Mr. Nicolas Janssen, FPS Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation

Transcription

1 Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative Implementation Support Facility (MDTF) FINAL Summary Notes Informal Management Committee Meeting Wednesday, December 15, 2010 Brussels, Belgium Present Belgium Canada EC Finland France Germany Netherlands Spain Switzerland USA World Bank EITI Secretariat By Phone Norway UK Unable to Attend Australia Mr. Nicolas Janssen, FPS Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation Ms. Mora Johnson, DFAIT Ms. Jeea Saraswati, CIDA Ms. Ruta Baltause, Directorate-General for Energy Mr. Matti Kiisseli, Ministry for Foreign Affairs Ms. Magali Kreitmann, Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Ms. Gabriele Zoeller, BMZ Mr. Wouter Biesterbos, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ms. Marta Pedrajas Herrero, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mr. Olivier Bovet, State Secretariat for Economic Affairs Mr. Mohammed Motiwala, US Department of State Mr. Paulo De Sa, Sector Manager, SEGOM Chair of Meeting Mr. Anwar Ravat, Program Manager, SEGOM Mr. Javier Aguilar, Deputy Program Manager, SEGOM Ms. Diana Corbin, Donor Relations, SEGOM Mr. Jonas Moberg, Head of EITI International Secretariat Mr. Eddie Rich, Deputy Head of EITI International Secretariat Ms. Bente Weisser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (part of the time) Ms. Rosemary Stevenson, Department for International Development (part of the time) Mr. Tony Prescott, Australian Agency for International Development Introduction The Management Committee (MC) of the EITI Implementation Support Facility Trust Funds (also known as the MDTF) had an informal meeting on Wednesday, December 15, 2010, in Brussels, Belgium, after the EITI Board meeting on December Mr. Paulo De Sa, Manager, Oil Gas and Mining Unit (World Bank) chaired the meeting. Ten of the thirteen donors currently supporting the Facility Trust Funds were represented at the meeting. The representatives from Norway and UK DfID joined by phone; the representative from Australia was unable to attend. This Management Committee meeting in Brussels was an informal meeting, since the MC had just met in Dar-es-Salaam in October and it was outside the reporting cycle. As agreed in Dar-es-Salaam, the next formal MC meeting will take place in Paris on Friday, March 4, immediately following the EITI Global Conference.

2 1. Discussion with EITI Secretariat Staff (Jonas Moberg and Eddie Rich) Jonas Moberg opened the conversation with a reminder of the comments by EITI Board member Negbalee Warner at the close of the meeting the previous day, noting that it is time for stakeholders to raise the bar and put technical discussions in perspective. There are 900 million people living in resource-rich countries; 53 reports have been published by 23 countries a lot has happened in the last year. RWI is collaborating with the Secretariat to analyze the reports: why does Norway get 80% and other countries get only 40%? It is sensitive territory, but needs to be looked at. Evaluation. The supporting countries and all stakeholders want to see the impact of EITI measured, but it is very difficult there is no causality always visible. However, we need to ask the question even if it is difficult to answer. The Secretariat is hesitant to have a plenary with heads of state at the Conference until the initial findings are seen. Paris Conference. The team is committed to see that each implementing country is allowed to speak. Each panel should have representation of all stakeholders it is an opportunity for outreach/engagement for donors, briefings, etc. US Dodd-Frank Bill. The bill is a financial sector reform act that requires that extractives companies registered with US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) publish country by country / project by project the money they are giving to the governments where they operate, and there is a link to EITI in those countries. The Board does not have an agreed view, and the Secretariat does not either. EITI is about the multi-stakeholder process, whereas Dodd-Frank is about collection of data for an American process that does not necessarily affect EITI in the countries or the multi-stakeholder process EITI will need to continue. It is still unclear how Dodd-Frank will work in practice, but many NGOs are pushing for similar legislation in other jurisdictions underway in the EU. Companies may end up aligning themselves with CSOs to push for more such legislation, in order to allow for a more level global playing field. Jonas also clarified that Dodd-Frank only applies to SEC companies, so from the country perspective in terms of EITI implementation, there is no effect; it only affects companies that operate in the country that are also SEC-registrants. Outreach to New Countries. Participants discussed the various new countries coming on board, and the outreach provided to them. There is a new wave of interested countries in Latin America: Chile, Guatemala, Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago. In most cases, the WB and the Secretariat do not have an option to stop discussions with new countries, even if they are not high priority; it is a balancing act on all sides. There is new Board committee to address outreach, with strategy related to the relative importance of the country s extractives sector and other considerations, but it is really an ad hoc process, because of momentum in regions or countries and opportunities to engage, requires constant judgment calls. There was a perfect storm of interest in Australia: pilot implementation because industry and others are interested. Other countries receiving attention/support: South Africa, Uganda, PNG, Vietnam, Sudan, and Angola. 2. Presentation: Design of New Civil Society Support Activity Diana Corbin gave a brief update on the RWI contract, then presented the early design of a new program for direct civil society support, building on the current RWI contract, and received many useful comments to be incorporated into the final design to be presented for approval by the donors during the MC meeting in Paris. The main distinguishing feature for this new fund will be the focus on capacity building specifically to allow civil society to fully and effectively engage in the multi-stakeholder. To do this, the

3 World Bank team would liaise with in-country consultants familiar with each specific MSG to determine the needs and design a program to target effective participation in the MSG by civil society actors. Countries involved in the current RWI contract (Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Liberia, Mozambique, Peru and Yemen) would not be eligible in the first round, though they may be eligible thereafter, as the focus and activities will be different. As a practical matter, the MDTF/Facility trust funds closing date (April 22, 2013) will need to be extended in order to allow sufficient time to implement the work plan (especially for new countries joining the EITI) and use the funds currently or soon to be available to the program. This will be discussed in more detail in the meeting in Paris (Note: the period for the CS activity introduced above will initially be scheduled for 18 months, until the closing date is extended). During his discussion earlier in the meeting, Jonas Moberg noted that the RWI contract was working very well in Afghanistan, where he recently traveled. RWI used some of the funds to take a delegation to Mongolia for peer-to-peer learning. The government, civil society, and mining company went to Mongolia and met with the MSG. Jonas said that it helped to focus RWI on helping EITI even more, and could be considered a case study of how it can work well in a difficult country setting. 3. Presentation: Subnational-level EITI Javier Aguilar presented a concept note for a new report EITI at Subnational Level and received useful feedback. This report will be the basis for an executive session during the Paris conference. Ghana, Indonesia, and Mongolia would be invited to share experiences during the conference. Javier noted that the Secretariat is supporting the concept but a lot can also be done without changing the rules. So far, Ghana is the only country with templates at the local/project level. In Nigeria, there is allocation to states. The Secretariat noted that Greenland is considering implementation, for which this report could provide useful guidance. For the Australia pilot, there is an outline of the reporting template with government side having two columns for State and Federal reporting. They would report payments separately (pilot with 7-10 companies, 70-80% of payments, not all states), and prepare one report in the pilot phase, with all indicators except materiality then publish the report and seek candidacy. Javier noted that what has been proposed by Colombia and PNG (to start with pilot at the subnational level), but some of the proposal may not be in accordance with the rules of the EITI, notably the need for a national reconciliation of revenues and payments. Paulo also noted that the government of India is not interested in implementing EITI, but some states are (i.e., Orissa). The Secretariat noted that EITI stakeholders would welcome the State to join, as long as the government of India does not try to claim to be implementing. In terms of costs, the Secretariat noted that subnational implementation not necessarily increase validation costs but could increase reconciliation costs and having regional MSGs may also increase implementation costs. 4. Revenue Transparency in Zimbabwe During the MC meeting Dar-es-Salaam, some donors expressed concern about any sort of MDTF involvement in Zimbabwe because of their countries sanctions and legal prohibition to work there. At the meeting in Brussels, the World Bank presented an option to continue to engage in Zimbabwe in an EITIlike process, but strictly through Bank-executed interventions (i.e., no MDTF grant to the country for

4 recipient-execution). The Bank also agreed to convene a meeting with Canada and the USA on December 22, 2010 to explain the program in more detail (including the important distinction between Bankexecuted activities and recipient-executed MDTF grants) and resolve the matter in a way that is acceptable to all. The MC will be informed of the outcome of this meeting. 5. Discussion Topic 1 Rule changes and policy refinements Most of this discussion took place during the session with the Secretariat. Validation is an enormous amount of work and the multi-stakeholder process is complex. In terms of the rules, there is a sense of urgency to get a deal before Paris, for civil society and companies to agree on a new structured Rules Book. Items discussed included the following: 1. The two-year rule. It was premature for a decision at the meeting in Brussels, but it did seem to be softening to three years. 2. There was agreement at the Board to move Indicator 5 to pre-candidate stage, and even to before Indicator Evolution of scope (other sectors), some stakeholders would like to see EITI move along the value chain, even criticize that it focuses too narrowly on extractives, but that is the strength of EITI. 4. WB inputs were not really discussed at the Board but were discussed extensively at the Validation Committee and will continue to have life. 5. Some Civil Society working group conversation is ongoing but the reference to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) will probably be taken out. The working group seems to be reaching agreement, though there was criticism that the Rules now read as a Civil Society Manifesto. 6. There is need to specifically explain what it means to be Close to Compliant or Meaningful Progress the distinction is still not clear for many stakeholders. 7. The WB input regarding payment for validation was also not discussed, and the Board will need to come back to the WB s ideas for MDTF or other funding and revise it after Paris. The WB noted that civil society paper handed out during the Board meeting was very clear on the point that some validators should not be allowed to continue, especially some francophones, because they appeared to be siding with government and seemed to have few incentives to be critical of countries. 6. Discussion Topic 2 Validation Committee results and consequences for MDTF work program At the Board meeting, there were six countries declared Close to Compliant, and two with Meaningful Progress. The Republic of Congo has said they will seek MDTF funding to complete steps needed as a result of their Meaningful Progress status. MC members agreed, and a proposal will be presented with the new work plan at the meeting in Paris. On all other countries, the MC agreed that the normal grants now in place (or to come as Phase II or Phase III) will prioritize validation steps to be met especially where countries are required to produce second or next EITI Report before they can become compliant. In the case of Peru, the IDB has offered financial assistance, since the MDTF grant has already expired and a new phase will not be in place in time to respond to the Validation Committee requirements. The Management Committee members also requested that, going forward, the World Bank s usual political economy considerations papers should include comments on the status of the countries MDTF grants, as appropriate.

5 7. Logistical Information for the Events in Paris March 1-4, 2011 Fifth EITI Global Conference Venue: The OECD Conference Center 2, rue André Pascal Paris Cedex 16 France Tel: + 33 (0) Hotel: Le Méridien Etoile 81 Boulevard Gouvion Saint-Cyr Paris Cedex 17 France Phone: +33 (0) resindiv.paris@lemeridien.com Official website: (other hotel options available at eitiparis.org, under logistics/accommodations) MDTF Management Committee Meeting Friday, March 4 09:00 to 18:00 Venue: World Bank Office, Paris 66, avenue d'iena Paris France All participants are encouraged to make their travel and accommodation arrangements as soon as possible, and to confirm their attendance at the Conference by registering online at