been invited to meetings with senior government officials and the parliament to provide its input. Civil society members shared with the Secretariat a copy of the draft Mining Code. There could be room for improvement, however, since civil society’s access to public decision-making appears to be determined largely by government, rather than a mechanism for the constituency to access public decision-making according to its own timelines. The external expert noted that access to decision-making appears to be limited to CSOs engaged in the EITI, and not to civil society more broadly. Nonetheless, it is the Secretariat’s view that the EITI is creating space for CSO to participate in public decision-making which provides enough basis to conclude that there are no breaches regarding this aspect of the Civil Society Protocol. Assessment: The Secretariat’s assessment is that there have been breaches of the EITI protocol: Participation of civil society related to freedoms of expression, operation, and of association in the 2021-2024 period. These constraints relate to reprisals and intimidation of civil society expressing critical views of government’s management of the extractive industry, which creates credible concerns over civil society self-censorship on issues directly related to the EITI process. The constraints also relate to bans on holding civil society events in certain areas, including key mining areas of the country. Despite these constraints, civil society has been able to make contributions to the EITI process, even if such contributions appear to come from the core group of CSOs directly represented on the MSG and based in the capital Bangui. The links between Bangui-based CSOs and their constituents in other cities and mining areas appear weak and there has been no EITI-related outreach and dissemination to areas hosting extractive industries to date. The constituency faces significant technical and financial constraints that, together with government constraints on expression and association, hinder its ability to be fully, actively and effectively engaged in all aspects of the EITI process.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 1.4 is partly met. The MSG’s ‘Stakeholder engagement’ template considers that the objective of an independent MSG that can exercise active and meaningful oversight of all aspects of EITI implementation that balances the three constituencies’ interests in a consensual manner, is fully met. Several stakeholders consulted from government and civil society considered that the objective was fulfilled. The International Secretariat’s view disagrees with national stakeholders in considering the objective as still far from being fulfilled, given the infrequency of MSG meetings compounded by the lack of technical multi-stakeholder working groups to oversee the technical aspects of EITI implementation. The MSG’s focus on compliance with the EITI Standard, rather than governance challenges in the extractive industries that are the subject of vigorous debate internationally, has hindered progress towards the objective to date. The MSG emphasises in its response to the draft Validation report that it is aware of the governance challenges and that the decree reorganising the EITI will be revised to strengthen implementation. At the same time the MSG maintains that the current model has not hindered meaningful implementation. The Presidential Decree (16.318) of 29 August 2016 institutionalising the EITI sets out the structure and functioning of the MSG, which includes 17 representatives from government (including parliamentarians), seven from industry and 11 from civil society, alongside the Prime Minister as MSG Chair and Minister of Finance as MSG Deputy Chair. The EITI Decree appoints ex qualite a total of 15 of the government’s 19 MSG members and names the institutions from which one of the seven industry members and eight of civil society’s 11 members should appointed from. The appointments of MSG members are for five years renewable (without limit). In practice however, the MSG’s ‘Stakeholder engagement’ lists only 34 members (not 37 as in the Decree), including 22 from government, four from industry and eight from civil society. The EITI Decree does not provide further guidance on the MSG nominations procedures, but the MSG’s ‘Stakeholder engagement’ template explains that MSG members not named ex qualite are appointed by their peers in a process initiated by a letter from the Prime Minister or EITI National Coordinator. The minutes of the respective general assemblies appointing the respective MSG members are required to be attached to the nomination letters sent to the Prime Minister, who then starts the process for a Presidential Decree confirming the MSG appointments. The MSG’s ‘Stakeholder engagement’ template confirms that the same process applies to MSG member replacements. The appointments of most MSG members dates to the Presidential Decree (16.375) confirming the current MSG’s appointments in November 2018. For government, the nominations of 15 of the 19 MSG members is ex qualite by the EITI Decree, while the other six members (including two from Parliament) are nominated by their respective hierarchies. The letters soliciting the appointments to the MSG of government members not appointed ex qualite in October 2016-May 2017 are published on the CAR EITI website, as are the Presidential Decrees confirming the appointments. There were two changes in government MSG members not appointed ex qualite due to staff rotations in November 2016 and December 2020 according to the MSG’s ‘Stakeholder engagement’ template. For industry, the EITI Decree names the institution from which one of the seven members is to be appointed. The letters from each company and entity appointing their members to the MSG in September-October 2016 are published on the CAR EITI website. However, there is no industry constituency agreed nominations procedures for the selection of MSG members and the process remained informal, conducted in in-person meetings. In practice, industry stakeholders consulted explained that they convened a meeting of all buying houses in 2016 for instance, from which the one MSG member representing buying houses was selected. There were three changes in industry MSG members (including two in November 2016 and one undated) due to staff rotations, death and a company withdrawing from the country. Worryingly, the MSG’s ‘Stakeholder engagement’ template notes that the two MSG members have not been replaced since November 2016, explaining the lack of replacement of the oil company representative on the MSG by the suspension of activities in the sector. This was confirmed in consultations with industry stakeholders. For civil society, the EITI Decree names institution from which eight of the 11 members are to be appointed, and lists three other types of CSOs from which the other three MSG members are expected to be drawn. The MSG’s template explains that civil society MSG members are replaced as and when they become unavailable, by letter of appointment with minutes of the meeting appointing the MSG member. The MSG’s ‘Stakeholder engagement’ template states that each civil society structure organises its own nominations to the MSG according to its own organisational procedures, without interference from government. The letters of each organisation appointing their representatives to the MSG in September-October 2016 are published on the CAR EITI website. There were four changes in civil society MSG members (due to death in three cases and appointment to a government role in the fourth case), all undated in the MSG’s template. Two of these have been replaced by new MSG members, while the status of the other two replacements is unclear from the MSG’s template. In August 2021, the CSOs engaged in the EITI (attendance list in annexe of the minute unpublished) organised a meeting to agree a code of conduct for the constituency, although it does not appear published to date. While the MSG’s ‘Stakeholder engagement’ template claims that the minutes of the August 2021 civil society meeting records the agreement to reappoint the same civil society members to the MSG, the document itself does not appear to reflect this agreement. Civil society stakeholder consultations confirmed that the same MSG members were reconducted in 2021. There is no evidence that gender aspects have been considered by any of the three constituencies in their appointments to the MSG. According to the MSG’s template, five of the MSG’s 34 members are women, including three from government and one each from industry and civil society. The 2016 Decree on EITI provides the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the MSG. The Decree cover some aspects of Requirement 1.4.b of the 2016 EITI Standard, they have not been updated to newer provisions of the 2019 EITI Standard linked to gender considerations or a code of conduct. The Decree defines the MSG’s roles and responsibilities, which cover all aspects of EITI implementation. Yet while the MSG’s template argues that there has been no breach of the EITI Code of Conduct to date, the CAR EITI does not appear to operate any formalised (publicly accessible) code of conduct regulating conflicts of interest. The Decree does not define rules for quorum or minimum attendance for decision-making, although the MSG’s template argues that all MSG decisions have been taken by consensus to date. The 2016 EITI Decree does not define the MSG’s per diem policy, although this was formalised in Prime Ministerial Decree (004) of February 2017, at XAF 100,000 (around USD 164) per member and meeting. The practice of per diem payments in the period under review is only described in the MSG’s ‘Stakeholder engagement’, which only states that the per diem policy was adhered to in practice with total payments of between XAF 2m and XAF 2.7m, but none of the other public CAR EITI documents (such as the annual progress reports) describe the per diem practices. The 2016 Decree sets the minimum frequency of MSG meetings at two a year, with the possibility of organising additional extraordinary meetings. In practice, the MSG met only six times between October 2021 and April 2024 (including one meeting a year in 2021, 2023 and 2024 and three meetings in 2022). However, the MSG meetings appear to have been well attended and consultations with stakeholders including the IA noted that MSG meetings were at full attendance. The MSG operates a system of ad hoc small working groups to resolve specific issues or develop technical proposals, although the MSG’s ‘Stakeholder engagement’ template emphasise the informal nature of these working groups, that include individuals that are not members of the MSG. These working groups seem to depend on EITI focal points in each government entity, although the list of CAR EITI focal persons is not public. The MSG’s template notes that four technical working group meetings were held in the 2021-2024 period. In consultation, the IA noted that it had encouraged the MSG to formalise working groups that could take forward technical issues between MSG meetings. The Secretariat considers that this would be helpful in strengthening multi-stakeholder oversight of the technical aspects of EITI implementation, not least given the senior nature of representation on the MSG, from government in particular. There appear to have been a majority of MSG members present at all MSG meetings. While all meeting minutes have been published on the CAR EITI website, they are not sufficiently detailed to reflect the nature of discussions or the consensus basis of decision-making, although the MSG’s template confirms that all MSG decisions in 2021-2024 were taken by consensus. This was confirmed in stakeholder consultations with MSG members. MSG meetings are convened 15 days ahead of time, with documents circulated together with meeting invitations. While the 2016 EITI Decree requires the MSG to maintain oversight over all aspects of the EITI process, review of MSG meeting minutes and the MSG’s Validation templates indicate that the MSG’s primary focus has been on the procurement of the IA and production of EITI Reports, rather than the design of the EITI process (e.g. through the work plan), outreach and dissemination, or monitoring and evaluation of the EITI (e.g. through annual progress reports). The MSG’s ‘Stakeholder engagement’ template states that the only dissemination activities undertaken by the MSG since 2021 have been the publication of the EITI Reports on the CAR EITI website and the dissemination of EITI Reports and minutes of EITI meetings to relevant entities not directly represented on the MSG. The MSG does not appear to have updated its work plan or prepared annual progress reports until a few days before the commencement of this Validation (see Requirements 1.5 and 7.4). However, consultations with stakeholders including the IA confirmed that there was robust debate between the constituencies on EITI reporting issues. The government has provided in-kind resources to support EITI implementation, through the staffing of the CAR EITI Secretariat. Headed by a National Coordinator with ministerial rank, the secretariat includes a total of three staff.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 3.1 is mostly met. The MSG’s ‘Transparency’ template considers that the objective of ensuring public access to an overview of the extractive sector in the country and its potential is fully met. Stakeholders consulted did not express particular views on progress towards this objective. The International Secretariat’s view disagrees with the MSG’s self-assessment in considering the objective as mostly met, given the lack of CAR EITI coverage of the main projects in the country, such as the Ndassima gold mine, or of significant exploration activities in the mining sector. In its comments to the draft Validation report, the MSG argues that they did not mention the Ndassima gold mine, which is the only industrial gold mine in the country, because it is not within the scope of EITI implementation, given its adapted implementation, which only covers the Kimberly Process accredited regions. It notes that the even if the Annex 1 of the 2021 EITI Report mentions Ndassima, it is only because the MSG chose to include the mining cadastre in full. The International Secretariat disagrees, given that revenue disclosures cannot be directly linked to the geographical regions, and reporting has in practice been covering the country as a whole. As the only industrial mine in CAR, the omission of that project constitutes a material gap. The MSG further acknowledged in the comments that the problem of prefinancing agreements in the diamond sector is well known, and the reason CAR's EITI reporting did not mention this practice is because the MSG did not see the need to do so, noting that in their view, this practice has been abandoned due to Kimberley Process sanctions. The CAR’s 2020 and 2021 EITI Reports provide a cursory overview of the mining and petroleum sectors, alongside forestry. This includes an overview of the sectors’ potentials, a brief overview of the artisanal and small-scale nature of mining and an overview of significant exploration activities in the petroleum sector, not in mining. Although reports including a May 2021 report from Interpol, a July 2023 report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a January 2024 report by the Global Initiative on Transnational Organised Crime (GI-TOC) highlight the extensive use of prefinancing arrangements in the diamond mining sector, the CAR’s EITI reporting has not described this practice to date. Likewise, although there is extensive international reporting from bodies like the UK Parliament’s 2023 ‘Guns for gold’ investigation and the Sentry’s June 2023 report on the CAR about the more than doubling in the size of the CAR’s sole large-scale industrial gold mine in Ndassima between 2020 and 2023, the CAR’s EITI reporting has not described the Ndassima gold mine at all to date, aside from publishing some (incomplete) basic license data on the mine in Annexe 1 of the 2021 EITI Report. In consultations, the IA, industry representatives and development partners confirmed that the use of prefinancing of artisanal and small-scale diamond production was widespread in the country, with buying houses extending lines of credit to artisanal miners and cooperatives. However, none of the stakeholders consulted could explain why this practice of prefinancing of artisanal and small-scale miners, often by foreign investors who were barred from holding artisanal and small-scale mining licenses themselves, was not described in the CAR’s EITI Reports published to date. None of the stakeholders consulted could explain why larger projects like the Ndassima gold mine were not described in the CAR’s EITI Reports, although some civil society and industry stakeholders considered that the mine was not operational. A development partner noted that satellite imagery reflected significant expansion both in artisanal and small-scale mining activity as well as activity at the Ndassima gold mine in recent years (since 2020 in particular) (see Requirements 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4).

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 6.3 is partly met. The MSG’s ‘Transparency’ template considers that the objective of ensuring a public understanding of the extractive industries’ contribution to the national economy is partly met. Stakeholders consulted did not express any views on progress towards this objective. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with the MSG’s self-assessment in considering the objective as partly met, given the lack of CAR EITI coverage of informal mining activities, referencing credible third-party estimates, weaknesses in estimates of government revenues from the extractive industries nationwide and the absence of any publicly available extractive employment data. In its responses to the draft Validation report, the MSG acknowledges that the difficulties are due to the delay in data collection by the Statistics Department (ICASEES) and the difficulty of collaboration between the administrations and companies concerned. The MSG reveals that the EITI 2022 Report currently being drawn up includes recommendations to this effect for ICASEES. The CAR’s 2020 and 2021 EITI Reports provide some information on the extractive industries’ contribution to the national economy, but with weaknesses with regards to GDP, government revenues and employment. There do not appear to be any systematic disclosures of this information on government or company websites. The 2021 EITI Report provides the mining sector’s contribution to GDP in absolute and relative terms for 2021. Although no estimates for the petroleum sector’s contribution to GDP are provided, the lack of significant activities in this sector imply that this is a gap of marginal importance for public understanding of the extractive industries. While the EITI Report provides a cursory overview of artisanal mining, it does not provide a review of credible third-party estimates of informal mining activities, despite the existence of multiple studies such as a 2019 USAID-funded report on artisanal mining in western CAR and a May 2021 report from Interpol on illegal mining among others. The 2019 USAID report in particular estimated that gold ASM production in western CAR had increased from 1.98 tonnes in 2018 to 5.66 tonnes in 2019. The 2021 EITI Report provides a figure for government extractive revenues that appears limited to the revenues collected from 24 mining and three petroleum companies, rather than revenues collected from all extractive companies operating in the country. This appears to omit larger operators such as Midas Resources, which holds the country’s sole large-scale mining license for the Ndassima gold mine. Thus, the value of government extractive revenues disclosed in the CAR’s EITI reporting appears to significantly under-estimate the value of government revenues from the sector and cannot be considered to provide an accurate picture of the extractive industries’ contribution to government revenues. Although the EITI Report simply notes that the government’s financial operations dashboard (TOFE) does not distinguish extractive from other government revenues, the Secretariat considers that it should have been possible to collect data on government revenues from all extractive companies as part of EITI reporting. Nonetheless, the 2021 EITI Report provides the mining sector’s contribution to total exports in absolute and relative terms, alongside that of forestry. It also provides some information on mineral deposits, open and awarded petroleum blocks as well as a map of the Kimberley Process ‘compliant’ and ‘priority’ zones. Yet there is no evidence that the CAR has yet used its EITI reporting to disclose employment data for the extractive industries, as the EITI Report simply states that employment data is not available. It is unclear why the MSG made no attempt to request employment data from extractive companies included in the scope of EITI reporting.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 2.1 is mostly met. The MSG’s ‘Transparency’ template considers that the objective of ensuring public understanding of all aspects of the regulatory framework for the extractive industries is mostly met. Stakeholders consulted did not express any views on progress towards this objective. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with the MSG’s self-assessment in considering the objective as mostly met, given the limited CAR EITI coverage of the roles and responsibilities of government agencies as well as planned reforms in the extractive industries beyond the long-planned reforms of the 2009 Mining Code. The CAR’s 2021 EITI Report expanded the description of the legal and regulatory framework for the extractive industries, by providing a list of laws applicable to the mining, petroleum and forestry sectors, a diagram of relevant government agencies with jurisdiction over the extractive industries, and a brief overview of the applicable fiscal regime. The CAR EITI Report’s description of ongoing and planned reforms is limited to the long-planned reforms of the 2009 Mining Code, which are also highlighted as a priority in other reports such as the IMF’s November 2023 report and Interpol’s May 2021 report. The EITI Report describes the planned new Mining Code’s provisions to establish a state-owned enterprise (SOE) in the mining sector and a mining fund, to develop local content, to implement the new CEMAC foreign exchange regulations and to adjust the mining fiscal regime. Beyond the EITI Report’s description of this planned reform, the IMF’s report also highlights plans to develop a model mining agreement and implementing regulations to establish a new mining fund and planned new government agencies in the sector. The 2021 EITI Report does not refer to any reforms in the petroleum sector and does not provide an update on the status of the proposed reforms to the Mining Code, thus adding little to the coverage of reforms in the 2020 EITI Report. Stakeholders consulted from all constituencies confirmed that the draft new Mining Code had recently been approved by Parliament and was undergoing final review before being signed into law and gazetted as of May 2024. The national secretariat published the final version of the Mining Code in August 2024 during the MSG comments period. Of greater concern, the CAR’s EITI reporting has not yet discussed in any detail the tax incentives (including holidays and exemptions) provided to some mining companies. For instance, it has been reported internationally that the operator of the Ndassima mine, Midas Resources, has been exempt of all payments to government. This is confirmed in the production of the EITI Report, which identified no other payment to government aside from the 24 mining companies identified (see Requirement 4.1). A development partner consulted confirmed that the operator of the Ndassima gold mine had received an exemption of all payments to government. As noted by several development partners, the CAR’s EITI disclosures of estimates of foregone revenues from tax-exempt mines like Ndassima would support government efforts to improve budgetary transparency and accountability under the IMF’s extended credit facility. The MSG notes in its comments on the draft Validation report that the Ndassima mine is currently in the construction phase, and is not yet extracting gold, and states that to be the reason that there are no recorded revenues yet. The MSG claims that tax exemption is granted to any company when its mine is under construction. In its comments the MSG recommends that the Government make the contract signed between the Central African Government and Midas available to the EITI International Secretariat, with the condition that it not be published until the outcome of the pending dispute between AURAFRIQUE (Axmin's subsidiary which was the owner of the Ndassima mine) and the Central African Government. The International Secretariat notes that the contracts can only be considered if they are made publicly available.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 2.4 is mostly met. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template considers that the objective of ensuring the public accessibility of all licenses and contracts underpinning extractive activities as a basis for the public’s understanding of the contractual rights and obligations of companies operating in the country’s extractive industries is partly met. Government officials consulted considered that the objective was in the process of being fulfilled, given the government’s recent publication of 13 contracts and Ministerial Orders awarding mining licenses. Several CSOs consulted also considered the objective was in process of being met but expressed concern over certain mining licenses not having yet been disclosed, such as the license awarded to Lobaye Invest. In the commenting period the MSG has managed to publish on the EITI CAR website a total of 29 contracts (up from 13), including eight predating 1 January 2021. The inventory also contains 52 decrees awarding licenses. Given the additional efforts and the publication of contracts that pre-date 1 January 2021, the International Secretariat considers the requirement to be mostly met. There are three (of 25 awarded post 1 January 2021) contracts that are still outstanding to be published and the MSG has not yet undertaken any analysis of the contracts. The Government is invited to further clarify through implementation if the requirement to publish contracts in the 2024 Mining code extends to any amendments to contracts. The MSG is encouraged to ensure that the contract and license inventory is kept up to date and that it indicates which operations are no longer active, as indicated in their response to the draft assessment. In its comments to the draft Validation report, the MSG provided the following updates on the ongoing dispute between the Government and AURAFRIQUE (former owner of the Ndassima Mine), the company Lobaye Invest (Russian company) which was sanctioned by the US State Department and has ceased its activities as well as the company DIAMVILLE. The CAR EITI has published one dedicated report on licensing and contract disclosure, as well as two EITI Reports that cover the issue of contract disclosure since the lifting of the suspension in 2021. The CAR’s EITI reporting consistently highlights the lack of government policy or enabling legal environment for the publication of the full text of extractive contracts and licenses, even if the long-planned reforms to the 2009 Mining Code include provisions for contract transparency, which materialised to some degree in 2024 with the adoption of the new Mining Code. The 2021 EITI Report highlights that the government decree establishing the EITI contains provisions for the public disclosure of extractive contracts, stakeholders consulted confirmed that these provisions did not constitute a government policy. The 2016 Constitution included provisions (Article 60) for the systematic publication of all extractive contracts within eight days of their signature, although these provisions do not feature in the 2023 Constitution. Development partners noted that it had become increasingly hard to request contract disclosure of government now that Article 60 had been removed from the new Constitution. Several stakeholders consulted from all constituencies argued that the 2023 Constitution represented the will of the people, and thus that they could not criticise the removal of Article 60 of the former Constitution. However, some government officials consulted explained that the removal of Article 60 from the Constitution was not expected to hinder contract disclosure as the proposed Mining Code reform included provisions for the publication of all contracts and licenses. The CAR’s two EITI Report and thematic study state that none of the mining or petroleum contracts or licenses have been published to date, but that “some” (unspecified) forestry contracts had been publicly disclosed. The official gazette, which is not available online, only publishes the government orders (arrêtés) awarding licenses and contracts, not the licenses or contracts themselves, as illustrated in the three government orders (arrêtés) published on the CAR EITI website. This has been amended through the new publications of licenses during the commenting period. According to a minute of Minister of Mines and Geology Benam Beltoungou’s meeting with CSOs in October 2023, the Ministry was in the process of scanning “a few” contracts in order to publish them online. The CSOs attending this meeting expressed their concern at the lack of full implementation of the government’s commitment to publish the full text of all active extractive contracts and licenses, at the EITI Global Conference in Dakar in June 2023. In early May 2024, the CAR EITI website published the full text of 29 mining contracts (conventions), albeit without their annexes, alongside the full text of 92 Ministerial Orders (arrêtés) awarding PEASM (permis d’exploitation artisanale et semi-mechanisée), six Ministerial Orders (arrêtés) awarding AEA (Autorisation d’exploitation artisanale), 18 agreements establishing buying houses, two decrees awarding agreements to buying houses, two Ministerial Orders (arrêtés) modifying the award of PEASM and 1 Ministerial Order (arrêté) renewing four PEASM. Several government officials consulted committed to publishing an additional 16 mining contracts that had recently been awarded, which was expected to be done in May 2024. The MSG published during the period for comments on the draft Validation report, an additional list of active licenses and contracts at end 2023, including the Lobaye Invest mining contract and the Presidential Decree awarding it. However, it appears that certain licenses and contracts awarded since January 2021 have not yet been published. The International Crisis Group has reported on several mining licenses being awarded to Rwandan mining companies in 2022, none of these have been published to date. Several CSOs consulted raised questions about a mining license awarded to Lobaye Invest in June 2018, which they considered had been awarded outside of the conventional licensing procedure (see Requirement 2.2). CSOs raised concern that the license was not included in the mining license register disclosed in the 2021 EITI Report and that the full text of this license had not been officially published. This license was published in the commenting phase, as has the license linked to the Ndassima mine (allocated in 2020) – but not the contract, which is encouraged given that the date of allocation predates 1 January 2021. The CAR EITI has published an (incomplete) list of active licenses in Annexe 1 of the 2021 EITI Report (see Requirement 2.3), which was updated in the commenting period. However, the license register does not provide a public inventory of all active license and contract documents, including annexes, amendments and riders for each license and contract, indicating which licenses and contracts have been amended when. As part of the CAR’s 38-month extended credit facility with the IMF agreed in April 2023, one of the key policy objectives includes publishing mining and forestry licenses. Several CSOs consulted called for more capacity development for the civil society constituency, given that they did not have access to specialists who could understand mining contracts. Industry stakeholders consulted did not express any reservations about the publication of the full text of all mining contracts and licenses.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 6.4 remains not assessed, given that several encouraged aspects of this requirement remain to be addressed by the CAR EITI. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template considers that the objective of providing a basis for stakeholders to assess the adequacy of the regulatory framework and monitoring efforts to manage the environmental impact of extractive industries was not met. Stakeholders consulted did not express any views on progress towards this objective, although some CSOs highlighted that issues of environmental impacts had caused host communities to rebel and force the halting of certain mining projects. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with the MSG’s self-assessment in considering the objective as not met, given the lack of CAR EITI coverage of the rules and practices related to environmental impact management to date. The CAR has not yet used its EITI reporting to improve transparency in the rules and practices related to managing the environmental impacts of the extractive industries. The 2021 EITI Report only provides a short description of the roles and functions of the Office de Recherche Géologique et d’Exploitation Minière (ORGEM), which includes environmental monitoring, but does not describe the relevant legal provisions, administrative rules as well as actual practice related to environmental management and monitoring of extractive investments in the country. There are reports of significant environmental impacts of the mining industry in the CAR, including a May 2021 report from Interpol highlighting the use of mercury in gold mining and reports in the international press and by international NGOs like Amnesty International of mercury pollution caused by mining activities. The US Department of State’s 2022 Human Rights report on the CAR highlighted a rise in the use of toxic chemicals such as cyanide and mercury in gold mines during the year, but that the government did not regulate the use of harmful chemicals in artisanal and semi-mechanised mining operations. Several CSOs consulted echoed these concerns and highlighted how adverse environmental impacts had caused host communities to rebel against certain mining projects, which had caused the projects to be suspended.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 2.2 is partly met. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template considers the objective of transparency in licensing practices is partly met. While several development partners consulted considered that the objective was still far from being fulfilled, several government and civil society stakeholders consulted considered that the objective was in the process of being fulfilled given the 2021 EITI Report’s coverage of mining license awards. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with the MSG’s self-assessment in considering the objective as not met, given the lack of clarity on the specific mining licenses awarded and transferred in the period under review, ambiguities in the technical and financial criteria assessed in license awards and transfers, and concerns over the robustness of the CAR EITI’s diagnostic of licensing practices in the context of public allegations of deviations in licensing practices. The MSG’s comments on the draft Validation report argue that the MSG is not aware of these allegations and cannot comment on them. The CAR’s EITI Reports have covered licensing in the mining, petroleum and forestry sectors. In petroleum, the 2021 EITI Report confirms the lack of oil and gas license awards or transfers in the period under review. The CAR’s EITI reporting describes the general process for awarding and transferring petroleum licenses, but does not clarify the technical and financial criteria assessed for such awards and transfers. Moreover, the CAR’s EITI reporting has not reviewed to date the practices of petroleum licensing for the three active production-sharing contracts that were awarded in 2011-2013. In mining, the 2021 EITI Report states that 126 mining licenses were awarded and six licenses were transferred in 2021, although the annexe 1 to the report that provides a copy of the license register only lists 35 mining licenses with award dates marked as 2021 (although this may be due to weaknesses in the comprehensiveness of the CAR’s mining license register – see Requirement 2.3). Thus, the identity of all companies receiving a mining license awarded or transferred in 2021 is not publicly accessible. The 2021 EITI Report provides an overview of the process for awarding the different types of mining licenses, with reference to a guide of procedures for mining licensing published on the Ministry of Mines website. However, neither the EITI Report nor the Ministry of Mines guide provide a detailed list of the technical and financial criteria assessed in mining license awards and transfers (which the EITI Report implies are the same criteria), nor the weightings applied to different criteria if applicable, even if the public documents refer to the licensing authority’s assessment of the technical and financial capacities of applicants for mining licenses. The 2021 EITI Report notes the Directorate General of Mining’s assurances that there were no non-trivial deviations from statutory procedures in mining license awards and transfers in 2021, there is no further explanation of the methodology agreed by the MSG for conducting this assessment of non-trivial deviations. The EITI Report implies that some mining licenses can be awarded through competitive tender, although without clarifying whether any mining licenses were awarded through bidding in 2021. The EITI Report does not provide the bid criteria or full list of bidders for mining licenses awarded through bidding in 2021, if applicable. However, the Secretariat understands through stakeholder consultations that none of the mining licenses awarded in 2021 were through competitive tender. Several development partners highlighted challenges in mining license management that were not described in the CAR’s EITI Reports to date. They explained that local government officials (préfets) maintained mining offices at the local level and sometimes awarded mining rights at the subnational level, without alerting the Ministry of Mines in Bangui about the awarding of such rights. One international analyst of the CAR explained that there were also cases where local government officials banned artisanal and small-scale mining in certain areas to enable certain investors to conduct mining activities in those areas, which was considered the equivalent of licensing those areas to investors. The CAR’s EITI reporting to date has only focused on the formal awarding of mining licenses and contracts by the Ministry of Mines in Bangui. The CAR’s EITI Reports have not yet addressed licensing issues that appear to be the focus of public interest. For instance, there has been considerable public attention focused on the “securitisation agreement” concluded between the CAR Government and Turkey’s Koza Gold Corp. in October 2022 for the development of uranium mining of the Bakouma deposit in the country’s south-east, which was previously held by Canadian-listed UraMin and subsequently by France’s Areva. A minute of Minister of Mines and Geology Benam Beltoungou’s meeting with CSOs in October 2023 indicates that CSOs attempted to raise this issue, but that the meeting was closed prior to the topic being discussed. This license is not listed in annexe 1 to the 2021 EITI Report (which provides the mining license register) and none of the published CAR EITI documents provide any further transparency on the award or terms of this license. There have been public allegations in the press and in foreign government reports of non-trivial deviations in the award of certain new mining licenses, such as in a July 2023 article in Africa Intelligence and in the US Department of State’s 2022 Human Rights report on the CAR for example. Several CSOs consulted raised concerns over alleged deviations from statutory mining rights allocation procedures in the past, such as with regards to the awarding of a mining license to Lobaye Invest in June 2018. While the 2 June 2018 Presidential Decree awarding the license to Lobaye Invest has been published unofficially online, the award of this license has not been discussed by the CAR EITI MSG to date. The International Crisis Group has reported on several mining licenses awarded to Rwandan companies incorporated in the country in 2022. In 2023, the government implemented reforms related to the awarding of new mining licenses. In September 2023, the Ministry of Mines and Geology issued an order (arrêté 145/23/MMG/DIRCAB/DGM) suspending the issuance of new semi-mechanised artisanal mining licenses (PEASM). According to a minute of Minister of Mines and Geology Benam Beltoungou’s meeting with CSOs in October 2023, this moratorium on new PEASM licensing was due to the government’s desire to favour national investors over foreign investors in issuing these permits, given that resource-rich areas were being developed by foreign companies with impacts on the environment. Development partners noted that the new Mining Code had removed the need for concluding mining contracts (conventions) for early-stage mining given that estimates of deposits were not yet known, although such contracts existed under the previous Mining Code. Some development partners called for the EITI to play a greater role in facilitating citizen and parliamentary oversight of the way in which mining rights were allocated in the CAR.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 2.3 is partly met. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template considers the objective of transparency in extractives property rights is partly met. Consulted stakeholders’ opinions were split over progress towards the objective, with government officials considering that it was in the process of being fulfilled given efforts to sanitise the license register in preparing the 2021 EITI Report and plans for the development of a modern cadastral management system. However, several CSOs, development partners and the IA considered that there were still significant weaknesses in the license register disclosed through the EITI. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with the MSG’s self-assessment in considering the objective as still far from being met, given inconsistencies in the different license information disclosed online by CAR EITI and the lack of public information on mining licenses that have attracted public attention in recent years. The CAR EITI has published two different versions of the mining license register, one in Annexe 1 of the 2021 EITI Report published in PDF on the CAR EITI website (republished on EITI international secretariat’s website) and the second as a republished version of Annexe 1 of the 2021 EITI Report in open format on the Ministry of Mines and Geology "website. The two versions of the license register are inconsistent, with Annexe 1 listing a total of 349 active mining licenses, while the separate spreadsheet lists only a total of 160 active mining licenses. There is no published commentary from CAR EITI explaining the differences between these two documents and the discrepancies in the number of active mining licenses. The two versions of the license register are inconsistent, with Annexe 1 listing a total of 349 active mining licenses , while the separate spreadsheet lists only a total of 160 active mining licenses. There is no published commentary from CAR EITI explaining the differences between these two documents and the discrepancies in the number of active mining licenses. In its comments to the draft Validation report, the MSG suggest that the Validation team considers that the number of licenses in Annex 1 of the 2021 EITI Report is the same on the spreadsheet published in open data. The two documents present different gaps in the availability of license information listed in Requirement 2.3.b. The Annexe 1 of the 2021 EITI Report originally published in PDF format provides only a minority of the required data for the 349 active mining licenses listed, including license numbers for 270 of the licenses, dates of application for only 120 licenses, dates of award and of expiry for only 123 licenses and coordinates for 118 licenses. The republished Annexe 1 in open format published on the Ministry of Mines website provides more information on the 160 active mining licenses listed, including all information listed in Requirement 2.3.b aside from dates of application for 11 licenses and license coordinates for one license. However, the lack of explanation for the differences in license information listed between the two versions of the mining license register published online is a significant concern, which explains the Secretariat’s assessment that the objective remains far from being fulfilled. In consultation, the IA claimed that it was a significant achievement of the EITI to establish a first digitised mining license register for the purposes of EITI reporting, given that the current system consists of a manual ledger. However, gaps remained and it had taken significant efforts from the IA just to triangulate the information in Annexe 1 from various sources within government. It appears that all required information on certain active mining licenses has not yet been disclosed to the public. For instance, while the originally published Annexe 1 lists the country’s sole large-scale production license for Ndassima, it provides none of the information listed under Requirement 2.3.b for this license. Likewise, while the International Crisis Group has reported on several mining licenses being awarded to Rwandan mining companies in 2022, none of these feature in the registers of mining licenses disclosed by CAR EITI. Several CSOs consulted also called for more information on the exploration license awarded to Lobaye Invest in June 2018. While the 2 June 2018 Presidential Decree awarding the license to Lobaye Invest has been published unofficially online, CSOs raised concern that the license was not included in the mining license register disclosed in the 2021 EITI Report. Several stakeholders from government, industry, civil society and development partners highlighted the government’s plans to develop a modern cadastral management system with support from the World Bank, which was considered a priority by the government. Some international analysts emphasised that there may be a number of mining licenses awarded by local government’s mining offices without coordination or information to the Ministry of Mines in Bangui, which implied that license information held in Bangui was likely not comprehensive of all active mining rights in the country. In petroleum, the CAR EITI Report only provides a summary table with some of the information required on the three active oil and gas production-sharing contracts (PSCs), including license name, identity of license-holder, general location and date of award, but not the dates of application and of expiry, nor license coordinates.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 2.5 is partly met. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template considers that the objective of enabling the public to know who ultimately owns and controls the companies operating in the country’s extractive industries is not met. Some government stakeholders consulted considered that the objective was in the process of being fulfilled given plans to include provisions on beneficial ownership transparency in the draft new Mining Code. Other stakeholders consulted did not express views on progress towards the objective. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with the MSG’s self-assessment in considering the objective as still far from being fulfilled, given the lack of an enabling legal framework and the lack of efforts to date to collect information on beneficial owners of extractive companies, even if only those included in the scope of EITI reporting. In response to the draft Validation report, the MSG reveals that terms of reference for the recruitment of a consultant to carry out a specific study for the development of a roadmap and beneficial ownership declaration forms in the CAR have been developed and sent to the African Development Bank for funding. The CAR has used its EITI reporting to provide an overview of beneficial ownership work by the MSG to date, and is transparent about the weaknesses. The CAR does not have an enabling legal or regulatory framework for the collection or public disclosure of beneficial ownership data in any sector, including the extractive industries as confirmed in its EITI reporting. Equally, there is no evidence that the CAR EITI MSG has agreed a definition of ‘beneficial owner’ or ‘politically exposed person’ to date. Although there are provisions in the long-planned reforms to the 2009 Mining Code for the disclosure of beneficial owners of mining companies, these have yet to be enacted into law. The recommendation in the 2021 EITI Report to establish a public register of beneficial owners appears generic and non-contextualised to the realities of the CAR. Pending the establishment of an enabling legal environment, there is no evidence that the CAR EITI has piloted beneficial ownership data collection as part of EITI reporting by the two dozens of mining, petroleum and forestry companies included in the scope of disclosures. Likewise, there is no evidence that the licensing authorities in mining, petroleum or forestry have piloted beneficial ownership data collection as part of the licensing process. The company register (Registre du Commerce et du Crédit Mobilier - RCCM) is not available online, and recent reviews such as the November 2023 FATF mutual evaluation of the CAR highlight challenges in the public accessibility of company records including shareholders, even in person.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 2.6 is not applicable in the period under review. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template confirms that the objective is not applicable to the CAR in the period under review. Some government stakeholders consulted confirmed that there were no longer any SOEs engaged in the extractive industries, pending planned reforms of the Mining Code that were expected to establish new SOEs. The CAR’s 2020 and 2021 EITI Reports confirm that there are no state-owned enterprises operating in the extractive industries in this period. While the 2021 EITI Report provides an overview of planned reforms of the country’s Mining Code that are expected to establish a new state-owned enterprise in the mining sector, this legal reform has yet to be enacted as of the commencement of this Validation. The Comptoir des Minéraux et Gemmes (COMIGEM) was established under the Ministry of Mines and Geology by the 2009 Mining Code as a state-owned diamond and mineral buying house, although international press coverage indicates that the SOE had gone bankrupt several years ago and was awaiting privatisation in 2020. In consultation, the IA confirmed that COMIGEM had not been operating for several years and that there were no functional state-owned buying houses pending enactment of planned reforms of the Mining Code, as confirmed in the 2021 EITI Report.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 4.2 is not applicable in the period under review. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template confirms that the objective of this requirement is not applicable to the CAR in this period. The CAR’s 2020 and 2021 EITI Reports confirm that there are no state-owned enterprises operating in the extractive industries in this period, implying that there are no in-kind revenues in the mining or petroleum sectors.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 4.5 is not applicable in the period under review. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template confirms that the objective of this requirement is not applicable to the CAR in this period. The CAR’s 2020 and 2021 EITI Reports confirm that there are no state-owned enterprises operating in the extractive industries in this period.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 6.2 is not applicable in the period under review. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template confirms that the objective of this requirement is not applicable to the CAR in this period. The CAR’s 2020 and 2021 EITI Reports confirm that there are no state-owned enterprises operating in the extractive industries in this period, implying that there were no quasi-fiscal expenditures by material SOEs.

The Secretariat’s = assessment is that Requirement 3.2 is partly met. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template considers that the objective of ensuring public understanding of extractive commodity production levels and the valuation of extractive commodity output is mostly met. Several government stakeholders consulted considered that the objective was in the process of being achieved. However, several development partners considered that formal government mineral production data vastly under-estimated actual mineral production levels. The International Secretariat’s view disagrees with the MSG’s self-assessment in considering the objective as still far from being met, given the CAR EITI’s disclosures of only a limited share of the diamond and gold production taking place in the country. Given the materiality of estimates of informal production not recorded in EITI Reports, the International Secretariat considers the objective still far from being fulfilled. In its comments to the draft Validation report, the MSG believes that this requirement has been fully met and raises concerns about the comments of third parties who considered that the government's official data on mineral production underestimated the actual levels of mineral production. There are only limited (outdated) systematic disclosures of mineral production data on government websites, with the Ministry of Mines and Geology publishing diamond and gold production data for the 2016-2019 period only on its website. The data from the ICASEES (Institut Centrafricain des Statistiques et des Etudes Economiques et Sociales) on annual gold and diamond production volumes and values for the 2018-2021 period is republished on the CAR page of the Open Data For Africa portal. The CAR’s EITI Reports disclose production volumes and values for diamonds and gold, as well as production in the forestry sector, but this appears to only relate to a small share of production taking place in the eight western prefectures deemed Kimberley Process ‘compliant’. The 2021 EITI Report provides the aggregate volumes and values of diamond production sourced from the Kimberley Process (and consistent with the CAR’s 2021 Kimberley Process annual report), which cover certified diamond production from the eight ‘compliant’ prefectures, without further disaggregation for instance by individual diamond buying house even if this is encouraged, not strictly required, by the 2019 EITI Standard. The EITI Report provides the volumes for each of the 12 gold mining companies that participated in EITI reporting for 2021, but only provides the ‘taxable value’ of production (as a proxy for production value) for five of these 12 companies. The EITI Report raises significant concerns over the accuracy of the reported gold production data, given the aggregate discrepancy of 344.5kg between figures reported by the Directorate General of Mining (DGM) and those by the national statistics institute (ICASEES). In consultation, the stakeholders including the IA attributed these discrepancies between official and other estimates to informal production and exports of diamonds and gold, although the IA noted that no official explanations were provided for these discrepancies. The disclosed production relating to these eight prefectures appears to under-estimate the total production of these commodities in these eight prefectures. A development partner noted estimates from the US Geological Survey based on satellite imagery that formal diamond exports from the eight prefectures accounted for only around 60%-80% of total diamond production in these prefectures, which was one of the major barriers to including additional prefectures as KP-compliant green zones. There are also vastly higher estimates of gold production in the CAR from third-party sources. The 2021 EITI Report discloses aggregate production volumes of 92,771.51 carats of diamonds and 512.449kg of gold (as reported by the DGM, far lower than the 857kg of gold reported by the ICASEES). In contrast, a May 2021 report by Interpol estimated gold production in 2019 to have reached 5.66 tonnes from artisanal sources. A 2023 report by the United Nations Panel of Experts on the CAR estimated that gold production in the CAR had reached 2 tonnes in 2018, with an estimated 1 tonne of gold exported from the CAR in 2022. The 2021 EITI Report does not comment on these large discrepancies beyond the differences in gold production figures reported by the DGM and ICASEES. Thus, while the CAR’s EITI Reports provide official data on the production volumes and values of diamonds and gold, the International Secretariat considers that the lack of estimates of informal production imply that the objective of public understanding of mineral production levels, even in the eight prefectures deemed Kimberley Process ‘compliant’ is still far from being achieved. The CAR’s EITI Reports have not yet expanded to describe the methods for calculating production volumes and values.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 3.3 is partly met. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template considers that the objective of ensuring public understanding of extractive commodity export levels and the valuation of extractive commodity exports is mostly met. Several government stakeholders consulted considered that the objective was fulfilled, although several development partners raised concerns over alleged extensive smuggling of diamonds and gold that meant that official government export data vastly under-represented the level of actual exports. The International Secretariat’s view disagrees with national stakeholders in considering the objective as still far from being fulfilled, given the CAR EITI’s disclosures of only a limited share of the diamond and gold exports from the CAR. The MSG comments to the draft Validation report argue that important aspects of the requirement have been implemented and the overall objective has been fulfilled. Therefore, the MSG acknowledges that there have been discrepancies, but there is a clear desire to investigate for the reasons and corrective measures will be taken in the 2022 EITI Report. The CAR’s EITI Reports disclose export data for diamonds and gold, as well as forestry exports, although these are limited to legal commodity exports without reference to any credible third-party estimates of informal exports (smuggling). The 2021 EITI Report presents export volumes and values for diamonds and gold, disaggregated by each individual export shipment, covering only legal diamond exports from the eight Kimberley Process ‘compliant’ prefectures and gold exports by three gold exporting companies. The EITI Report goes further in presenting the results of reconciliation of export figures between the Kimberley Process (only for production, not exports), the Ministry of Mines and Geology, the customs department (DGDDI) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC). The EITI Report highlights differences of 844.448kg of gold exports and of 89,825 carats of diamond exports between figures reported by the Ministry of Mines and Geology and the customs department (DGDDI). The report also highlights significant differences between the government export figures and those of the MIT’s OEC. The report does not provide explanations for these differences in export data but recommends that an in-depth study be conducted on the reasons for these differences. In May 2024, the CAR EITI website published diamond and gold export data for 2023. There are many reports from international bodies including a May 2021 report from Interpol, reports from the United Nations Panel of Experts and a 2023 report from the Sentry that indicate extensive smuggling of gold and diamonds to neighbouring countries including Cameroon, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan and Sudan, as well as commodity exchange centres such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Several development partners and analysts consulted explained that there were significant informal exports of diamonds and gold, allegedly including by companies with licenses to export but who continue to informally export much of their production. They explained that the vast majority of registered buying houses allowed to export were not active, with the number of buying houses that actually exported diamonds and gold declining from around 15 cooperatives in 2016 to between three and five cooperatives in recent years. A development partner noted that the recent rise in formal diamond exports presented an opportunity to further institutionalise transparency in the CAR’s extractive industries. The CAR’s EITI Reports have not yet expanded to describe the methods for calculating export volumes and values.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 4.1 is partly met. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template considers that the objective of comprehensive disclosures of company payments and government revenues from oil, gas and mining is mostly met. Some stakeholders consulted from civil society and the IA considered that the objective was still far from being fulfilled given that the EITI Report stated that the financial data was not comprehensive. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with national stakeholders in considering the objective as not met, given the seemingly ad hoc nature of the selection of mining companies included in the scope of EITI disclosures, weaknesses in reporting by some material companies and government entities, and the CAR EITI Reports’ own admissions that CAR EITI disclosures of government extractive revenues are not comprehensive. In its comments to the draft Validation report, the MSG acknowledge that the difficulties in the effective implementation of the requirement stem from insufficient knowledge of the EITI by the various stakeholders who are involved in the declaration process and the fact that 2021 was the first year in which the reporting forms were sent to companies and also weaknesses in the IT systems of different reporting Agencies or Administrations. The CAR has covered the mining, petroleum and forestry sectors in its EITI Reports published since 2021. The EITI Report confirms that all revenue streams were included with a materiality threshold of zero. While it has included all three companies holding oil and gas rights, it included 16 mining companies whose payments to government were above XAF 1m (around USD 1650) in 2021. The 16 material mining companies were selected out of a pool of only 24 mining companies recorded as making payments to government. In consultation, the IA confirmed that it had not limited its selection to mining companies operating in the eight KP-compliant prefectures, given that the location of mining companies was not included in the tax department (DGI) revenue data they based their materiality calculations on. It is notable that the mining license register in Annexe 1 of the 2021 EITI Report lists 300 different license-holders, including 150 companies and 150 cooperatives. There is foreign direct investment in many of these mining companies, often from China and Russia according to third-party sources such as the 2021 Interpol report. A cursory review indicates that more than 24 mining companies hold licenses marked as being in the eight KP-compliant prefectures. However in consultation, the IA confirmed that it had found only 24 mining companies making any payments to government in 2021 based on tax department (DGI) data. The IA had found some mining companies that were registered with the Ministry of Mines but did not make any payments to government, and some mining companies not registered with the Ministry of Mines yet making payments to government, which was surprising. The material companies included in the scope of reporting did not include cooperatives, but rather license-holding companies and buying houses, who together with foundries are the main contributors to government revenues. Development partners confirmed that 24 companies was an accurate estimate of the mining companies making payments to government, given that certain mines had reportedly been granted exemptions from payments to government. The 2021 EITI Report presents the reconciled government revenue data for only 11 mining companies and two oil and gas companies, given that five mining companies and one oil and gas company did not report. While the value of government revenues is provided for each non-reporting mining company, it is not provided for the non-reporting oil and gas company. More worryingly, the value of government-disclosed revenues is lower than the reporting companies’ disclosures, raising questions over the comprehensiveness of both government and company reporting. In consultation, the IA explained that it had followed up with non-reporting companies and extended the target publication date from June to December. The IA attributed the lack of reporting by the five mining companies to a lack of awareness of EITI given that 2021 was the first year in which reporting templates were sent to companies (the 2020 EITI Report was based on ‘flexible’ reporting, i.e. unilateral government disclosures), but also weaknesses in IT systems. The 2021 EITI Report is transparent about the significant weaknesses in EITI reporting by government entities, including the lack of IT systems in the Treasury (DGTCP) to provide disaggregated government revenues at a company level, which hindered reconciliation, and deviations from CAR EITI reporting guidelines in both format and disaggregation from the customs department (DGDDI), the tax department (DGID) and the Ministry of Mines and Geology. Thus, government disclosures of revenues from the extractive industries were not sufficiently disaggregated or comprehensive. Several civil society stakeholders consulted explained that some of the weaknesses in government EITI reporting were due to high turnover in ministry staff. The 2021 EITI Report provides the total value of government revenues from mining in the eight KP-compliant prefectures, but does not provide the total value of government extractive revenues nationwide. There is no evidence that the CAR EITI has taken steps to facilitate public access to extractive companies’ audited financial statements to date, beyond the 2021 EITI Report’s statement that none of the reporting companies provided copies of their audited financial statements as part of quality assurances for their EITI reporting. In consultation, the IA explained that extractive companies did not consistently prepare annual financial statements and that audit was not a common practice, which may explained the low company response to the EITI request for audited financial statements.

The International Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 4.3 is not met. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template confirms that the objective of public understanding of infrastructure provisions and barter-type arrangements is not applicable in the CAR. In its comments to the draft Validation report, the MSG strongly argues that barter agreements do not exist for military services provided to the Central African Republic. The International Secretariat disagrees given stakeholder views and evidence of extraction activities with missing revenue counterpart. Given the absence of any discussion on this matter by the MSG, the International Secretariat maintains that the requirement is not met. While national stakeholders consulted did not express views on progress towards this objective, some development partners and analysts considered that there were minerals-for-services agreements in force in the CAR’s extractive industries but that the objective of transparency on these agreements was still far from being achieved. The International Secretariat’s view disagrees with national stakeholders in considering the objective as still far from being achieved, given the lack of CAR EITI discussions of international allegations that the Ndassima mining license was awarded to a private military company in exchange for the provision of military goods and services to the government. Although the Ndassima mine is not located in the eight KP-compliant prefectures covered by the CAR’s adapted implementation, allegations that activities have expanded significantly on the country’s sole large-scale industrial mine in recent years. Given the unique nature of the agreement and materiality of alleged production at the site, the Secretariat considers this a material issue for the CAR’s EITI reporting. Subject to the MSG’s clarifications around the status of the Ndassima gold mine, the Secretariat’s assessment is that CAR EITI has not undertaken work on this issue to date. In its comments on the draft assessment, the MSG maintained that Ndassima mine is not in production, despite the evidence through satellite imagery (see below). The 2021 EITI Report states that government entities did not report any barter agreement or infrastructure provisions, presumably on the basis of self-reporting. However, there have been multiple allegations from international sources around the awarding of mining rights to companies affiliated with the government’s private security contractors in exchange for its provision of paramilitary goods and services to the government. These allegations feature in reports from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in July 2023, the Council on Foreign Relations in May 2023, the Geneva Centre for Security Policy in March 2024, and the justification for United States Treasury sanctions on several mining companies alleged linked to the government’s private security contractors in June 2023. Several international partners and analysts confirmed their understanding that the Ndassima gold mine was involved in a minerals-for-services agreement with Russia, based on their confidential discussions with government officials. Several development partners and analysts confirmed the alleged link between the Ndassima gold mining license, which is allegedly exempt from payments to government, and the provision of military goods and services by the government’s security contractors. The CAR’s EITI Reports do not mention the Ndassima gold mine, aside from a reference in the license register provided in Annexe 1 of the 2021 EITI Report. In consultation, the IA confirmed that revenue-collecting entities had not provided evidence of any payments to government from the operator of the Ndassima mine, Midas Resources. There is no publicly available evidence that the Ndassima gold mine has made any payments to government in 2021. There is insufficient information in the public domain to determine whether the license for the Ndassima gold mine, reportedly granted for 25 years in 2022 according to the CSIS July 2023 report, was granted in exchange for the provision of goods and services to the government. However, the multiple specific allegations to this effect from international reports raises significant concerns over the lack of discussion of the Ndassima mine by CAR EITI since 2021, in the International Secretariat’s view. Thus, the Secretariat does not consider that the objective is in the process of being fulfilled, pending more informed discussions of the issue by the CAR EITI. While reports such as a May 2021 report from Interpol, a July 2023 report from the CSIS and a January 2024 report by GI-TOC highlight the extensive use of prefinancing arrangements in the diamond mining sector, the International Secretariat’s understanding is that these are private-to-private transactions involving a chain of buyers up to the artisanal miners. In consultation, the IA and industry representatives confirmed that there were no state-owned buying houses in operation (pending enactment of the planned reforms of the Mining Code), and thus that the pre-financing arrangements did not involve state entities.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 4.4 is not applicable. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template confirms that the objective of transparency in transportation revenues is not applicable in the CAR. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with the MSG’s self-assessment in considering the objective as not applicable. The 2021 EITI Report confirms the lack of government revenues from the transportation of extractive commodities. There is no indication of any transport infrastructure operated by the state for the transportation of extractive commodities.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 4.7 is partly met. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template considers that the objective of disaggregation in public disclosures of company payments and government revenues from oil, gas and mining is partly met. While most stakeholders consulted did not express views on progress towards the objective, the IA considered that the objective was still far from being fulfilled. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with the MSG’s self-assessment in considering the objective as partly met, given the lack of scoping of project-level taxes and fees in the CAR’s extractive industries and the lack of disaggregation in EITI reporting of government extractive revenues by company and revenue stream. The MSG does not make any comment regarding the Secretariat’s assessment. The 2021 EITI Report presents the reconciled financial data by company on the one hand and by revenue stream on the other, but not by both company and revenue stream in the same tables. There is no evidence that the MSG has agreed a definition of project for the CAR (nor scoped out any substantially interconnected projects) or reviewed which revenue streams are statutorily levied at a project level and which at a company level. The EITI Report is transparent that the majority of mining in the CAR is artisanal and thus cannot be disaggregated by project. However, the inclusion of 16 mining companies in the scope of reporting would imply that it would be possible to disaggregate their payments per license, where applicable. The 2021 EITI Report presents the data on government revenues from oil and gas de facto by project given that each company holds only one license, but not in mining. For instance, the material mining company Société Industrie Minière de Centrafrique holds several active mining licenses according to the license register in the 2021 EITI Report, but only reported payments aggregated at the company level. In consultation, the IA conceded that there was more work to do on project level reporting given that material companies held several licenses, but that the EITI Reports had already struggled to receive revenue data disaggregated by company and revenue streams from the four revenue-collecting entities, which explained why project level reporting had not been possible in the two EITI Reports. The IA also highlighted the importance of a comprehensive and accurate cadastre in order to match projects to companies.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 4.8 is fully met. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template considers that the objective of ensuring that EITI disclosures are sufficiently timely to be relevant to inform public debate and policymaking is fully met. Stakeholders consulted did not express any views on progress towards this objective. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with the MSG’s self-assessment in considering the objective as fully met. The CAR published the 2020 EITI Report in December 2022 and the 2021 EITI Report in December 2023, within the Board-approved timelines for its reporting. There is evidence in each EITI Report of the MSG approving the reporting period and cash-accounting basis for reporting.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 4.9 is partly met. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template considers that the objective of ensuring that appropriate measures have been taken to ensure the reliability of disclosures of company payments and government revenues from oil, gas and mining is not met. Most stakeholders consulted did not express views on progress towards the objective, although the IA considered that the objective was still far from being fulfilled. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with national stakeholders in considering the objective as still far from being achieved, given the lack of adherence of any reporting entities with the agree quality assurances for EITI reporting and the lack of CAR EITI efforts to date to ensure that EITI implementation contributes to strengthening routine government and company audit and assurance systems and practices. In its comments to the draft Validation report, the MSG acknowledges the Secretariat’s assessment and reaffirms its willingness to offer better quality assurance mechanisms for future EITI declarations. The CAR’s two EITI Reports produced since 2021 were prepared by the same Independent Administrator (IA), Enerteam, who conducted a reconciliation of company payments and government revenues, and whose contract covers a total of five EITI Reports (including 2022-2025). Available documentation suggests that the MSG approved the ToR for the IA as well as reporting templates. There is however no evidence that the MSG or IA reviewed the audit and assurance rules and practices of government entities and extractive companies prior to agreeing data quality assurance procedures for EITI reporting. Indeed, the 2021 EITI Report confirms that none of the reporting companies shared copies of their audited 2021 financial statements with the IA as part of their EITI reporting, as requested. In consultation, the IA explained that there were few statutory audit rules in the CAR and insufficient information to assess the practice, which explained why the IA had proposed such robust EITI quality assurances to the MSG. The quality assurances agreed by the MSG for EITI reporting were robust, involving management attestation as well as external auditor certification of the reporting templates, i.e. certification from the Supreme Audit Institution (Cour des Comptes) for government templates and from an external auditor for extractive companies. In practice however, none of the reporting entities (both government entities and companies) provided all of the required documents required for the quality assurance of their EITI reporting templates. While all 19 reporting companies provided management attestations, only three provided the detail of their payments and none provided copies of their audited financial statements or an external auditor certification of their templates. All three reporting government entities provided management attestations, but did not provide the detail of their revenues nor certification from the SAI for their reporting templates. Thus, while the reconciliation coverage target was set at 99.66% of revenues in mining and 100% in oil and gas, the EITI Report concludes on a final reconciliation coverage of 56.29% in mining and allegedly 100% in oil and gas. However, the International Secretariat’s concerns over the comprehensiveness of the MSG’s scoping of material companies (see Requirement 4.1) raises questions over the accuracy of these reconciliation coverage figures. The list of non-complying companies and government entities is reportedly contained in Annexe 10 of the 2021 EITI Report, although this annexe had not been published as of the commencement of Validation. Thus, it is not possible for readers to identify the value of payments from each non-complying company. The 2021 EITI Report includes a clear statement from the IA, which notes that the reconciled financial data is neither comprehensive nor reliable. The non-financial data in the CAR’s EITI Reports appears consistently sourced, with all opinions in the report seemingly those of the IA. While the 2021 EITI Report provides a list of 14 new recommendations, it does not provide any commentary on the status of follow-up on the eight recommendations in the 2020 EITI Report, even though that EITI Report had been published one year prior.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 5.1 is partly met. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template considers that the objective of traceability of extractive revenues to the national budget and ensuring the same level of transparency and accountability for extractive revenues that are not recorded in the national budget is not met. National stakeholders consulted did not express views on progress towards this objective, although the IA considered that the objective was still far from being achieved given weaknesses in IT systems linking different government revenue-collecting entities. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with the MSG’s self-assessment in considering the objective as still far from being fulfilled, given the lack of CAR EITI diagnostic to date of the traceability of government extractive revenues in the national budget. The MSG comments to the draft Validation report argue he traceability of revenues and their distribution in the Government’s budget is a real challenge for the EITI in CAR. The MSG offers to have a better approach for the upcoming EITI reports. The CAR’s EITI Reports provide diagrams of the flow of extractive revenues from companies to government entities, confirming that all government revenues from the sector are collected by four government entities (MMG, DGDDI, DGTCP and DGID). However, the 2021 EITI Report only notes that the government’s financial operations dashboard (Tableau des Opérations Financières de l’État - TOFE) does not disaggregate extractive revenues and government revenues from other sectors, without further commentary on the traceability of all government extractive revenues to the national budget. Indeed the EITI Report does not comment on the flow of revenues from the four revenue-collecting government entities to Treasury (DGTCP) accounts. There is therefore a lack of clarity in CAR EITI documents over whether any government extractive revenues are managed without being recorded in the national budget, and whether any financial reports are publicly available to describe the management of any off-budget extractive revenues, if applicable. In consultation, the IA considered the risk of retention of government revenues not recorded in the national budget was low given that all revenues were meant to be transferred to the Treasury, although the lack of robust IT systems linking different government revenue-collecting agencies presented a risk. The IA noted that the Customs Department’s IT systems were more advanced given they were linked to the regional SYDONIA system. The CAR’s EITI Reports have not yet commented on the national or international classification of government extractive revenues in the CAR, as encouraged by Requirement 5.1.b. Several key government commitments under the 38-month extended credit facility agreed with the IMF in April 2023 relate to improving the governance and transparency of the budget process, strengthening domestic revenue mobilisation and strengthening of tax and customs administrations. There are opportunities for the CAR to use its annual EITI reporting to provide a diagnostic of public finance management of extractive revenues and of planned improvements in budgetary transparency and governance.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 5.3 remains not assessed, given that several encouraged aspects of this requirement remain to be addressed by the CAR EITI. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template considers that the objective of strengthening public oversight of the management of extractive revenues, the use of extractives revenues to fund specific public expenditures and the assumptions underlying the budget process is partly met. Stakeholders consulted did not express any views on progress towards this objective. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with the MSG’s self-assessment in considering the objective as not met, given the CAR’s limited use of the EITI to date to improve transparency around the government’s budget and audit cycles, budgetary assumptions and forward-looking projections. In its comments, the MSG acknowledges that CAR has not yet taken advantage of EITI reporting to increase public understanding of the budget process for improving transparency about the Government's budget and audit cycles. The 2021 EITI Report provides an overview of statutory provisions for the establishment of a Mining Development Fund but notes the lack of any implementing regulations for this fund. The report notes that the 2018 government budget highlighted a total of XAF 186m in funds accumulated by the Mining Development Fund as of 2019, but explains that the Directorate General of Mines and Geology (DGMG) confirmed that the fund had been dissolved by Parliament in 2021. There is no further explanation in the public domain about the way in which the fund was managed nor where the accumulated funds were transferred at the fund’s dissolution in 2021. The EITI Report also provides a cursory description of the Forestry Development Fund. There is no further evidence that the CAR has yet used its EITI reporting to describe the government’s budget and audit cycles, nor to reference links to additional information on these aspects of public finance management. Nonetheless, the Ministry of Finance and Budget website publishes the budget law (loi des finances) annually, even if it does not publish the budget execution report (loi de règlement). There is no evidence that the CAR EITI has yet considered the potential for disclosures of any further information related to the budget cycle, production and commodity price assumptions and revenue sustainability, resource dependence, and revenue forecasting, as encouraged by Requirement 5.3.c.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 4.6 is not applicable. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template confirms that the objective of transparency in subnational direct payments is not applicable in the CAR. Stakeholders consulted did not express any views on progress towards this objective. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with national stakeholders in considering the objective as not applicable. The CAR’s EITI Reports confirm that there are no direct payments by extractive companies to subnational government entities, given that all government revenue-collecting entities are national government entities with branches in different areas of the country. There is no evidence that any subnational government entities in the CAR have (licit) revenue-raising authorities. Although there are anecdotal reports of ad hoc payments from extractive companies to actors at the subnational level, these appear to be non-state actors rather than local government entities. While third-party reports of local government officials awarding mining rights at the subnational level without involvement of the Ministry of Mines in Bangui (see Requirements 2.2 and 2.3) imply that there could be certain direct subnational payments from mining companies to local governments, there is insufficient information in the public domain about the existence and materiality of these payments. Such potential payments should be investigated in future CAR EITI Reports.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 5.2 is not applicable. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template considers that the objective of transparency in subnational transfers to empower local stakeholders to know what they are owed is partly met, on the basis of EITI disclosures related to the forestry sector. Stakeholders consulted did not express views on progress towards this objective. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with the MSG’s self-assessment in considering the objective as not applicable. The CAR’s EITI Reports confirm that there are no subnational transfers of government revenues in the mining or petroleum sectors, only in forestry. The 2021 EITI Report provides calculations of the notional aggregate value of subnational transfers in the forestry sector (to all communes combined) based on the revenue-sharing formula. However, it explains that the gaps in Treasury (DGTCP) reporting of subnational transfers in forestry meant that no further analysis of notional and actual subnational transfers of forestry revenues could be undertaken. Nonetheless, the International Secretariat considers that Requirement 5.2 should be considered not applicable given the lack of subnational transfers in either mining or petroleum.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 6.1 is mostly met. The MSG’s ‘Transparency template considers that the objective of public understanding of extractive companies’ social and environmental contributions is mostly met. Most stakeholders consulted did not express views on progress towards this objective, but some civil society and industry stakeholders considered that the objective was still in process of being fulfilled given weaknesses in government oversight of extractive companies’ social and environmental contributions. The International Secretariat’s view agrees with national stakeholders in considering the objective as mostly met, given the lack of clarity on the existence of any mandatory social expenditures in the mining sector offset by efforts to disclose oil and gas companies’ mandatory social expenditures, even if more disaggregation is needed. The lack of clarity on mining companies’ environmental payments to government is also a significant concern. In its comments to the draft Validation report, the MSG reveals the existence of environmental taxes in the Article 29 of the 2014 Finance Law "Environmental tax on forestry and mining companies other than radioactive minerals”. With regards to social expenditures, the 2021 EITI Report describes two types of mandatory social expenditures applicable in the oil and gas sector, but does not comment on the existence of any provisions for mandatory social expenditures in the mining sector. In consultation, the IA confirmed that there was no indication of any mandatory social expenditures in current mining licenses, but conceded that there did appear to be voluntary social expenditures in practice. However, an industry representative consulted noted his impression that mining companies were required to conclude agreements with host communities in accordance with the 2009 Mining Code. Indeed the 2009 Mining Code includes provisions for companies holding any mining licenses (aside from exploration licenses and quarrying authorisations) are required to submit environmental and social management plans to the Ministry of Mines (Articles 41 and 105), as well as provisions for companies holding large- and small-scale mining licenses to submit a community development programme as part of their license application (Article 34). The CAR EITI Reports have provided more information on mandatory social expenditures in the petroleum sector. The first type of mandatory social expenditures for oil and gas companies consists of annual cash contributions to the Petroleum Promotion Support Fund (FSPP). The EITI Report describes the statutory FSPP contribution requirements, including applicable rates, and discloses two of the three material oil and gas companies’ contributions to the FSPP in 2021 (sourced from the Directorate General of Petroleum (DGP) annual report for 2021). The report also discloses the planned allocation of these FSPP funds for 2021, which was agreed between the oil companies and the DGP. However, the report is transparent that the DGP did not provide any information on the actual management of these FSPP funds in 2021, thus hindering public understanding of the way in which these FSPP funds were used in practice in 2021. The second type of mandatory social expenditures for oil and gas companies consists of annual cash contributions to the Community Development Projects Support Fund (FSPDC). The EITI Report describes the statutory FSPDC contribution requirements, including applicable rates, and discloses two of the three material oil and gas companies’ contributions to the FSPDC in 2021 (sourced from the DGP annual report for 2021). The EITI Report only provides general information on the types of activities to be funded by the FSPDC, but notes that there were no disbursements of FSPDC funds in 2021 due to the security crises in 2020-2021. The EITI Report does not comment on whether mining or petroleum companies undertook any voluntary social expenditures in 2021, as encouraged by Requirement 6.1.d. Some international press coverage such as a June 2023 article in Africa Intelligence have described some mining companies’ social expenditures on health centres, schools and infrastructure for military parades, which appear to be voluntary forms of social expenditures. With regards to environmental payments to government, the 2021 EITI Report does not clarify whether mining or petroleum companies make any payments to government related to the environment. However, the list of material revenue streams included in the scope of reconciliation does not include any payments related to the environment, despite the fact that all applicable revenue streams were included in the scope of EITI disclosures with a materiality threshold of zero (see Requirement 4.1). The MSG’s ‘Transparency’ template for this Validation stated that environmental payments are not applicable in the CAR in the period under review. However, the International Secretariat’s review of the 2007 Environment Code published on the CAR EITI website includes provisions (Article 82) for companies operating on “classified installations” (which includes mining sites) to undertake payments related to the environment including in the form of pollution tax, annual fee for the inspection of classified installations, and tax on vapor and gas equipment. None of these types of payments to government related to the environment are listed in the CAR’s EITI Reports raising questions around the comprehensiveness of disclosures of mining companies’ payments to government related to the environment. In consultation, the IA explained that they had not covered these revenues despite visiting the Ministry of Environment because they were told that these environmental taxes and levies were not implemented in practice. With regards to environmental expenditures (to third parties), the CAR’s EITI Reports have not yet commented on the existence of any environmental expenditures to third parties in the mining and petroleum sectors, as encouraged by Requirement 6.1.d, such as contributions to environmental rehabilitation funds. In consultations, several CSOs highlighted the importance of social and environmental contributions by mining companies to secure their social license to operate, but called for capacity building to improve government oversight of these contributions.