Skip to main content

Le Conseil d'Administration a convenu que le Timor Leste a réalisé des progrès satisfaisants dans la mise en oeuvre de la Norme ITIE 2016.

Decision number
2018-15
Decision basis
2016 EITI Standard, Requirement 8.3 EITI Validation deadlines and consequences
12 February 2018

Décision du Conseil d'administration

Le Conseil d’administration de l’ITIE a convenu que le Timor-Leste a pris toutes les mesures correctives provenant de la première Validation du pays. Par conséquent, le Timor-Leste a, dans l’ensemble, réalisé des progrès satisfaisants relativement à la mise en œuvre de la Norme ITIE. 

Le Conseil d’administration de l’ITIE salue les efforts que le Timor-Leste a déployés pour prendre ces mesures correctives, en améliorant le niveau des divulgations dans les Rapports ITIE et en promouvant une participation plus significative de la société civile et des entreprises.

Le Conseil d’administration s’est également félicité des progrès accomplis dans l’intégration de la mise en œuvre de l’ITIE et a encouragé le Groupe de travail multipartite à examiner plus avant les possibilités en matière d’amélioration des divulgations du gouvernement et des entreprises.

Le Groupe de travail multipartite devra continuer à garantir le respect des Principes de l’ITIE et des Exigences de la Norme ITIE. Lorsque des préoccupations sont soulevées quant à savoir si la mise en œuvre de l’ITIE est tombée sous le niveau requis, le Conseil d’administration se réserve le droit de demander au pays concerné de procéder à une nouvelle Validation. Conformément à l’Exigence 8.3.b, les parties prenantes peuvent adresser une requête au Conseil d’administration de l’ITIE si elles considèrent qu’une révision du statut du Timor-Leste est nécessaire. Sinon, aux termes de l’Exigence 8.3.d.i, le Timor-Leste se soumettra à une deuxième Validation dans un délai de trois ans, qui démarrera le 13 février 2021

Contexte

 

En février 2008, le Timor-Leste a été admis en tant que candidat à l’ITIE et a été désigné conforme aux Règles de l’ITIE en juillet 2010. 

La première Validation du Timor-Leste a démarré le 1er juillet 2016. Le 11 janvier 2017, le Conseil d’administration de l’ITIE a établi que le Timor-Leste avait réalisé des progrès significatifs dans la mise en œuvre de la Norme ITIE 2016. Le Conseil d’administration a déterminé sept mesures correctives, qui portent sur les aspects suivants :

  1. L’engagement de l’industrie (1.2) ;

  2. L’engagement de la société civile (1.3) ;

  3. La gouvernance du Groupe multipartite (1.4) ;

  4. La désagrégation (Exigence 4.7) ;

  5. La qualité des données (4.9) ;

  6. Les dépenses sociales obligatoires (6.1) ;

  7. Les résultats et l’impact de la mise en œuvre (7.4).

Le Conseil d’administration a demandé au Timor-Leste de prendre ces mesures correctives, dont l’exécution ferait l’objet d’une évaluation dans le cadre d’une deuxième Validation, qui démarrerait le 11 janvier 2018.

La deuxième Validation du Timor-Leste a commencé le 11 janvier 2018. La Validation a été menée conformément à la procédure sur laquelle s’était mis d’accord le Comité de Validation et au plan de travail 2018.

Plus particulièrement :

  1. Le Groupe multipartite a été informé du début de la Validation et a été invité à faire part au Secrétariat de tout commentaire et inquiétude concernant la mise en œuvre de l’ITIE et les progrès dans la mise en œuvre des mesures correctives.

  2. Le Secrétariat international de l’ITIE a mené une étude documentaire, évaluant les progrès accomplis dans la mise en œuvre des sept mesures correctives identifiées par le Conseil d’administration de l’ITIE. L’étude documentaire a suivi la procédure standard pour la collecte des données et la consultation des parties prenantes conformément aux procédures de Validation. L’évaluation initiale du Secrétariat conclut que le Timor Leste a mis en œuvre l’ensemble des mesures correctives et a accompli des « progrès satisfaisants » sur les exigences concernées.

  3. Le projet d’évaluation a été envoyé au Groupe de travail multipartite du Timor Leste (MSWG) pour commentaires le 19 janvier.

  4. Suite à la réception de ces commentaires, l’évaluation du Secrétariat sera finalisée pour examen par le Conseil d’administration de l’ITIE par le truchement du Comité de Validation.

  5. Le Comité de Validation examinera l’évaluation du Secrétariat et les commentaires du Groupe multipartite. Le Comité décidera ensuite s’il est nécessaire de demander des informations supplémentaires, de s’en remettre au Validateur indépendant ou s’il est en mesure de faire une recommandation au Conseil d’administration.

 

Scorecard for Timor-Leste: 2018

Assessment of EITI requirements

  • Not met
  • Partly met
  • Mostly met
  • Fully met
  • Exceeded
Scorecard by requirement View more Assessment View more

Overall Progress

MSG oversight

1.1Government engagement

The government is committed to the EITI and relevant government representatives are part of the multi-stakeholder group (MSG).

1.2Industry engagement

The issues regarding disaggregated data and confidentiality agreements were addressed during the preparation of the 2014 and 2015 EITI Reports. Discussions during MSWG meetings subsequent to the first Validation show that the companies are continuously engaged in the EITI process and are willing to adhere to the principles of the EITI. Even though the constituency has reserved the right to require confidentiality agreements if it becomes necessary, it appears that the companies are willing to forego these agreements as long as they are satisfied with the credibility of the Independent Administrator (IA). To ensure this, companies were closely involved in the selection of the IA for the 2014 and 2015 EITI Reports.

1.3Civil society engagement

Civil society has made efforts to improve the quality of their participation in the EITI process as shown by the contributions to the discussions of the EITI Report, annual progress report and mainstreaming, consultations with local CSOs, regular participation in MSWG meetings and efforts to improve the process for selecting representatives to the MSWG.

1.4MSG governance

It appears that the CSO representatives have implemented the activities in the capacity building plan and have sought external assistance from government and international partners to improve their understanding of the sector and of revenue management. Civil society has also addressed the issue of language barrier by pushing for the use of Tetum in all meetings and documents. Consequently, they have been able to participate in the technical discussions related to EITI reporting such as the sustainability of the petroleum fund, the need for disaggregated data for social expenditures and local content, and the scope of beneficial ownership disclosures.

1.5Work plan

The work plan has clear objectives linked to national priorities for the extractive sector, as well as more detailed actions and timelines. Costing is missing for some items, and implementation is slightly behind schedule.

Licenses and contracts

2.1Legal framework

Comprehensive disclosure of relevant laws, regulations and fiscal regime in both the 2012 and 2013 EITI Reports.

2.2License allocations

The 2013 EITI Report and the Supplementary Report provide sufficient detail about license allocations including the financial and technical criteria and deviations applicable to PSC 11-106. This requirement was not applicable in 2012 as no licenses were transferred or awarded.

2.3License register

Although coordinates are not all available online, ANPM (National Petroleum and Mineral Authorities) has confirmed that they can be obtained without restriction. ANPM has provided reasonable justifications for why the date of application for the licenses is not available. On balance, the Secretariat’s assessment is that it would be disproportionate to consider this requirement unmet, and that there has been satisfactory progress with meeting this requirement. It is recommended that ANPM updates its online license map to include these details for future PSC awards.

2.4Policy on contract disclosure

The 2013 EITI Report refers to contract summaries found in other sources such as the NPA’s website and “Jornal de Republica”. The 2016 EITI work plan also lists contract transparency as a priority. The EITI Report comments on actual practice on contract transparency, and government representatives have clarified the government’s policy on contract disclosure.

2.5Beneficial ownership

Not assessed

There is no evidence that the multi-stakeholder group has discussed this topic in any detail.

2.6State participation

Not applicable

The 2013 EITI Report states that this requirement is not applicable in Timor-Leste as state-participation does not yet give rise to material revenues. However, some information related to Timor Gap has been provided.

Monitoring production

3.1Exploration data

The 2013 EITI Report provides an overview of the sector, including a brief overview of one exploration activity.

3.2Production data

Production volumes are not disaggregated by commodity, and production values by commodity are not included in the EITI Report but ANPM (National Petroleum and Mineral Authorities) subsequently provided this information on their website.

3.3Export data

Export values are not disaggregated by commodity, and export volumes by commodity are not included in the EITI Report but ANPM (National Petroleum and Mineral Authorities) subsequently provided this information on their website.

Revenue collection

4.1Comprehensiveness

For both 2013 and 2013 EITI Reports, disclosures of payments and revenues are comprehensive.

4.2In-kind revenues

Not applicable

The 2013 and 2012 EITI Reports confirm that in-kind revenues were not applicable in 2012.

4.3Barter agreements

Not applicable

There was no mention of barter and infrastructure payments in the 2013 and 2012 EITI Reports. However, the 2015 Annual Activity Report confirms that barter and infrastructure arrangements are not applicable.

4.4Transportation revenues

Not applicable

The 2013 and 2012 EITI Reports include disclosure of a pipeline fee. Given that the fee is not material relative to total government revenues from the sector, the International Secretariat’s initial assessment is that this requirement is not applicable.

4.5SOE transactions

The 2013 Report discusses Timor GAP’s (the national oil company) financial relationship with the government, as well as its management of Tasi Mane project and provides all disclosures related to transactions between the government and Timor GAP.

4.6Direct subnational payments

Not applicable

There was no reference to subnational direct payments in the 2013 and 2012 EITI Reports. However, the 2015 EITI Annual Activity Report confirms that subnational direct payments are not applicable.

4.7Disaggregation

All revenues in the 2014 and 2015 EITI Reports are disclosed to the levels required by the Standard. Further, the data is disaggregated by individual project. Consequently, the corrective action on Requirement 4.7 has been addressed.

4.8Data timeliness

The 2013 EITI Report was published by the deadline of 31 December 2015. The national multi-stakeholder group is encouraged to explore opportunities for publishing more timely EITI data.

4.9Data quality

The Secretariat is satisfied that the 2014 and 2015 EITI Reports were produced in accordance with the ‘agreed upon procedure for EITI reports’ as outlined in the standard Terms of Reference for Independent Administrators developed by the EITI Board. There was a concerted effort from the MSWG to address the deficiencies in the reporting process, particularly in ensuring that the templates were developed in consultation with the IA. The 2014 and 2015 EITI reports also now clearly explain the assurance procedures for companies and government. Concerns regarding the credibility of the IA have been addressed, with the MSWG members confirming that they perceive the current IA to be credible and competent.

Revenue allocation

5.1Distribution of revenues

The 2012 and 2013 EITI Reports disclose how revenues are allocated.

5.2Subnational transfers

Not applicable

The 2014 Annual Activity Report confirms that sub-national transfers are not applicable.

5.3Revenue management and expenditures

Not assessed

In response to public interest in spending, the national multi-stakeholder group has included transparency in public expenditure, including investment decisions as one of its priorities in the 2015 and 2016 work plans. There are references to how to access further budget and expenditure data in the 2015 Annual Activity Report.

Socio-economic contribution

6.1Mandatory social expenditures

The Secretariat is satisfied that the type and value of mandatory social expenditures have been sufficiently explained and disclosed for all relevant companies in the 2014 and 2015 EITI Reports to the levels required by the Standard. Extensive discussions on the type and nature of social expenditures of companies were had during the International Secretariat’s meeting with the MSWG in April 2017. The inputs provided by ANPM and the companies during that meeting clarified what should be considered mandatory social expenditures in Timor-Leste and these were accordingly reflected in the 2014 and 2015 EITI Reports.

6.2Quasi-fiscal expenditures

Not applicable

State-participation in the extractive sector does not yet give rise to material revenue in Timor-Leste both for the 2012 and 2013 EITI Reports.

6.3Economic contribution

Most of this data has been provided, however estimates of informal sector activity and data on extractive industry revenue as a percentage of total government revenue should be disclosed in the future.

Outcomes and impact

7.1Public debate

The national multi-stakeholder group has taken steps to ensure that the EITI Report is comprehensible, actively promoted and publicly accessible. Through the organisation of dissemination events and workshops, TL-EITI has ensured that the EITI has also contributed to public debate.

7.2Data accessibility

Not assessed

TL-EITI does not yet provide EITI data in open data formats. There are considerable efforts underway to mainstream transparency in government systems.

7.3Follow up on recommendations

The national multi-stakeholder group has taken steps to act upon lessons learnt, to identify, investigate and address the causes of any discrepancies and to consider the recommendations for improvements from the Independent Administrator.

7.4Outcomes and impact of implementation

The Secretariat is satisfied that the MWSG has exerted efforts to assess impact and outcomes from their EITI implementation as documented in their 2016 Annual Progress Report. Consequently, the corrective action on Requirement 7.4 has been addressed.