The Board agreed that the Democratic Republic of the Congo has made meaningful progress overall in implementing the 2016 EITI Standard.

In addition to regular public statements of support from the government, five senior Ministers participate actively in the MSG. The MSG's Chair and Vice Chair have the confidence of all stakeholders and the ability to mobilise resources for EITI implementation. EITI focal points within government reporting entities work closely with the DRC EITI.

Oil, gas and mining companies are fully, actively and effectively engaged in the EITI process. They are required to disclose information by law and generally comply with EITI reporting requirements. They participate actively in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the EITI process through their participation in MSG meetings. The Chamber of Mines promotes the EITI in its activities.

There are concerns that the general context led to restrictions of civic space, particularly with regards to freedom of expression, operation and association. Despite alarming reports, such threats were not linked to the EITI or broader natural resource governance issues, but rather to the electoral process. With regards to freedom of expression, publicly available evidence and stakeholder views points to limitations in at least three areas related to the EITI process: the management of revenues by SOEs, politically-exposed persons’ link to the extractive sector, and the award of licenses in the forestry sector. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that such limitations curbed civil society’s ability to express its views on the EITI process, including on issues that are not directly covered by the EITI Standard. Moreover, findings related to the forestry sector are not considered in the overall assessment of compliance with the EITI Standard. Regarding freedom of operation, there were legitimate concerns around the draft ASBL law, in addition to a wider context where the process for registering CSOs was allegedly bureaucratic and foreign CSOs were evicted from the DRC. However, there is no evidence of legal, regulatory or administrative obstacles affecting the ability of civil society representatives to raise funds or participate in the EITI process. In terms of freedom of association, none of the documented cases of restrictions to peaceful demonstrations and Internet were linked to the EITI process of targeted CSOs substantially involved in the EITI process. In addition, CSOs represented in the MSG liaised with CSO representatives in several provinces around the DRC. All stakeholders consulted highlighted the remarkable level of engagement demonstrated by CSOs substantially involved in the EITI process. There is extensive evidence of CSOs’ ability to fully contribute to and provide substantive input to EITI reporting, engage with other constituencies, and use the EITI to demand further investigations and accountability in the management of revenues. Finally, CSOs have clear access to decision making, including through direct access to policy-makers on the MSG and consultations in the process of revising sector legislation.

The MSG includes adequate representation of each constituency, even though the process by which the industry constituency nominates their representatives is not clearly documented. The MSG’s ToR outlines the roles and responsibilities of MSG members, and meeting records show that MSG members are generally carrying out their duties and responsibilities. There is evidence of outreach and coordination within each of the three broader constituencies represented on the MSG. The rules related to quorum and decision-making treat all three constituencies as equal partners and appear to be followed in practice. However, pending enactment of the new EITI Decree drafted in 2018, the governance documents of the DRC EITI have not yet been updated with the transition to the EITI Standard in 2013. There are deviations from these governance documents in practice. While the ToR gives the MSG a mandate to approve work plans, to appoint the IA and approve the IA’s ToR, EITI Reports and annual activity reports, it includes only cursory internal governance rules and procedures that do not extend to clear conflict of interest rules or a broader Code of Conduct. The lack of clarity on per diem practices is a significant concern. The ambiguity related to internal governance came to a head during the internal governance crisis in the DRC EITI in 2016-2017, which could be interpreted as a violation of the global EITI Code of Conduct. Although the MSG’s oversight of the national secretariat led to a temporary solution allowing EITI implementation to resume ahead of Validation, the internal governance of EITI DRC remains precarious. Concerns that the appointment of the ad interim national coordinator did not adhere to the applicable rules, uncertainty in the management of day-to-day implementation and the risk of conflict of interests could undermine the credibility of the EITI.

While the MSG only had a temporary work plan for the December 2017-June 2018 period, EITI implementation continued on the basis of the provisional work plan during this period. Interruptions in MSG oversight of EITI implementation in the 2016-2017 period are covered under Requirement 1.4. The July 2018-July 2021 triennial work plan reflects local stakeholders’ concerns to make EITI implementation meaningful, aiming for a demonstrable positive impact for the Congolese population of improved governance in the extractive sector. The work plan is publicly accessible, produced in a timely manner and fully costed. It is aligned with national priorities and the views of EITI stakeholders.

The 2015 EITI Report addressed significant aspects of the Requirement but did not address the technical and financial criteria applied in the oil sector. The 2016 Contextual EITI Report provided descriptions of the statutory process for awarding or transferring licenses, particularly detailed for mining, including the technical and financial criteria. It provides information about licenses awarded or transferred in 2016 and 2017. There were, however, concerns raised through reporting and stakeholder views about the comprehensiveness of disclosures regarding non-trivial deviations from the applicable legal and regulatory framework.

The Ministry of Mines maintains a publicly-available register for mining licenses. The 2016 Contextual EITI Report references and comments on the online cadastre. The DRC EITI website provides the list of all valid mining rights as of 31 December 2016 and 2017. While the coordinates are not available on the online cadastre or the DRC website, they are available in individual ministerial arrêtés approving license awards or transfers published by the Ministry of Mines. There are no concerns over the overall comprehensiveness of licenses covered. The DRC does not hold a similar publicly available license register in the hydrocarbons sector. However, the DRC EITI website provides a summary of the register held by SGH.

The DRC has a clear policy for contract disclosure, with tangible efforts from the Ministry of Mines and the Ministry of Hydrocarbons to operationalise it in practice. The DRC has made efforts to go beyond the minimum requirements through the DRC EITI’s efforts, together with broader constituencies particularly within civil society, to support the implementation of the government’s pro-disclosure policy by identifying contractual documents not yet made publicly available.

Most laws and regulations applicable to the hydrocarbons and mining sector are publicly available online, including on the DRC EITI website. EITI reporting thoroughly describes the applicable legal and fiscal regime in both sectors, including the level of fiscal devolution, information about the roles and responsibilities of the relevant government agencies, and the reforms as recently as June 2018. The DRC has made efforts to go beyond the minimum requirement by publicly describing the implementation of legal provisions in practice and in providing input to the development of new laws and regulations.

Implementing countries are not yet required to address beneficial ownership, and progress with this requirement does not yet have any implications for a country’s EITI status. The DRC should be commended for the steps taken towards beneficial ownership transparency, including piloting beneficial ownership disclosure since 2015 and working to establish a legal and institutional framework for mining.

While the DRC has made significant efforts to improve the transparency of financial relations between SOEs and the government, the broader objective of transparency in state participation is not yet fully achieved. The reports provide an assessment of the materiality of state participation in the mining, oil and gas sectors, and provide a comprehensive list of SOEs for EITI reporting purposes. While the reports describe the types of payments, both statutory and in practice, made by SOEs to the government, they do not comprehensively describe SOEs’ statutory rights to retain earnings, reinvest in their operations and seek third party (debt and equity) financing. The 2016 Supplementary EITI Report provides extensive information on the practice of financial relations between nine material SOEs and the state in 2016, although certain stakeholders consulted raised concerns over the comprehensiveness and reliability of some SOEs’ (unaudited) financial statements, on which this review was based. The reports provide a comprehensive list of companies in which the state and SOEs hold equity, although the comprehensiveness of SOE equity interests in the mining sector is unclear. The reports do not clearly describe the terms associated with each state and SOE equity interest in extractives companies, including the government and SOE’s level of responsibility to cover expenses at various phases of the project cycle, e.g. full-paid equity, free equity and carried interest. The reports comment on changes in government direct equity in extractives companies in the years under review, but do not systematically comment on changes in SOEs’ ownership of equity interests in extractives companies. The reports provide information on loans and guarantees to extractive companies provided by SOEs, but not by the state, although the comprehensiveness of these disclosures is unclear.

The DRC’s EITI reporting provides a comprehensive overview of the extractive industries, including significant exploration activities in both mining and oil and gas. The Ministry of Mines has taken steps to make geological data and information about mining operators publicly available through Its website.

Production volumes in aggregate and per commodity were disclosed through EITI reporting, with some data disaggregated by company. The Ministry of Mines website and the Division Provincial des Mines of former Katanga provide timely disclosure of mineral production volumes. Production volumes in the oil sector are available through EITI reporting. There is no publicly available information about the valuation of production in either mining or oil and gas. However, stakeholders have taken steps through the EITI to agree to a method for calculating the value of production in the mining sector and encouraging regulatory changes were introduced in 2018 to improve reporting on international prices.

The 2015 EITI Report provides export volumes and values for all extractive commodities exported in 2015. While the lack of export values in the 2016 Contextual EITI Report is a concern, the government’s efforts to agree to a consistent methodology for valuing mining commodity production and exports should ensure consistent disclosure of export values in the future. There is also some evidence of timely systematic disclosures of mining export volumes through the Ministry of Mines website.

EITI reporting since 2012 has disclosed terms of agreements involving the provision of loans and infrastructure works in full exchange for mining exploration or production concessions, through SICOMINES. The MSG and the IA have gained an understanding of the terms of the relevant agreements and contracts, the parties involved, the resources pledged by the state, the value of the balancing benefit stream, and the materiality of these agreements relative to conventional contracts. This understanding covers financial and in-kind operations within DRC, not the terms of the financing arrangements between CREC, SINOHYDRO and China Exim Bank. These disclosures were commended by stakeholders, contributing to promoting debate around a key agreement.

The 2015 EITI Report reconciled direct subnational payments in mining to the former Katanga Provincial Government. There is a lack of clarity surrounding the materiality of these payments, the existence of other types of direct subnational payments that are not extractives-specific, and revenues collected by other provincial authorities other than DRKAT. The 2016 scoping study partly addresses issues around the materiality of direct subnational payments, noting that no materiality threshold was applied to extractives-specific revenue streams and providing unilateral disclosures of extractives-specific direct payments for nine of 26 provinces.

Reconciled 2015 financial data was disclosed by company, government entity and revenue stream. Stakeholders in the DRC have taken encouraging steps to disclose revenues by project.

While the report includes the IA’s assessment that reconciled EITI data was comprehensive and reliable, the basis for this conclusion is unclear given significant gaps in company and government adherence to quality assurances agreed to for EITI reporting. Several stakeholders consulted expressed concerns about data reliability. Nonetheless, the 2015 EITI Report lists the names of reporting companies and government entities that did not adhere to the agreed quality assurances, and it is possible to assess the materiality of their payments based on data in the report.

The challenges in demonstrating satisfactory progress in meeting Requirement 4.1 in the DRC are fundamentally linked to weaknesses in government record keeping. It would be unreasonable to conclude that the MSG should be expected to resolve these before making materiality decisions. At the same time, the IA has expressed concerns over the exclusion of certain extractives revenues collected by SOEs from the scope of reconciliation on the basis of unclear documentation and a lack of statutory basis for such revenues. While the 15 non-reporting companies’ share of extractives revenues appears to be insignificant, there is scope for improving the MSG’s follow-up with non-reporting entities to ensure that all material companies participate in EITI reporting.

The 2015 EITI Report confirmed there were no in-kind revenues in either mining or oil and gas, given that the oil and gas PSCs had not yet entered production in 2016.

Material transport revenues in the oil and gas sector, linked to the transportation pipeline from Angola, have been unilaterally disclosed in the DRC’s EITI Reports. The convention determining the level of transport fees is publicly available and its terms described in the DRC’s EITI Reports.

The 2015 EITI Report discloses and reconciles company payments to SOEs and SOE statutory transfers to the government, although both the report and stakeholder consultations raised significant concerns over the comprehensiveness of the reconciliation of company payments to SOEs. The report does not disclose or reconcile government transfers to SOEs, nor refer to any ad hoc SOE transfers to government entities other than to the Treasury.

The 2015 EITI Report was published in December 2017, namely within two years of the end of the fiscal period covered. There is evidence of the MSG approving the reporting period in the 2015 EITI Report and the 2016 scoping study. The Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Mines should be commended for taking steps to disclose timelier information on revenues through its routine systems.

The 2015 EITI Report indicates the specific extractives revenues that were recorded in the national budget and those retained by government entities and SOEs. The allocation of revenues retained by government entities and SOEs remains unclear despite significant additional information in the 2016 Supplementary EITI Report on SOEs’ retained earnings.

The DRC has taken steps to improve EITI reporting of subnational transfers in the mining sector, providing a diagnostic tool and platform for debate for stakeholders. The 2015 EITI Report provides a description of the statutory rules on extractives revenue-sharing with local governments, disclosed discrepancies between the amount calculated in accordance with the revenue- sharing formula and the actual amount transferred for the ex-Katanga Provincial Government, and reconciled Ministry of Finance and ex-Katanga Provincial Government data. However, it does not provide information about subnational transfers in the hydrocarbon sector, nor about the status of transfers to the other subnational government entities (e.g. decentralised territorial entities and Provincial Governments other than ex-Katanga). The 2016 Contextual Report discloses data about actual subnational transfers in 2016 and compared it to the notional value of subnational transfers according to the revenue-sharing formula, albeit not disaggregated by province. It also clarifies the status of subnational transfers in the oil and gas sector.

Reporting on revenue management and expenditures is encouraged, but not required by the EITI Standard and progress with this requirement will not have any implications for a country’s EITI status. It is encouraging that the DRC provides public information on extractive revenues earmarked for specific funds and the budget-making process through both routine government systems and EITI reporting.

The DRC’s EITI reporting has provided unilateral company disclosures of mandatory and voluntary social expenditures for 22 companies in 2016, disaggregated between cash and in-kind expenditures. Stakeholders have however expressed significant concerns about the comprehensiveness of disclosures of mandatory social expenditures given the low number of reporting companies. The underlining objective has therefore not been achieved, while recognising that the DRC EITI has taken important steps to improve disclosures, leading to the publication of an agreed definition of mandatory social expenditures and updated EITI reporting templates for social expenditures. The new Mining Code is expected to lead to improvements in the traceability of social expenditures in the mining sector.

There is evidence of the DRC EITI taking steps to improve reporting about quasi-fiscal expenditures for 2016, based on a review of SOEs’ financial statements. However, there are concerns that SOEs’ ad hoc expenditures not registered in the national budget could be categorised as quasi-fiscal expenditures, as emphasised by stakeholders consulted.

The reports disclose data on the extractive industries’ contribution, in absolute and relative terms, to GDP, government revenues, exports and employment. The reports also list regions where production is concentrated. The DRC has also made efforts to capture the contribution of the informal sector by taking steps to map out available data on the ASM sector for key commodities and highlighting challenges in ASM data collection and disclosure. Despite these efforts, more work is needed for a comprehensive overview of the informal sector contribution to the economy.

Requirement 7.2 encourages the EITI implementing countries to make EITI Reports accessible in open data formats. Such efforts are encouraged but not required, and they are not assessed in determining compliance with the EITI Standard. Efforts by the DRC EITI to make both contextual and financial data available in open format on the DRC EITI website and to compare EITI data with data from the Ministry of Finance should be commended.

The 2017 annual progress report provides a detailed narrative account of the impact of EITI implementation in the period under review, highlighting its contribution to public debates and reforms in key areas such as state participation in the extractives and in contract transparency. Preparation of the 2017 annual progress report was subject to broad consultations with all constituencies and was approved by the MSG. Stakeholders also regularly assess the impact of EITI implementation through other channels. There was consensus among the stakeholders consulted that the EITI had significantly built trust between stakeholders, strengthened their capacity to monitor the extractive industries and contributed to substantial reforms, but that its impact on improving the governance of the sector remained limited.

EITI Reports and thematic reports are comprehensible and actively promoted using innovative approaches of online publication, radio shows, students’ competitions and townhall debates. EITI data is publicly accessible and has tangibly contributed to public debate and in shaping government policies and regulations on the extractive industries. The DRC EITI, with support from partners such as GIZ, has made efforts to go beyond the minimum requirements by developing interactive radio shows, model games for students and disseminations campaigns targeting key user groups, including local communities, parliamentarians, students and journalists.

There is strong evidence that the DRC EITI has taken steps to act upon lessons learned and considered recommendations resulting from EITI reporting, particularly on areas of key interests for stakeholders. The MSG has also sought to identify, investigate and address the causes of discrepancies in EITI reconciliation, building on strong ties between the DRC EITI and focal points within reporting entities and auditing institutions, as well as commitment from high-level officials to improve disclosures.