Mali 2016 Validation

Mali's Validation commenced on 01 July 2016.

On 24 May 2017, Mali was validated against the 2016 Standard

Validation is the EITI's quality assurance mechanism and measures the progress countries have made in meeting the requirements of the EITI Standard. For more information about the country, visit the country page on

The Board's decision

On 24 May 2017, the EITI Board came to the following decision on Mali's status: 

The Board agrees that Mali has made meaningful progress overall in implementing the 2016 EITI Standard. In taking this decision the EITI Board recognised the challenges facing Mali, including terrorism and underlying socio-economic problems. The Board commended the stakeholders’ resilience to continue implementing the EITI during the 2012-2013 political and security crisis.  The EITI Board also noted that EITI information is more comprehensive, credible and trusted, as well as the efforts to go beyond the EITI’s requirements on the inclusion of sub-contractors in EITI reporting. The EITI Board highlighted that the EITI has provided a positive platform for reforms of the cadastre system and widespread dissemination of information on the mining sector as well as public finance management. The EITI Board was encouraged by stakeholders’ efforts to improve contract transparency and monitor sub-national payments.

The Board’s determination of Mali’s progress with the EITI’s requirements is outlined in the assessment card, below. The EITI Board agreed that Mali had not made satisfactory progress on requirements 1.4., 1.5., 2.2., 2.3, 4.1., 4.9, 5.2. and 7. The major areas of concern, where Mali made inadequate progress relate to multi-stakeholder group internal governance (1.4), license allocations (2.2), data quality (4.9) and subnational transfers (5.2).

Accordingly, the EITI Board agreed that Mali will need to take corrective actions outlined below. Progress with the corrective actions will be assessed in a second validation commencing on 24 November 2018. Failure to achieve meaningful progress with considerable improvements across several individual requirements in the second Validation will result in suspension in accordance with the EITI Standard. In accordance with the EITI Standard, the MSG may request an extension of this timeframe, or request that Validation commences earlier than scheduled.

The Board’s decision followed a Validation that commenced on 1 July 2016. In accordance with the 2016 EITI Standard, an initial assessment was undertaken by the International Secretariat. The findings were reviewed by an Independent Validator, who submitted a Validation Report to the EITI Board. Mali’s MSG was invited to comment throughout the process. The MSG’s comments on the report were taken into consideration. The final decision was taken by the EITI Board.

Mali's progress by requirement

The EITI Board agreed the following assessment card:

We recommend using Adobe Acrobat PDF reader to access all content and features in this document. You can download the program for free here

Corrective Actions

The EITI Board agreed the following corrective actions. Progress in addressing these corrective actions will be assessed in a second Validation commencing on 24 November 2018:

  1. In accordance with requirement 1.2, it is recommended that industry representatives on the MSG improve coordination of industry positions in advance of MSG meetings. Companies could also benefit from a clear system for appointing their alternates to the MSG.
  2. In accordance with requirement 1.3, it is recommended that civil society undertakes a capacity building needs assessment and that actions to address capacity constraints are implemented.
  3.  In accordance with requirement 1.4, it is also recommended that the MSG explores options for improving representation of each constituency on the MSG. Stakeholders should have the opportunity to provide input to the MSG’s policy regarding the number of MSG representatives from each stakeholder group, alternates and rotation in accordance with clear procedures in the MSG’s TOR as set out in Requirement 1.4. It is recommended that the MSG address inconsistent meeting attendance by some Ministries, including the Ministry of Finance, AUREP, the Ministry of Land, the Ministry of Planning and Land Management, and the Ministry of Environment. The MSG is also encouraged to conduct an analysis of the performance of the EITI structures and to consider the possibility of merging the Supervisory Committee with the MSG. The MSG is encouraged to ensure that mechanisms are developed to enable stakeholder groups to communicate with their constituencies.
  4. In accordance with requirement 1.5, it is recommended that the MSG links EITI implementation to national priorities in its 2017 work plan.
  5. In accordance with requirement 2.1, the government is encouraged to clarify ambiguities regarding the fiscal regime applicable to mining companies, e.g., in relation to stabilisation clauses. The MSG should ensure that the situation is clearly documented in the EITI Report, including any recommendations for further work in this area.
  6. In accordance with requirement 2.2, it is required that the government discloses information regarding the oil and mining license awards and transfers made during the financial year covered by the EITI report, including: a description of the process for transferring or awarding the license; the technical and financial criteria used; information about the recipient(s) of the license; and any non-trivial deviations in license transfers and awards. The MSG should review this work and address any gaps in reporting. The MSG is also encouraged to comment on the efficiency and effectiveness of the license allocation system, and to make recommendations for reforms where appropriate.
  7. The MSG should ensure that all reporting entities disclose comprehensive and reliable figures in accordance with requirement 4.1 and 4.9. The MSG will be required to disclose a time-bound action plans for addressing weaknesses in data reliability and comprehensiveness.  It is a requirement that the MSG and the Government of Mali review recordkeeping systems of government agencies participating in EITI reporting to ensure that adequate procedures are followed, in view of improving revenue traceability, transparency, and accountability. Progress with implementation of this plan will be considered in subsequent Validations. It is recommended that the MSG considers necessary improvements to the reporting templates in consultation with the Independent Administrator for future EITI reports. The MSG is also encouraged to include disaggregated payments for companies below the materiality threshold. The MSG should address stakeholder concerns that the one-month reporting period may be too short and explore options with the government regarding delays and inefficiencies of manual record-keeping at the treasury.
  8. In accordance with requirement 4.8, the MSG and the Government of Mali are encouraged to promote routine disclosure of data required by the EITI Standard by the government agencies participating in EITI reporting to improve the accessibility and timeliness of the disclosed data.
  9. In accordance with requirement 5.2, the MSG should ensure full disclosure of payments by companies of the trade tax and sub-national transfers between the central and local governments.
  10. In accordance with requirement 5.3.a, the MSG is encouraged to disclose further information on revenue management and expenditures, including a description of the state budget and expenditures earmarked for health, education, and other social programmes. This should include a description of the methods for ensuring accountability and efficiency in their use per 5.3.a. 
  11. In accordance with requirement 6.3.a, the MSG should examine opportunities to provide more detailed reporting on artisanal and small scale mining in future reports, linking to wider efforts to address these issues.
  12. In accordance with requirement 7.1, the MSG should proceed with the dissemination of the most recent EITI Reports as soon as funding becomes available. In accordance with requirement 7.1.b, the MSG should agree a clear policy on the accessibility, dissemination and use of EITI data (a requirement from 1 January 2017), and to provide EITI data in open data formats.
  13. In accordance with requirement 7.3, the MSG should consider the recommendations from EITI Reports and agree relevant follow-up and implementation. It is recommended that the MSG undertake an impact assessment to identify opportunities for increasing the impact of implementation.
  14. In accordance with requirement 7.4, the MSG should provide opportunities for all stakeholders, including stakeholders not serving on the MSG, to participate in the production of APRs and to review the impact of EITI implementation.

The MSG is encouraged to consider the other recommendations in the Validator’s Report and the International Secretariat’s initial assessment, and to document the MSG’s responses to these recommendations in the next annual progress report.

Next Validation date

A second Validation will commence on 24 November 2018.

Impact of the EITI in Mali

This excerpt is taken from section 7.5 of Mali's Report on initial data collection and stakeholder consultation by the EITI International Secretariat. Find the file here.

The President of the Chamber of Mines, who sits on the supervisory committee, noted that they have seen improvements in reporting over the years. He noted that the EITI follows up on revenues and that the communities feel empowered to ask questions of the government and companies. He also noted the negative impact on mining firms given the instability in the North in 2012. He questioned whether the EITI had been self-critical in terms of an understanding of whether the actual structure works as intended. He noted that communication and logic between the three structures needed to be improved and that it was key to have the right structures involved so that the process could have a true impact.

Partners noted that the EITI has helped communities understand the sector better. It was noted that some communities felt that the sector extracts resources and leave poverty in their wake. The EITI has helped with providing more information on the contribution of the sector. Companies shared this perspective. Referring to a dissemination event in Sikasso, a company representative noted the community trusted EITI information, which was not the case for company data. It was noted that the demand for regional EITI offices came from the communities themselves in a bid to better monitor resource management and use within their communities.

It was noted that the publication of information on sub-national payments, trade tax would make the EITI ever more pertinent to communities. Communities were previously trying to reproduce the work of the EITI with limited success. A company representative noted that he had attended a workshop organized by PWYP in Kalana in 2013. This helped resolve a crisis on the site at the end of 2012 through providing information on the issue of the trade tax.

A government representative noted that there was already better harmonization of government structures and in the organization of archives with his government agency. The EITI was felt to impose a certain accounting rigour in classifying archives. Company representatives also noted that is now a better accounting of receipts delivered to companies by the government. A civil society representative noted that previously there were missing pages in the mining registers. Computerization has helped reduce these inconsistencies and has had a deterrent impact on operators in the sector. Another government representative opined however that it was too early to talk about the real impact of the EITI which can be evaluated at a later stage as reforms are implemented.