Dominican Republic has achieved a moderate overall score in implementing the 2019 EITI Standard

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 1.5 is fully met, as in the previous Validation. The objective of this requirement is to ensure that the annual planning for EITI implementation supports implementation of national priorities for the extractive industries while laying out realistic activities that are the outcome of consultations with the broader government, industry and civil society constituencies. The annual EITI work plan should be a key accountability document for the MSG vis-à-vis broader constituencies. The Secretariat’s assessment in light of stakeholder consultations is that this objective is fulfilled. Objectives and activities for EITI implementation appear to reflect national priorities and stakeholders’ interests. MSG members participated in the work plan discussions, evaluation and approvals, although other stakeholders beyond the MSG are not engaged via a formal consultation process to review the work plan. Members of the government constituency consulted stated that the actions in the work plan are consistent with the long-term development plan of the Dominican Republic, defined in the National Development Strategy. The civil society constituency also mentioned the work plan alignment with the provisions of the General Environmental Law (64-00) that governs subnational payments, and the Escazú agreement, as the MSG agreed with the CSO recommendation to have a specific objective related to environmental and social aspects incorporated to the work plan. All the EITI-DR work plans are published on the EITI website. The work plan builds on a results-based approach with clear activities, expected outcomes, key deliverables, budget and funding source. It is time-bound and indicates the responsible party. The Annual Progress Report (APR) 2021 presents an update on the work plan activities, recommendations of previous reports and Validation; while intersectoral commissions are planned in the 2023-2025 work plan to ensure quarterly monitoring. The 2021-2022 work plan was jointly funded by the WB and the government. The 2023-2024 work plan is being fully funded by the government, while negotiations with development partners are still ongoing. EITI Reports and APRs have been published annually, while some studies and workshops were also conducted in the period under review. However, according to the Outcomes and Impact template and consultations, the general and municipal elections and the renewal of the MSG in 2020 affected the frequency of MSG meetings, while the COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected the implementation of the work plan activities in 2020 and 2021. Moreover, the 2021-2022 work plan approval was delayed due to the discussions around new activities suggested by CSOs. Financial and logistical difficulties caused by the pandemic remained present in 2021, affecting the completion of outreach and other activities. The 2023-2024 work plan includes activities: (i) to strengthen the capacity of civil society (ii) to systematise recommendations from the previous Validation, EITI Reports and work plan to ensure quarterly follow-up on EITI DR activities; (iii) to develop specific roadmaps to include non-metallic mining data and gender issues in the EITI Report, and a roadmap to disseminate the mechanisms used to determine the amounts transferred to FOMISAR for distribution in compliance with the Law 64-00, and the use of resources at the municipal level in the EITI Report; (iv) to update and implement actions established in the Beneficial Ownership Roadmap; (v) to implement the EITIDR Strategic Communication and Dissemination Plan (vi) to support the design of participatory mechanisms at the municipal level to discuss and agree upon the allocation of sub-national payments; (vii) that emphasised the commitment to environmental sustainability as required by civil society constituency.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 7.1 is mostly met, which represents backsliding from the previous Validation. These weaknesses are due to delays in operationalizing the EITI-DR Strategic Communication and Dissemination Plan. The objective of this requirement is to enable 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. The implementation of the EITI-DR Strategic Communication and Dissemination Plan, focused on inciting public debate at the national and local level, is still pending. During consultations, government representatives confirmed the need to improve EITI dissemination and communication activities in order to strengthen the impact of EITI implementation. Additionally, based on the Outcomes and Impacts Template, communication and dissemination activities that have been conducted to date have not considered inclusion and diversity issues based on the different needs of different groups at the national and subnational levels. Based on available evidence and stakeholder consultations, the Secretariat’s assessment is that the objective is mostly fulfilled. The EITI-DR Reports (full and summary reports) are published online in the EITI-DR Transparency Portal in Spanish and have been printed and distributed to the different ministries involved in the EITI, to the Congress of the Dominican Republic, to universities and to research centres. The Executive Summary of the Data Reconciliation Report for 2019-2020 is comprised of 5 pages, which summarises the main findings from the Reconciliation Report and compares the shares of revenue streams by government entities and companies for the period between 2017-2020. Some events were organised to promote public debate on EITI-DR and extractive industry governance, although there is a need to improve EITI dissemination in general and expand the debate on transparency at the community level to ensure that outreach events are effective, as stated by government and civil society representatives during consultation. These events can be divided in three groups: participation of high-level officials, such as the Minister of Energy and Mines, highlighting the relevance of the EITI in the Dominican Republic; workshops for specific audiences (journalists); and the participation of MSG members in a panel organised by Opening Extractives and the EITI International Secretariat. Government stakeholders consulted also noted that the training sessions for journalists aimed to help them understand technical aspects of government involvement in the extractive sector, including training sessions specifically oriented toward the EITI Standard and the Dominican Republic’s compliance. In the previous Validation, the MSG was encouraged to create a communication strategy focused on inciting public debate at the national and local level. The 2021- 2022 and 2023-2024 work plans focus on one specific objective: to strengthen public understanding of extractive sector governance by ensuring that information and participation mechanisms are in accordance with key audiences. Within this objective, the EITI-DR Strategic Communication and Dissemination Plan is being updated by a working group formed in 2022, which will include a simplified version of the EITI Standard; meetings in municipalities and universities to provide spaces for debate on extractive industry issues; publication of training material; citizen training on the objectives of the EITI Standard; dissemination of the EITI-DR Reports; informative conferences; and dissemination in radio, TV programs and other media. Considering the approval of the 2021-2022 work plan was postponed until September 2021, in addition to the COVID-19 pandemic and postpandemic challenges, some work plan activities are still behind schedule, including those related to the communication strategy.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 7.2 is mostly met given that not all data in EITI Reports has been published in open format. The objective of this requirement is to enable the broader use and analysis of information on the extractive industries, through the publication of information in open data and interoperable formats. The Dominican Republic is assessed as having made significant progress on this requirement, which was not required in the previous assessment conducted under the 2016 EITI Standard. An open data policy has been adopted by EITI-DR and summary data files have been completed and published in open format on the EITI-DR website since 2015, but there is still room to improve as EITI Reports have only been published in PDF to date, and the tables therein have not yet been published in open format. Mining production and mineral export data are available on the EITI-DR website in open format but there is also room for improvement as this information is not up to date. Based on stakeholder consultations and available evidence, the Secretariat considers the objective to be mostly fulfilled. The MSG agreed, through Act No. 19 of 2016, that the National Standard on Information and Communication Technologies (NORTIC A3) would govern the EITI-DR policy on access, publication, and use of EITI-DR data. The EITI-DR has published summary data reports for its EITI Reports for fiscal years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 in open (.xls) format, in Spanish, on the EITI-DR website. Journalists and some government members noted they have been using and analysing EITI data available on the EITI Portal. The following data is available on the EITI-DR website in open (.xls) format: Exploration concessions (from 2013 to 2018); Exploitation concessions (from 1958 to 2017); Mining production (production volume, minerals, 2003-2017); Production of metallic minerals (companies, volume and value of production, from 2003 to 2017); Mineral Exports (exporter, regime, volume, value, destination and tariff, 2010-2018). There is a need to keep the EITI Portal up-to-date as the data listed above was last updated in October 2018. During consultations, development partners also highlighted the need to maintain up-to-date data on the EITI-DR website, while the use of infographics would be recommended to improve accessibility of EITI data. In the previous Validation, it was recommended for EITI-DR to undertake capacity building efforts to support the use of EITI data, especially with civil society organizations, media and legislators. The Feasibility Study for EITI Systematic Disclosures Dominican Republic was published in March 2022, which included a roadmap and recommendations on the future of systematic disclosures in the country. The EITI International Secretariat, with the support of USAID, hired a consultant that will support the systematic disclosure efforts of several implementing countries, including the Dominican Republic, and EITI-DR is considering the possibility of adapting and replicating the online data collection platform used by EITI Colombia. The national secretariat is seeking funding to implement this online data collection platform.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 7.3 is fully met, as in the previous Validation. The objective of this requirement is to ensure that EITI implementation is a continuous learning process that contributes to policy making, based on the MSG regularly considering findings and recommendations from the EITI process and acting on those recommendations it deems are priorities. The MSG has taken some steps to act upon lessons learned, to investigate and address some issues in EITI reporting by incorporating new activities into the EITI work plan to strengthen the governance of extractive industries and improve monitoring and evaluation of the EITI implementation in the country. Follow-up on recommendations is presented in the 2019-2020 EITI Report and APR. Based on available evidence and stakeholder consultations, the Secretariat considers the objective to be fully met. The 2019-2020 EITI Report contains a specific section to present recommendations and follow-up from previous Validation Reports. Furthermore, the MSG prepared a template to monitor the status of the recommendations made in previous Validations, including those related to previous Reconciliation Reports. This template was published in the Annual Progress Report 2021 EITI-DR, which is reviewed, discussed, and approved by the MSG, and presented in the Outcomes and Impact template. It was noted that some activities are still ongoing. This template does not present a timeline or list the entities responsible for implementation, while there is also room to improve the description of the status of completion of these activities. The 2023-2024 work plan includes the need to design a monitoring and evaluation plan for EITI-DR activities that will include Intersectoral Monitoring Commissions by specific objectives to ensure quarterly follow-up (Activity 1.5.1), while systematizing recommendations from previous Validations, EITI Reports and work plans (Activity 1.5.2). In the previous Validation, it was recommended that the Dominican Republic take steps to put into practice the lessons learned with a view to strengthening the impact of EITI implementation on the governance of natural resources. In this sense, the 2021/2022 and 2023/2024 work plans contain a set of actions to strengthen the governance of extractive industries, including roadmaps for the inclusion of non-metallic mining data and gender in future EITI Reports, roadmaps for Systematic Disclosures and for disclosing the mechanisms used to determine the amounts transferred to FOMISAR for distribution in compliance with Law 64-00, while identifying other priorities for EITI implementation in the country. Considering the approval of the 2021- 2022 work plan was postponed until September 2021, added to the COVID19 pandemic and post-pandemic challenges, most of these activities are still behind schedule. Based on the information in the Outcomes and Impact file and along with consultation meetings with the national secretariat and industry constituency, the MSG had its contribution to the development of extractive sector policies limited to the discussions around subnational payments while advancing discussions on beneficial ownership within the scope of the EITI Report and in ongoing reform efforts to the National Mining Law that will be discussed in Congress. A representative from the industry constituency highlighted that the government is still not actively and systematically using the MSG as a platform for dialogue on reforms in the mining sector. A reform to the National Mining Law is being discussed at the Ministry level, while a representative from the industry constituency informed that they are following the discussions through the press. Government stakeholders consulted confirmed that debates around mining reform remain at the Congressional level but that there will be a call for public views of this reform law.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 7.4 is fully met, which is an improvement on the previous Validation. The objective of this requirement is to ensure regular public monitoring and evaluation of implementation, including evaluation of whether the EITI is delivering on its objectives, with a view to ensuring the EITI’s own public accountability. Annual Progress Reports (APR) have been prepared and approved by the MSG since 2016, while a workshop was organised in 2019 to further discuss the impacts of the EITI in the Dominican Republic. Beyond this workshop, the MSG is also planning to conduct a broader impact study in response to a corrective action from the previous Validation. Based on available evidence and stakeholder consultations, the Secretariat considers the objective to be fulfilled. On 11 April 2019, a workshop for the MSG was organised to discuss and document the opinions of the three constituencies on the impacts of the EITI in the Dominican Republic. A final report with the reflections of the MSG was submitted for approval at the MSG’s 23 May 2019 meeting. The MSG has not yet commissioned a planned study on the outcomes and impact of the EITI to continue to respond to a specific corrective action related to Requirement 7.4 in the previous Validation. This study will complement the 2019 workshop but there is not a clear timeline when this study will begin. The MSG approved the 2021 Annual Progress Report (APR) in February 2023. The APR includes a summary of the activities carried out during the completed year, the actions to comply with the requirements of the EITI Standard, a follow-up to the recommendations emanating from the EITI Reports, including Validation, and the execution of the work plan. The MSG had a chance to contribute to the APR, by reviewing and sharing comments to its draft version. However, the 2021 APR does not assess efforts to strengthen the impact of EITI implementation on natural resource governance.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 1.1 is fully met, as in the previous Validation. The objective of this requirement is to ensure a full, active and effective government lead for EITI implementation, both in terms of high-level political leadership and operational engagement, as a means of facilitating all aspects of EITI implementation. Based on stakeholder consultations and available documentation, the Secretariat’s assessment is that the objective has been fulfilled. The EITI implementation is a presidential aim while the government is represented on the MSG at a senior level. Government representatives are fully, actively and effectively engaged in the EITI process, having participated actively in the MSG’s meetings and technical working groups. Alternate representatives attended most of the meetings in 2019 and 2020, while there was improvement in 2021 and 2022 when full members attended most meetings, including the Vice Minister of Mines. There have been regular statements of commitments to the EITI from senior government officials throughout this period. The hosting of the national secretariat within MEM has helped to embed the EITI process within the government system and has facilitated information sharing, but there is still room from improvement in terms of increasing the EITI’s impact on reforms. The national secretariat has three members on its staff (one administrative assistant, one EITI Officer and the National Coordinator). In 2020 there was a change of government in the Dominican Republic that necessitated an update of the MSG members from most government entities, except for the Ministry of Finance, as their representatives were ratified by their Ministers in both government administrations. A formal communication was shared via email with the MSG when there was a change in the government constituency. The EITI implementation is a Presidential aim, for both past and new government administrations, which demonstrates the government’s commitment to transparency. EITI progress is reported to the President every month. The government is represented at a senior level. The MSG is chaired since August 2020 by Mr. Antonio Almonte, Minister of Energy and Mines. Mr. Gustavo Mejía Ricart, the Director of Foreign Affairs at MEM, is the National Coordinator for the EITI-DR. The Vice Minister of Mines, Mr. Miguel Díaz is an active member in the MSG meeting, while the Vice Minister of Social Development in the Ministry of the Presidency, Ms. Betty Soto has been represented by her alternate. Considering that the government awarded their first oil and gas exploration license in 2019, there is an opportunity to invite the vice minister of hydrocarbons to join the MSG and have the MSG engaged with ongoing reforms in the oil and gas sector in the Dominican Republic. MEM has already shared an invitation letter with the new Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources to participate in the MSG meetings, as recommended in previous Validation. The government has taken steps to overcome some barriers to EITI implementation by allocating resources to strengthen civil society participation and mediating conflicts between civil society and industry. The government has also provided leadership in technical discussions about EITI implementation and legal reforms, including discussions to advance on beneficial ownership disclosure within the scope of the EITI Report and discussions on reforms to the mining law. Stakeholder consultations and documentation suggest that high-level engagement has been strong in the period under review, and the national secretariat is providing effective support to the MSG. The government funds the operations of the national secretariat, while EITI implementation was co-funded by the government and the World Bank until April 2022. From May 2022 onwards, it has been fully funded by the government. The funding provided to EITI implementation seems to be adequate although some work plan activities are still behind schedule due to the COVID-19 pandemic and post-pandemic challenges. MEM has resources allocated to the implementation of the EITI within its annual budget allocation, having an Administrative Manager of the Executive Secretariat EITI-DR under the Directorate of Foreign Affairs. EITI information is shared and discussed among government representatives at the MSG, while engagement with the broader constituency beyond the MSG appears to be limited. Based on stakeholder consultations, some government representatives have used EITI information in different forums related to transparency, while it was noted that outreach and dissemination of EITI data by government also occurs.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 1.2 is fully met, as in the previous Validation. The objective of this requirement is to ensure that extractive companies are fully, actively, and effectively engaged in the EITI, both in terms of disclosures and participation in the work of the multi-stakeholder group, and that the government ensures an enabling environment for this. Based on stakeholder consultations and available documentation, the Secretariat’s assessment is that the objective has been fulfilled. Industry representatives are fully, actively and effectively engaged in the EITI process. Attendance to the MSG’s meetings has varied among full member representatives from 35% to 100% between 2019 and 2022, with a noted trend of increased attendance in the past two years. Industry representatives also actively participate in technical working groups. There is an enabling environment for industry participation and the fundamental rights of industry representatives engaged in the EITI are respected. There are no obstacles to company participation in the EITI process. An industry representative consulted stated that the MSG could be more involved in discussions involving reforms to the mining law. Through the MSG, the company constituency has contributed to the development of extractive sector policies limited to the discussions around subnational payments while advancing discussions on beneficial ownership within the scope of the EITI Report. Industry participation is organised via individual company participation and through the Chamber of Mining and Oil (CAMIPE), which has 31 member companies, and includes the main companies with metal mining exploration and exploitation activity in the Dominican Republic. CAMIPE has played an active role since the country began preparations for the EITI application process. There are five companies with metal mining exploitation activity in the Dominican Republic, among which four are part of the MSG (Barrick PVDC, Falconbridge Dominicana, CORMIDOM and DOVEMCO). The other MSG members from industry constituency are CAMIPE, ADOCEM (Dominican Association of Portland Cement Producers), and Industrial Geotechnical Service. EITI information is shared by CAMIPE through a mailing list for member companies only, which include all companies with material payments to the government. Engagement with the broader constituency beyond the Chamber appears to be limited, as there is no formal process for this cooperation beyond the MSG group. However, it was noted that the sector is relatively small in the Dominican Republic, and the most significant metal mining companies are already part of the MSG. Engagement with non-metallic mining companies is challenging as the sector is not organised but these companies were not considered to be making material payments. Company representatives provide data for EITI reporting, but there is room to improve as they do not appear to be actively driving the EITI process or using EITI data, beyond the dissemination of the EITI Portal. An industry representative expressed some concerns about eventual misuse of EITI data that could undermine disclosure. More active and coordinated engagement by companies could help to ensure that EITI implementation responds to companies’ objectives, including local development issues and improvements in public understanding of the importance of the mining sector in the Dominican Republic. Industry should also continue their engagement to overcome challenges related to disclosures of beneficial ownership information.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 1.3 is fully met, as in the previous Validation. The objective of this requirement is to ensure that civil society is fully, actively and effectively engaged in the EITI process, and that there is an enabling environment for this. The active participation of civil society in the EITI process is key to ensuring that the transparency created by the EITI can lead to greater accountability and improved governance of oil, gas and mineral resources. The provisions related to civil society engagement seek to establish conditions that permit this to occur over time. The Secretariat’s assessment is that the objective is fulfilled. International assessments of the broader civic space in the Dominican Republic have remained steady in the period 2019-2023, with Freedom House’s Freedom in the World assessment remaining level with 67/100 points in 2019 and 68/100 points in 2022, with an assessment of ‘partly free’. Civicus’ assessment likewise rates the Dominican Republic’s civic freedoms as ‘Narrowed’ with a score of 78/100 and the U.S. Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices from 2019-2023 found that freedom of expression was generally respected, though there were some instances of press intimidation. Consulted members of civil society did not think that there were legal or regulatory limitations to the civic space. Expression: There does not appear to have been significant changes in the enabling environment for civic expression since the previous Validation in 2019. Of note, Dominican Republic’s Constitutional Court struck down portions of a law that criminalised dissemination of negative messages in 2019, which was praised by press freedom advocates. Civil society representatives can speak freely in public about the EITI process and issues pertinent to natural resource governance, both during MSG meetings and during public events, such as the webinar held to discuss the negative impact of gold mining operations in Argentina, the Dominican Republic, and Papua New Guinea on 19 October 2022. This webinar brought together stakeholders from different countries and illustrated civil society’s freedom of expression both within the Dominican Republic and abroad. During consultations, civil society representatives confirmed their freedom of expression within the EITI and during public events and in the media and did not cite any instances of self-censorship of the existence of topics considered too sensitive to discuss in public. Operation: While civil society stakeholders confirmed their freedom of operation they cautioned that, in general, civil society faces funding shortfalls, though the government does not prevent access to funding, either domestic or foreign. Likewise, there are no legal or administrative restrictions concerning registration of CSOs or concerning issues preventing CSOs from holding meetings related to the EITI process. Association: Despite capacity constraints, civil society representatives can communicate and cooperate with each other regarding the EITI process and natural resource governance. Consultations confirmed freedom of association for all stakeholders in the Dominican Republic and civil society representatives noted that they were able to associate with organisations on the MSG and those outside the MSG structure. Civil society stakeholders commented that they were in contact with the workers unions of Barrick Gold and FALCONDO, among others, and that protests and marches were attended by CSOs within and outside the MSG. The Secretariat is not aware of any cases of the authorities restricting civil society from organising public events related to extractive sector governance. Engagement: Civil society is represented in the EITI process through Espacio Nacional por la Transparencia de la Industria Extractive (ENTRE), which serves as an umbrella organisation for civil society groups and includes a subcommittee, Comité Nuevo Renacer (CNR), that operates on behalf of ENTRE in affected communities. Attendance records for MSG meetings, held virtually and in-person, indicate that CSO representatives or their alternates attended MSG meetings regularly. Letters between CSOs and government officials that were included as evidence in this Validation note that many company publications relevant to affected communities were only published in English, which represented a technical capacity constraint to the effective engagement of host communities. Access to public decision-making: CSOs engaged in the EITI undertake advocacy activities related to extractive sector governance and civic space, including on the allocation of subnational transfers, lack of public disclosure of companies’ audited financial statements and of beneficial ownership information and on the environmental impact of mining activities. Civil society members consulted pointed out that these issues were highlighted in the previous Validation and remain outstanding. These stakeholders stressed the need to recognise that issues highlighted in previous Validations that are not acted upon tend to compound and become worse and some representatives consulted did not consider that their position on certain matters of importance was taken into consideration. These stakeholders noted that there is an imbalance in access to information between civil society operating in the capital and those located in communities hosting extractive activities, where the latter is not aware of industry and government decisions in a timely manner. These delays inhibit the response of those in affected communities. Concerning environmental impact, CSOs stressed that in locations such as Cotuí, historic and ongoing mining activities have led to undrinkable water and health problems. From correspondence between CSOs and government officials, provided by CSOs for this Validation, it appears that CSOs did not consider themselves to be adequately consulted or part of the decisionmaking process when it came to the expansion of the Barrick Gold mine or consultations on the size and location of tailings dams. In its response to the draft assessment, industry stakeholders provided media documentation showing consultations with local communities before the expansion of the Barrick Gold mine. These stakeholders noted that environmental impact assessments and social and economic evaluations were carried out in anticipation of this project and provided copies of these assessments, which indicated an improvement in water quality since Barrick’s mining operations began. These disagreements between industry and civil society appear to be ongoing and indicate tensions between members of these two constituencies.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 1.4 is fully met, as in the previous Validation. Documentation and stakeholder consultations suggest that the MSG is functioning effectively, although there is room to further improve the regularity of MSG meetings and the diversity of representation. The objective of this requirement is to ensure that there is an independent MSG that can exercise active and meaningful oversight of all aspects of EITI implementation that balances the three main constituencies’ (government, industry and civil society) interests in a consensual manner. As a precondition for achieving this objective, the MSG must include adequate representation of key stakeholders appointed on the basis of open, fair and transparent constituency procedures, make decisions in an inclusive manner and report to wider constituencies. The Secretariat’s assessment is that the objective is fulfilled. The MSG is elected for a period of two years, with the possibility of being reappointed, although some members have not been replaced since 2016, as a deviation from the ToR for the MSG. A principal and an alternate member are chosen, and their work is honorary, with no practice of per diems. Since 2016 the MSG has been renewed three times, in 2018, 2020 and 2023 (partially). The Secretariat’s assessment is that stakeholders are adequately represented on the MSG, although there is room to further improve the diversity of representation by engaging non-metallic industries, the nascent oil and gas sector and local CSOs that are not yet part of MSG. Industry participation is organised through the Chamber of Mining and Oil (CAMIPE), and the MSG representatives are elected in an open and transparent manner through a publicly accessible invitation for CAPIME’s general assembly. A general assembly still needs to be convened to formalise the nomination process for the period 2023-2025. There has been no change in industry representation since 2016, which can be explained by the limited size of the sector in the country, although the major companies are full members of the MSG. During consultations, a member from the industry constituency signalled their intention to continue to extend the invitation to the CAMIPE’s general assembly to all extractive companies. EITI information is shared by CAMIPE through a mailing list that includes only member companies, which restricts its representativeness of the broader industry constituency. Civil society participation is organised through the National Space for the Transparency of the Extractive Industry (ENTRE), which also shares EITI information to the broader civil society constituency. An open call for nomination for the period 2023-2025 was published by ENTRE. Three new civil society organizations were incorporated into the MSG as full members for the period 2020-2022, while the other five organizations have remained in the MSG since 2016, rotating their mandates as full and alternate members for the period 2023-2025. A government stakeholder consulted noted that there is room to improve civil society representation in the MSG to include local organizations from areas directly affected by the extractive sector. Development partners consulted noted that the implementation of the EITI is a process that requires technical expertise, which local CSOs often lack, which explains their lack of inclusion in the MSG. It appears that the recommendation from the previous Validation to support capacity-building of CSOs outside the MSG to ensure continuity and broad representation has been, and continues to be, acted upon. Stakeholders from the industry and government constituencies consulted also reiterated the need to include MSG members in this capacity-building effort to ensure that all constituencies remain updated on changes to the EITI Standard. For most of the period under review, the MSG operated in accordance with the TOR for the EITI-DR National Commission (MSG) established in 2015, and ratified in 2016 by Decree No. 248-16, with evidence of deviations in the frequency of MSG meetings and in the period of representation in the MSG. Documentation and stakeholder consultations suggest that the MSG is functioning effectively. The MSG oversees the production of EITI Reports, approves ToRs for the IA, work plans and other documents and follows up on recommendations. MSG meetings are convened sufficiently in advance and documents are circulated with sufficient advance notice. Stakeholder consultations suggest that the national secretariat provides the MSG with effective support, while MSG members can speak freely and raise issues for discussion at meetings. The minutes available on the EITI-DR website indicate that the MSG met consistently in 2019, while some gaps longer than two months were observed in 2020, 2021 and 2022. All consulted stakeholders conceded that there had been a slow-down in the MSG's work during and post-COVID-19, although the migration to online activities partially mitigated this impact. This slow-down is offset by recent improvements linked to MSG engagement in discussions around subnational payments and beneficial ownership within the scope of the EITI Report. There is a need to improve the regularity of the MSG meetings to at least every two months. The direct participation and leadership of the Minister was required in some situations to mediate conflict between civil society and industry related to environmental issues. Despite the challenges imposed by the different points of view between industry and civil society representatives on topics related to subnational payments, BOT, and the delay of having non-metallic companies incorporated into EITI, all the decisions reached by the MSG to date have been made with a sufficient quorum, prioritizing consensus. According to government stakeholders, the MSG has taken all decisions by consensus since its inception, aside from a single decision taken by simple-majority vote. Other government institutions were invited to participate in the MSG meetings and MEM is currently liaising with the new Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, as encouraged in the previous Validation, while the work of the technical support committee is still pending.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 3.1 is fully met, as in the previous Validation. Stakeholders consulted did not express concerns on progress towards the objective of this requirement in the mining, oil and gas sectors. The Secretariat’s view is that the objective of ensuring public access to an overview of the extractive sector in the country and its potential, including recent, ongoing and planned significant exploration activities has been fulfilled. The 2019-2020 EITI Report discloses information about significant exploration activities, an overview of the extractive industries, major mineral deposits and hydrocarbon potential areas. For the mining sector, information about national mineral availability, and mineral resources available by region is systematically disclosed. An overview of exploration activities for this sector is also included. For the hydrocarbon sector, an overview of exploration activities is available in the EITI Report and through the National Hydrocarbon Database. The report includes reference to Apache Corporation, the only active oil and gas company in the country. As of 2021, the company was in the process of conducting seismic and environmental studies and prospective oil and gas explorations are expected to continue in the future. For the mining sector, an overview of the main active mining companies can be found in the EITI Report. A list of updated exploration licenses is publicly disclosed through the government’s website on mining. Some information about the three potential mineral reserves (reservas fiscales) can be found in the mining cadastre and in the EITI Report, including the legal framework and geographic coordinates. The Report does not include information about artisanal and small-scale mining potentials. Stakeholders consulted mentioned that ASM exploration estimates do not exists, and that this information is not material and only encouraged by the EITI Standard.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Dominican Republic has fully met Requirement 6.3, as in the previous Validation. The objective of this requirement is to ensure a public understanding of the extractive industries’ contribution to the national economy and the level of natural resource dependency in the economy. Government stakeholders consulted considered the objective to be met given continuous governmental efforts to disseminate information to journalists and the public at large, though they acknowledged that EITI reporting is sometimes used in place of full systematic disclosure on government websites. In its response to the draft assessment, the MSG noted that government entities involved in the EITI provide links on their respective websites that direct the public to the EITI-DR website. While there is a gap in disclosure of gender-disaggregated employment data for the overall mining and quarrying sector, the MSG explains that there is not reliable data on gender disaggregation available in the Dominican Republic and the International Secretariat does not consider this gap to be material. Material mining companies voluntarily reported gender-disaggregated employment data, thus the International the Secretariat considers the objective to be fulfilled. The government discloses information on the contribution of the extractive industries to the economy through systematic disclosure as well as through EITI reporting. EITI reporting for this Validation has covered economic contribution for fiscal years 2019 and 2020. EITI reporting provides references to systematic disclosures of the extractive industries’ contribution to GDP, and the contribution of the extractive sector to government revenues is provided through EITI reporting with data provided from government entities. Government representatives consulted confirmed that the extractive sector’s contribution to government revenues was clearly described through the Central Bank website. Export figures and investment figures are provided and are clearly sourced. Figures provided in EITI reporting are generally given in absolute terms but relative terms can easily be calculated. Total employment figures are provided for the extractives sector but gender breakdowns are only available for material companies participating in EITI reporting. The 2020 EITI Report clarifies that aggregate government employment figures for the extractives sector are generally grouped together with other industries and these data were disaggregated especially for the EITI reporting. Further breakdowns of employment by occupational status are not available. The 2020 EITI Report did not include references or estimates to an ASM sector, which according to a third-party report from 2014 is predominantly an informal activity, but did note that employment figures may be undercounted due to a lack of official registration of some workers in the extractive sector. It does not appear that there are more recent third-party reports on ASM and informal sector activities, though it does appear that such activities are present in the mining of semi-precious larimar, amber and gold deposits. An overview of the location of mining, oil and gas activities is available on government websites and through the 2020 EITI Report.

The Secretariat's assessment is the Dominican Republic has fully met Requirement 2.1, as in the previous Validation. The objective of this requirement is to ensure public understanding of all aspects of the regulatory framework for the extractive industries, including the legal framework, fiscal regime, roles of government entities and reforms. Based on available disclosures, the Secretariat considers the objective to be fulfilled. Government representatives consulted echoed the Secretariat’s view that the objective has been fulfilled. The 2020 EITI Report describes the legal, environmental and fiscal regime and fiscal devolution for mining, oil and gas, including the roles of government entities. Government websites provide the broader laws and regulations that are summarised in the 2020 EITI Report. EITI reporting outlines ongoing and planned reforms in the mining sector, in particular to Law 64-00 on the Environment and Natural Resources. Lack of clarity around reform efforts in oil and gas leaves room for further progress if Dominican Republic is to achieve ‘exceeded’ on Requirement 2.1. Government and civil society stakeholders both stressed the need for further regulation of the non-metallic mining sector and government representatives noted that this topic was being debated in the context of reform of the Mining Law.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 2.4 is exceeded. The objective of this requirement is to ensure the public accessibility of all licenses and contracts underpinning extractive activities (at least from 2021 onwards) as a basis for the public’s understanding of the contractual rights and obligations of companies operating in the country’s extractive industries. The Secretariat considers that the objective has been exceeded given that full license and contract transparency is written into Dominican Republic’s constitution and is fully complied with in practice. The Dominican Republic EITI has documented relevant government policy on license and contract disclosure for mining and hydrocarbons and mapped out relevant laws and regulations. All contracts in the oil and gas sector and all contracts and licenses in the mining sector, including annexes, amendments and riders, have been systematically disclosed on the MEM website and are well-summarised through EITI reporting. The MEM website provides comprehensive lists of all active contracts and licenses in the mining, oil and gas sectors, indicating which contracts and licenses have been published, which is all of them. The 2020 EITI Report provides links to where these contracts and licenses can be viewed in full on the mining and oil and gas transparency portals. Contracts and licenses published before 1 January 2021 are also published in full.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 6.4 is not assessed. The Requirement was introduced in the 2019 Standard and was thus not assessed in the previous Validation. The requirement is encouraged, and is thus only assessed as exceeded, if fully implemented. The objective of this requirement is to provide a basis for stakeholders to assess the adequacy of the regulatory framework and monitoring efforts to manage the environmental impact of extractive industries, and to assess extractive companies’ adherence to environmental obligations. Government stakeholders consulted reaffirmed the environmental regulatory framework established by Law 64-00 and noted that these regulations are clearly documented on the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources website. The Dominican Republic has made efforts to disclose an overview of relevant legal provisions and administrative rules related to environmental management and monitoring of extractive investments in the country but it has not yet used EITI reporting to provide an annual diagnostic of practices in this regard. Indeed, there does not appear to be a publicly accessible database of environmental impact assessments, certification schemes or similar documentation of environmental management in practice. It is not clear whether environmental permitting, in practice, adheres to laws and regulations or whether currently active mining and oil and gas companies are in compliance with relevant legislation. Government representatives consulted noted that fees and sanctions associated with environmental impact assessments are clearly described on the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources website. In their response to the draft assessment, mining representatives noted that all companies must carry out environmental impact assessments in order to carry out operations. However, it does not appear that there is a database of active environmental impact assessments held by extractive companies. Civil society members consulted highlighted the lack of public access to Environmental Impact Assessments and other environmental management documentation stipulating terms related to environmental clean-up and the closure of inactive mines as a key area of concern. These stakeholders explained that the lack of public disclosure of these documents prohibits effective community oversight of mining companies and limits the public’s understanding of mining companies’ environmental obligations.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 2.2 is fully met. It should be noted that there were no licensing activities in oil and gas in the period reviewed in the previous Validation. The objective of this requirement is to provide a public overview of awards and transfers of oil, gas and mining licenses, the statutory procedures for license awards and transfers and whether these procedures are followed in practice. This can allow stakeholders to identify and address possible weaknesses in the license allocation process. Based on available documentation and stakeholder consultations, the Secretariat’s assessment is that the objective has been fulfilled. Consulted government stakeholders agreed that the objective was fulfilled. Disclosures related to the award and transfer of oil, gas and mining licenses are comprehensive and technical and financial criteria used in the award and transfer process are clearly defined and EITI-DR confirmed that there were no deviations from statutory procedure in the award and transfer of licenses in the period under review. It does appear that the recommendation from the previous Validation to more clearly document technical and financial criteria in the award of mining licenses has been accomplished. The Dominican Republic systematically discloses information on the award and transfer of mining licenses and uses EITI reporting to summarise this information and act as a central location for links to various government websites where this information is systematically disclosed. Award is executed through a first-come, first-served process for most mining areas. In 2020, nine mining licenses were awarded and one mining license was transferred. Areas considered to be of importance, so-called ‘fiscal reserves,’ are governed by a contractual system where contracts can be awarded using bid rounds, though there were no awards in fiscal reserves in the period under review. Technical and financial criteria are disclosed for the award and transfer of mining licenses. In oil and gas, bid rounds are used to award licenses and the bid round that began in 2019 resulted in the award of one oil and gas exploration license. The Terms of Reference associated with the 2019 bid round are publicly available and contain the bid criteria required to be considered. While there are documents that should list applicants, these documents only list Apache Corporation (the winning applicant). Government stakeholders explained during consultations that Apache was the only company that met the pre-application standards and was therefore the only company eligible to bid on the license. The list of companies that expressed interest but were not eligible to bid is not publicly accessible but this does not constitute a gap in Requirement 2.2 given that these companies did not meet the pre-application standards to submit bids in the 2019 bid round. These stakeholders added that there is not significant interest from multinational oil companies in Dominican deposits but that they hoped this would change. During stakeholder consultations and in its response to the draft assessment, the MSG confirmed that there were no non-trivial deviations in mining, oil and gas license awards and transfers. There is no comment on the efficiency and effectiveness of the licensing and contracting systems in the EITI Report, although this is only an encouraged aspect of Requirement 2.2.d.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 2.3 is fully met, as in the previous Validation. In mining, the cadastre is comprehensive and includes all data points listed in section 2.3.b of the Requirement. Companies not covered by the EITI reporting process are also included in this cadastre. DGM hosts a regularly updated mining cadastre that provides public access to information on mining licenses of different types. Government stakeholders consulted noted that efforts to digitise the mining register are underway. In oil and gas, the MEM provides comprehensive information on the one active oil and gas exploration and production contract with Apache. Given ongoing efforts to develop a petroleum register, the Dominican Republic is encouraged to set clear objectives to create such a register prior to upcoming bid rounds.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 2.5 is partly met. The objective of this requirement is to enable the public to know who ultimately owns and controls the companies operating in the country’s extractive industries, particularly those identified by the MSG as high-risk, to help deter improper practices in the management of extractive resources. There is a strong legal and regulatory structure for the collection of BO information by the DGII and with the completion of the BO roadmap in 2019, the MSG has carried on efforts to overcome barriers to public disclosure of BO information, as noted in the MSG’s response to the draft assessment. The MSG also noted that there were efforts by the MSG to collect BO information from material companies in the scope of EITI reporting but that financial secrecy provisions prohibited the disclosure of this information in the 2020 EITI Report. Many civil society stakeholders consulted indicated that without public disclosure of this information, the objective of this requirement was far from being achieved. Consulted government representatives noted that the upcoming 2021 EITI Report will include BO information from material companies, which represents some progress toward the public disclosure of this data. The MSG has agreed upon a definition for beneficial ownership, including disclosure thresholds, and for politically exposed persons through Law 155-17 and its accompanying regulations. There is a strong legal and regulatory framework for the collection of beneficial ownership information from all companies in the Dominican Republic, including from extractive companies. Mining industry representatives consulted confirmed that all foreign mining companies were required to form a domestic legal entity to bid on or apply for extractive licenses, which ensures that mining interests cannot be held by a foreign entity that is not subject to BO reporting requirements. However, this legal and regulatory framework does not extend to the public disclosure of this information in any form and efforts to collect BO data from all companies selected to report in this Validation cycle was stymied by financial secrecy provisions prohibiting the disclosure of this information. Meeting minutes from the Working Group on BO show that the MEM began drafting a resolution to require all mining companies to report BO information that would be included in the Mining Register hosted by DGM. Civil society stakeholders consulted considered the construction of a separate BO Mining Register to be an unnecessary compromise considering that DGII already holds this data. The 2020 EITI Report notes that this resolution is still under revision. While a BO Roadmap is included for consideration in this Validation cycle, it appears to only run through 2019. In its comments to the draft assessment, the MSG provided meeting minutes that indicated successful efforts to lift financial secrecy provisions to enable companies to disclose BO data, which is expected to take place in the upcoming 2021 EITI Report. Given the lack of a MEM resolution and the fact that material companies did not disclose their BO information, there is no public accessibility of BO data in the Dominican Republic. BO data is not publicly available for extractive companies or for those bidding on or applying for mining, oil and gas projects. EITI reporting reflects the MSG's confirmation that all data points required under the 2019 EITI Standard are included in the DGII BO register but there is no discussion or documented efforts to overcome barriers to public disclosure found in the DGII BO register. Information on legal ownership is publicly available in the Dominican Republic through the FEDOCAMARAS register, though individuals must specifically request this information from the FEDOCAMARAS register for each company of interest. Given that a company may operate under the jurisdiction of multiple Chambers of Commerce if the company has operations in different regions of the country, the practice of making individual requests could prove to be time-consuming and represent a barrier to access to information. Civil society stakeholders consulted highlighted the presence of Dominican public officials as beneficial owners of mining companies in the Panama Papers leak as a clear reason for the publication of BO information. While it is not against the law for public officials to hold interest in extractive projects or companies, civil society stakeholders were of the opinion that this information should be public knowledge. These representatives noted that while BO information can be found for multinational mining companies in the metallic mining sector, the same is not true for beneficial owners of non-metallic mining companies that also have large operations in the Dominican Republic. Mining industry representatives from large multinational companies indicated their willingness to supply BO information and to forego fiscal secrecy laws that prevent such disclosure. These stakeholders noted that direction needed to come from government to ensure proper disclosure of this information. Based on the comments made by the MSG in their response to the draft assessment and by government representatives consulted on the disclosure of BO information in the upcoming 2021 EITI Report, it appears that there has been positive progress since the previous Validation.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 2.6 is not applicable in the Dominican Republic in the period under review, as in the previous Validation. Where there was a lack of material revenues that made this requirement not applicable in the previous Validation, the one SOE that was previously active, CORDE, has now been fully dissolved with all equity interests transferred to a national wealth fund, FONPER. The 2020 EITI Report clearly describes the process by which these participating interests were transferred to FONPER and notes that CORDE's titleship to mining concessions was transferred to the Commission for Liquidation of State Entities (CLOE) where these mining concessions were revoked. It does not appear that there are any outstanding loans held by CORDE at the time of dissolution but EITI reporting is less clear whether loans or loan guarantees were given to other extractive companies by the government.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 4.2 is not applicable in the Dominican Republic in the period under review, as in the previous Validation. There is no evidence of in-kind revenues in the mining sector, while oil production in the country is still in the exploration stage. The previous Validation Report found no indication of payments made in-kind, while the scoping study prepared for the 2019-2020 EITI Report found this requirement to be not applicable.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 4.5 is not applicable in the Dominican Republic in the period under review, as in the previous Validation. The scoping study prepared for the 2019-2020 EITI Report found this requirement to be not applicable and included a reference to the MSG discussions regarding the inapplicability of this requirement. The Report also describes the dissolution of CORDE and the subsequent transfer of activities to the Finance ministry (Ministerio de Hacienda), CLOE and FONPER. However, the government should clarify the number of shares and participation that relevant government entities hold from CORDE’s dissolution.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 6.2 is not applicable, as in the previous Validation. Government stakeholders consulted confirmed that there are no state-owned enterprises in the extractives sector in the Dominican Republic, with the sole SOE, CORDE, being dissolved in 2019. Therefore, there were no off-budget extractive-funded expenditures by SOEs on behalf of the government. Civil society indicates that there are pending cases of quasi-fiscal expenditures that should be reported but does not provide information to support these assertions.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 3.2 is fully met, which is an improvement from the previous Validation. The Secretariat concludes that the objective for this requirement has been fulfilled given that the Dominican Republic publishes the sales value of non-metallic minerals by commodity, which was missing in the previous Validation. However, civil society representatives considered that sales values published by MEM were different from the real production value, raising concerns about how production values are calculated and thus implying that the objective is not yet exceeded. The Dominican Republic discloses total production volumes and sales values of metallic and non-metallic minerals for both 2019 and 2020 fiscal years, and this information is systematically disclosed. Although this information is disaggregated by commodity, it is not further disaggregated by company or region. In their response to the draft assessment, civil society representatives expressed concerns about production volumes and values of non-metallic minerals such as larimar and amber not being disclosed at the required level of disaggregation. Additionally, the rationale behind the average price used for calculating sales values for both metallic and non-metallic minerals is not clear. The 2019-2020 EITI Report describes relevant mining auditing procedures, as well as relevant rules and protocols regulating the quality of information about production. The protocol for auditing procedures of the mining industry includes the legal framework and technical specifications for surface and sub-surface exploration. Although the report states that production values are collected using the Annual Operation Reports from mining licenses, the report does not include further information on how production data has been calculated or the use of national or international baselines to calculate this information. The 2019-2020 EITI Report does not disclose estimates of production data from artisanal and small-scale mining and it does not appear that these estimates are available from third-party sources.

The Secretariat’s assessment is that Requirement 3.3 is fully met. While the assessment of Requirement 3.3 was “exceeded” in the previous Validation, the criteria for assessments of “exceeded” now require that all encouraged aspects of the requirement be addressed and that the data be systematically disclosed. The Secretariat concludes that the objective of ensuring public understanding of extractive commodity production levels and the valuation of extractive commodity output is fulfilled, but not yet exceeded pending the disclosure of the methodology for calculating export data and ASM estimates. The 2019-2020 EITI Report discloses total export volumes and the value of exports for metallic and non-metallic commodities. Although this information is disaggregated by mineral, it is not further disaggregated by region, company or project. Stakeholders consulted stated that disaggregated information is not provided due to confidentiality policies (deber de reserva). In their response to the draft assessment, civil society representatives expressed concerns about export volumes and values of non-metallic minerals such as larimar and amber not being disclosed at the required level of disaggregation. The EITI-DR website discloses information about export revenues paid by companies to government. Information about silver and gold exports is systematically disclosed on the customs website and information about exports of non-metallic and metallic commodities is disclosed through the Central Bank website. The Dominican Republic does not provide information on how export data has been calculated or if any national or international calculation methodology has been used to this end. Although the country is in the process to regulate ASM, estimates of export data from artisanal and small-scale mining is not included. When consulted, the Independent Administrator expressed that it is not yet possible to know the export values of ASM as there is no existing typology for classifying ASM exports in the regulatory agencies involved. Additionally, government representatives consulted confirmed that ASM has only local demand.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 4.1 is fully met, as in the previous Validation. The assessment of Requirement 4.1 is not yet exceeded pending the discussion with constituencies outside of the MSG about the relevance of the inclusion of non-material companies in the scope of the EITI Report and the publication of audited financial statements by companies in the scope of EITI reporting. Multiple civil society representatives consulted stated that a lack of publicly accessible audited financial statements from mining companies prevents the public from knowing whether these companies are fulfilling all their payment obligations under Law 64-00. These discussions could include relevant government agencies from the sector responsible for disclosing mining information. The Secretariat concludes that the objective for this requirement has been fulfilled, given that the Dominican Republic ensures comprehensive disclosures of company payments and government revenues from oil, gas and mining. EITI-DR has agreed on a materiality definition for selecting revenue streams and companies in the scope of reporting, including reporting thresholds and the options considered. The MSG minutes indicate that, in December 2021, the MSG discussed the different options to define materiality, which was later approved at the MSG’s 08-2021 meeting. The minutes reflect the MSG discussion about the twelve revenues streams considered to be material, the four companies making material payments, the four government entities receiving relevant payments and the materiality threshold. Options and rationale considered by the MSG are included in a separate materiality report. The revenue streams considered material are publicly listed in a separate materiality report, in MSG minutes and in the EITI Report. Although they are not described in these documents, a description is also published on the EITI-DR website. The MSG agreed on excluding certain revenue streams from the scope of EITI disclosures given the lack of materiality of payments related to these streams with a thorough rationale provided in the materiality report. The government fully reported all revenues considered in the materiality threshold, including revenues from non-material companies. Information of material revenues is presented in aggregate and disaggregated by revenue stream. EITI-DR has also demonstrated that no company making material payments to government has been exempted from disclosure and the scoping study prepared for the 2019-2020 EITI Report includes an analysis of material payments and material companies. However, civil society stakeholders expressed concerns on how companies not considered in the scope of reporting but having a substantive impact at the community level are not taken into consideration when preparing the EITI Report. None of the stakeholders consulted expressed concerns about the comprehensiveness of disclosures, the materiality thresholds or any negative impact of the confidentiality policies affecting comprehensiveness. In the Dominican Republic, companies' private data is protected by law 11-92 of the tax code. Therefore, to be able to conduct the EITI Report, reporting companies shared with the Ministry of Mines (through the Ministry of Finance) an authorisation to suspend their right to the confidentiality of their data. The EITI Report describes discrepancies in the reconciliation between material companies and reporting entities. In all cases, an explanation of these discrepancies is included, although there is no evidence of the MSG discussing these discrepancies. In its response to the draft assessment, the MSG confirmed that discrepancies are always discussed during the approval process for EITI Reports and that a consensus is reached before approval so that all constituencies’ opinions can be heard. The IA acknowledges that discrepancies are mostly based on delays from reporting companies in sending data to the Independent Administrator. An explicit statement from the Independent Administrator of the impact of these gaps on the comprehensiveness of the report is not included, although the EITI Report specifies that differences found in the reconciliation process represent less than 0.01% of total reconciled revenues. This information is also included in the summary of key findings from the reconciliation process. The Dominican Republic could strengthen the comprehensiveness of data disclosures by improving intra-agency coordination and reinforcing the participation of the national auditing agency. The EITI Report includes a summary of audited financial statements for material companies, although none of them are publicly available. From companies considered in the EITI Report scope as material, DOVEMCO did not provide audited financial statements. DOVEMCO is a Bauxite selling company that has had partial operations since 2016.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 4.3 remains not applicable in the period under review, as in the previous Validation. The previous Validation found that DOVEMCO had an agreement with the government of the Dominican Republic to rebuild a road affected by mining operations. However, the last Validation found that this did not constitute an infrastructure or barter agreement as defined in Requirement 4.3 as this infrastructure project as not conducted in exchange for extractive licenses or mining rights. The 2019-2020 EITI Report notes that DOVEMCO has not rebuilt this road as the company has had intermittent operations. Stakeholders did not express concerns related to this requirement.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 4.4 remains not applicable in the period under review, as in the previous Validation. The scoping studies conducted for the 2015, 2016, and 2019-2020 EITI Reports confirm the inapplicability of this requirement as government entities do not receive transportation revenues that can be considered material under the scope of reconciliation. Some of the civil society stakeholders consulted alleged that there might be transportation revenues that might not be material, but that could have negative impact in communities. However, there is no specific information of this allegation referenced in the EITI Report, in the MSG minutes or mentioned by any other group during consultations.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 4.7 is fully met. The objective of ensuring that the public can assess the extent to which government can monitor its revenue receipts is fulfilled, The 2019-2020 EITI Report presents data disaggregated by individual company, government entity and revenue stream. However, stakeholders expressed concerns on this requirement given the lack of disaggregated information at the subnational level, particularly for alleged transportation revenues, though the International Secretariat did not find evidence that such transportation revenues exist. In their response to the draft assessment, civil society representatives expressed concerns about the level of disaggregation of non-metallic minerals such as larimar and amber. Although there is no evidence that the MSG has further discussed the scope of this requirement since the previous Validation, the previous Validation report states that each company has only one project in the country, and therefore reporting is allegedly by project. The Dominican Republic could benefit from following the recommendation from the scoping study prepared for the 2019- 2020 EITI Report, where it is recommended that the MSG re-evaluate the scope of this requirement however there is no evidence that the MSG discussed the relevance or the barriers for disclosing project level information.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 4.8 is fully met, as in the previous Validation. The Secretariat’s view is that the objective of ensuring that public disclosures of company payments and government revenues from oil, gas and mining are sufficiently timely to be relevant to inform public debate and policymaking, has been fulfilled, although some stakeholders consulted expressed the need of working on timelier data disclosures. The Dominican Republic has published regular and timely information in accordance with the EITI Board-agreed deadlines. The MSG has agreed on an accounting period and the Annual Progress Report shows the progress on data disclosure activities that have been completed according to the work plan. For the 2019-2020 EITI Report, the original reporting deadline of 31 December 2021 was not met, and the Dominican Republic requested an extension to the EITI Board which was granted on 9 February 2022.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 4.9 is mostly met. The Secretariat’s view is that the objective of ensuring that appropriate measures have been taken to ensure the reliability of disclosures of company payments and government revenues from the extractive sector has been mostly fulfilled, but not yet fully met pending clarification on the lack of quality assurances from DOVEMCO. The MSG in the Dominican Republic has agreed on a procedure to address data quality and assurance which are described in the materiality report prepared for the 2019-2020 EITI Report. The agreement on these standard procedures is also documented in an MSG minute and are in accordance with the standard procedures endorsed by the EITI Board. Stakeholders consulted, including the IA, did not express concerns about the comprehensiveness and quality of data reported. The information disclosed by the Government of Dominican Republic is subject to national regulations and audits and the information provided for the 2019-2020 EITI Report was endorsed by a high-level official. Government agencies are subject to auditing procedures established by the Camara de Cuentas and, in addition, the executive agencies -including the Ministry of Energy and Mines- are subject to the Office of the Auditor General of the Republic, through the Internal Audit Unit. The information disclosed by companies is subject to the regulations of the fiscal authority (Dirección General de Impuestos Internos DGII), who has the competence to audit the operations of taxpayers. In addition to the power of inspection and audit, the DGII has the competence to determine tax liability and penalties. To do this, the fiscal authority classifies taxpayers based on a risk model as low, medium or high tax risk. Additionally, it performs desktop and onsite inspections, having access to databases of other institutions to cross-check information and verify the data submitted in the tax returns. The information provided by companies participating in the EITI Report was endorsed by a high-level official and copies of companies’ audited statements were provided to the IA for review. Although almost all material companies provided audited statements, DOVEMCO did not provide this information to the Independent Administrator. For the 2019-2020 EITI Report, none of the audited statements provided by companies are publicly available, although the fiscal framework does not mandate companies to make these documents public. The 2019-2020 EITI Report describes the assurances to be provided by the participating companies and government entities to assure the credibility of the data. For collecting information, the MSG agreed on data collection templates, that were shared with material extractive companies and government entities in January 2022. The data collection request consisted of a cover letter outlining the data collection and reconciliation process. Reporting companies sent to the Ministry of Finance a confidentiality waiver to disclose the tax data of their operations in the country. Stakeholders consulted did not express concerns about the process established for confidentiality waivers. Although stakeholders consulted did not express concerns about the comprehensiveness and quality of data reported, one of the reporting companies -DOVEMCO- did not provide a quality assurance letter to the IA or the audited financial statements.; the materiality report prepared by the Independent Administrator states that only agreed procedures were undertaken and no additional review of auditing procedures was conducted.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 5.1 is exceeded. The objective of this requirement is to ensure the traceability of extractive revenues to the national budget and ensure the same level of transparency and accountability for extractive revenues that are not recorded in the national budget. The Secretariat’s assessment is that the objective has been exceeded. While there was a lack of clarity around retained earnings by CORDE in the previous Validation, this issue has been resolved given the dissolution of CORDE in the period under review. EITI reporting confirms that all extractive revenues are recorded either in the national budget or in subnational budgets. Extractive revenue allocations to funds occur after being recorded in national or subnational budgets. Audited financial statements on the national budget and national revenue classifications can be found on the Digepres website (here and here). During consultations, Ministry of Finance representatives confirmed that all government revenues are deposited in the National Treasury and recorded in the national budget, as established by Article 24 of the Budgetary Law for the Public Sector, No. 423-06. These representatives explained that extractive revenues are used to finance expenditures established in the General Budget of the Nation, unless otherwise determined by law. In its response to the draft assessment, the MSG clarified that all revenues are subject to national revenue classification systems, principally the Budget Classifier Manual, and therefore references to international data standards, such as the IMF’s Memorandum of Economic and Financial Policies were not made.

The Secretariat's assessment is that the Dominican Republic has made some progress in disclosing revenue management and expenditure information, although gaps in encouraged aspects of Requirement 5.3 remain. Therefore, Requirement 5.3 remains not assessed, pending comprehensive disclosures of all information encouraged to be disclosed. The objective of this requirement is to strengthen 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. The Secretariat’s assessment is that the objective of this requirement is not yet fulfilled. The 2020 EITI Report and government websites such as the General Directorate of Budget and Financial Transparency websites provide information on earmarked extractive revenues and the federal government's budget procedures. While some extractive revenues are recorded in subnational budgets, it does not appear that there are such revenues directed to thematic areas. In its response to the draft assessment, the MSG confirmed that all extractive revenues are recorded in national or subnational budgets. Revenue streams recorded in the federal budget are not distinguishable from one another and budgetary laws regulate revenue expenditures on specific thematic areas. The MSG’s response confirmed that none of these earmarked areas are related to the extractive sector. Audit procedures were not referenced through EITI reporting, though audit reports on the national budget can be found on government websites. Government stakeholders consulted confirmed that there were clear audit procedures associated with the national budget and provided links to the websites for the Directorate General of Government Accounting and Chamber for Accounting where audit reports for the national budget can be found. EITI reporting provides some information on revenue projections, in particular from the two main gold extraction projects operated by PVDC and EnviroGold, and assumptions underpinning the budget. Financial reports describing the management of extractive revenues by certain government funds do not appear to be publicly disclosed.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 4.6 is remains not applicable in the period under review, as in the previous Validation. The previous Validation explains that the only subnational payments applicable to extractive companies derive from the General Law on Environment and Natural Resources. It entitles municipalities where production is taking place to receive 5% of the “net benefits” generated. The 2019-2020 EITI Report states that for the period under review, the MSG reviewed the applicability of this requirement and found that only one license had legal obligation to make this payment. However, the company operating this license did not report any benefit as it was closing operations and therefore, this requirement remains as not applicable.

The Validation found that Requirement 5.2 is mostly met. The recommendation from the previous Validation to “assess and disclose any discrepancies between the formulas and actual amounts transferred (1) from the central government to FOMISAR and (2) from FOMISAR to municipalities” has been mostly fulfilled. The objective of this requirement is to enable stakeholders at the local level to assess whether the transfer and management of subnational transfers of extractive revenues are in line with statutory entitlements. The Secretariat’s assessment was that the objective is fulfilled. In its comments to the draft Validation report, the civil society constituency insisted that these transfers are not clear due to an improper base of revenue figures used for the calculation of these transfers. Dominican Republic EITI has demonstrated that two forms of subnational transfers of extractive revenues exist in the mining sector and has described the process for calculating transfers based on corporate income tax (consulted CSO representatives do not consider corporate income tax to be an adequate base from which to calculate subnational transfers and maintain that the base of calculation should be drawn from ‘net benefit’ of mining operations) and based on a flat fee. For the former, the amount transferred consists of 5% of the base of calculation, though no transfers were made in the period under review (there was a transfer by CORMIDOM in 2021). For the latter, 50% of the flat fee set on the extraction of physical materials is directed to affected communities. The value of subnational transfers of mining revenues in 2020 are provided by FOMISAR and are broken down by each subnational government beneficiary. Budgeted and actual amounts are provided and a reconciliation of these differences is performed in the 2020 EITI report. Audited financial statements of FOMISAR transfers can be found on the DR EITI website. Differences between what was supposed to be transferred and what was transferred in practice are detailed in EITI reporting, which addresses the corrective action from the previous Validation. The Validation Committee reviewed the case at its 31 October 2023 meeting. Following comments from Validation Committee members, the Committee agreed to downgrade the assessment of Requirement 5.2 on subnational transfers from ‘fully met’ to ‘mostly met’, given the lack of consensus on the accuracy of calculations of subnational transfers of mining revenues.

The Secretariat's assessment is that Requirement 6.1 is mostly met despite differing opinions among stakeholders as to whether this requirement is applicable in the Dominican Republic, with government and industry stakeholders considering that it is not applicable while civil society considers that this requirement is applicable. In the previous Validation, Requirement 6.1 of the 2016 EITI Standard (that only covered social expenditures) was considered not applicable as it was agreed that there were no mandatory social expenditures mandated by law or contracts. The 2019 EITI Standard expanded reporting requirements of Requirement 6.1 to require the disclosure of mandatory environmental expenditures, when considered material, and encourage the disclosure of voluntary environmental payments. The objective of this requirement is to enable public understanding of extractive companies’ social and environmental contributions and provide a basis for assessing extractive companies’ compliance with their legal and contractual obligations to undertake social and environmental expenditures. Based on available documentation and consultations, the objective of this requirement is mostly fulfilled as differing opinions expressed by stakeholders and a lack of consensus on the applicability of the requirement prevents a clear public understanding of extractive companies’ social and environmental contributions and adherence to legal and contractual obligations. Concerning social expenditures, there have been no changes to laws or terms of contracts since the previous Validation that have imposed mandatory social expenditures by companies and voluntary social payments by companies were not disclosed in the 2019-2020 EITI Report. Industry stakeholders consulted confirmed that social expenditures were voluntary in nature and were defined through Corporate Social Responsibility plans. Concerning environmental expenditures, Articles 47 and 162 of Law 64-00 on the Environment and Natural Resources mandate, respectively, the payment of 10% of the total costs of physical works and investments, and certain fees depending on the category of environmental authorisation needed by metallic mining companies. Further resolutions lay out costs associated with environmental authorisations for non-metallic mining companies and for the renewal, modification, or loss of these environmental authorisations. Government stakeholders consulted confirmed that environmental payments are made through this law and all payments are collected by the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources. The 2020 Scoping and Materiality Report provides unilateral disclosures from the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources on all environmental payments made in 2020 and concludes that these payments are not considered material in the period under review given that these payments amount to less than 1% of total government revenues, which is the materiality threshold agreed upon by the MSG for the 2020 EITI Report. Environmental expenditures were not reported by companies.