Response 7. Maria Lobacheva, representative of Put Oil Revenues under Public Control
QUESTION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Should effort and progress in meeting the
requirements over time be taken into account
in Validation?
Should Validation encourage reporting that go
beyond the EITI requirements?
Should the timeframe for countries to achieve
compliance be the same for all implementing
countries? If so, should the timeframe be a
fixed number of years as at present
Should progress and direction of travel matter
for how much time countries are given to
achieve compliance?
To what extent should the local context in
which the EITI is being implemented be taken
into account during Validation?
Should EITI requirements continue to be
assessed as met or unmet?
ANSWER
Yes
Only encourage it, not make it obligatory
It should be the same. If there is progress in some areas, more time can be provided, or in
force-majeure circumstances the process can be suspended without excluding the country.
Yes it should be taken note of. Otherwise there won’t be any progress
The EITI requirements for 2013 clearly stated the scope of data in context that are
required to achieve compliance, including those that are mandatory and those that are
encouraged. But in practice some of the factors do not dependent on the parties
implementing the EITI in a country (the National Stakeholder Council, the National EITI
Secretariat). The implementation of requirements depends on legislative and regulatory
changes, which do not always correspond to strategic development directions in other
sectors. Validation should not pass categorical judgment on unmet criteria, legitimate
reasons should be taken into account.
It might make sense to design country-specific indicators to measure the achievement of
each EITI requirement.
For the purposes of validation each requirement must include contextual justification as
standard, but should not be categorical, particularly in case of non-compliance with the
requirement. Genuine reasons must be taken into account and recommendations should be
given for real achievement of the criterion, with due account for a realistic timeframe.
There can be exceptions to this if there is obvious non-fulfilment of a requirement and
overall unwillingness to meet it, in which case the requirement should be considered
unmet.
7.
Since the requirements are fairly general, specific indicators need to be designed that take
account of the local context, so that the validator is not guided by its own subjective
notions and assessments.
Should there be more disaggregated
Yes, this will make it easier for a country to assess how much progress it is making
assessments, showing which requirements are towards compliance.
met and which requirements are unmet,
including the level of progress in meeting each
requirement?
8.
Should the consequences of not reaching
compliance status be removed? I.e. countries
are allowed to stay members of the EITI as
long as they make progress towards meeting
requirements?
If the country does nothing to achieve the requirements, it must be removed. A country
must make progress that is clear and ongoing. Time limits are important because if there
are no limitations as to time, some countries will drag their feet and only make a few
adjustments.
9.
How can Validation measure progress or
direction of travel towards meeting a
requirement?
10.
Should Validation take place more frequently
to measure progress, for example at the end
of each EITI reporting cycle, or is the current
frequency of every 3 years adequate?
Should the concept of “candidate” and
“compliant” be replaced, and if so with what?
What terminology could be suitable to
indicate the various degrees of progress in
meeting EITI Requirements? Are the current
As I wrote above, indicators to assess progress need to be designed. Perhaps these
indicators should be designed for each country individually, since their start levels of
transparency and legislation are different. Measurements can be made using these
indicators (working group set up + draft law prepared, which takes account of such and
such + draft law included in the parliament schedule + approved by parliament deputies
+). Performance of these indicators can demonstrate progress and political will, but there
still have to be time limits. Movement is good, but if it does not lead to a final result by a
certain time, it is bad. So time should be given to achieve requirements, and if there is
progress but a requirement is not achieved, then more time can be given, which should
also be limited.
Every 3 years is adequate.
11.
12.
No
They are appropriate
13.
14.
15.
concepts of “limited progress” and
“meaningful progress” appropriate?
How can Validation incentivize countries to
continue to progress and innovate both
before and after reaching compliance status?
Should multi-stakeholder groups and/or local
and international experts on extractive sector
governance have a greater role in Validation?
Should the International Secretariat have a
greater role in carrying out Validation
assessments? What are the risks and benefits
of this approach? What should be done to
mitigate conflicts of interest?
Validation and final assessment of a country’s progress is an incentive in itself.
Validation must be independent.
Hard to say, because I do not know what the role of the International Secretariat is now.
On the other hand, the International Secretariat, unlike the validator, oversees the
implementation of the EITI process from the time when the country joined the EITI , so it
may have a better idea of progress. On the other hand, it may be worth carrying out out
dual independent validation (two validators, unrelated and unacquainted with each other)
in some cases to avoid lobbying in someone's interests (perhaps one of the parties in the
multilateral group in a particular country),