Making Collective Governance Work – Lessons from the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.
This Human Rights Watch report argues for incorporating human rights requirements more fully into the EITI Standard. It contends that fundamental freedoms need to be respected for the EITI to achieve its ultimate goal of strengthening governance in oil, gas and mining sectors. The report includes case studies from five countries [Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Myanmar, Ethiopia and Equatorial Guinea] and warns that in repressive environments, transparency can be little more than an empty gesture and even be counter-productive.
This is the final report from the evaluation of the EITI that was comissioned by the EITI Board and conducted October 2010 to May 2011 by Scanteam. Scanteam was chosen to undertake the evaluation following an open tender
The purpose and overall aim of this evaluation was to document, analyse and assess the relevance and effectiveness of the EITI, where EITI’s objectives are to strengthen transparency of natural resource revenues recognising that this “can reduce corruption, and that the revenue from extractive industries can transform economies, reduce poverty,
Transforming institutional quality in resource curse contexts: The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative in Myanmar
Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives (MSIs) are voluntary partnerships between governments, civil society, and the private sector which seek to promote good governance by holding governments and corporations accountable to citizens. Although MSIs conduct a great deal of research on transparency and good governance and have produced volumes of reports – some of which are critical of governments – they tend to be known mainly to a few stakeholders and devotees. The public is largely unfamiliar with them. Consequently, the public does not believe that MSIs have achieved much real-world impact.
This report examines three prominent Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives (MSIs) – the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and Open Government Partnership (OGP) through the dual lenses of peer learning and peer pressure. The term “peers” implies a degree of equality between the participating parties. Peer review is defined as examinations that are systematic in their nature, of a state by another state(s), specifically designated institutions or a combination of the two. In MSIs, peer reviews are premised on mutual trust, non-confrontation,
– Case Studies of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), Open Government Partnership (OGP) and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) in Ghana, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Tanzania
This report examines four African states (Ghana, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Tanzania), and their membership in three multi-stakeholder initiatives: the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), and the Open Government Partnership (OGP).
An Overview and Literature Review
This report reviews literature on three Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives (MSIs) – the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and the Open Governance Partnership (OGP) – to provide an overview of how each MSI function and evaluate the extent to which each has impacted policy and governance issues thus far.
Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives (MSIs) are voluntary partnerships between governments, civil society, and the private sector that have emerged over the last 15 years to address development challenges collaboratively, entrench democratic practices, and strengthen regulatory frameworks. MSIs operate on the premise that governance outcomes can be improved by increased transparency and enhanced stakeholder participation in policy reforms.
This research contributes to the literature on natural resources and conflict. Christensen shows that the probability of a protest or riot in a locality roughly doubles where a commercial mine starts production. By contrast, he sees no effect on the likelihood of rebel activity or armed conflict.
The paper finds that the usual grievance-based explanations, such as environmental issues, in-migration, displacement, inequality and corruption, do little to predict where and when protests occur. Instead,