Mali's Validation commenced on 1 July 2016. On 24 May 2017, the EITI Board found that Mali has made meaningful progress in implementing the 2016 EITI Standard.
The following documentation laid the basis for the Board's decision, attached below:
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 eiti.org.
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.
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:
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.
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.