Transparency Initiative (EITI)

10 Executive summary
15. High(er) expectations of future impacts: Over 80% of
stakeholders see a positive contribution to all result areas
under review of this study (fiscal transparency, public
debate, anti-corruption, trade and investment climate).
For the future, stakeholders’ expect the EITI to highly
contribute to ‘efficient use of revenues’, where expectations
show a 32% increase from 20% (today) to 52% (future).
The areas of ‘better management of ecological effects’,
‘better management of social tensions’, ‘fiscal
transparency’ and ‘Ease of Doing Business’ are all above
a 20% increase.
16. ‘Net Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflow’ and the
‘time to prepare and pay taxes’: Macro-data analysis of
EITI countries in a panel of 98 countries suggests that
the EITI could have a positive effect on two variables
tested by this study: ‘Net Foreign Direct Investment
(FDI) inflow’ and the ‘time to prepare and pay taxes’.
17. Less impact on both ends of the development
spectrum: In free and democratic as well as in nonfree
and autocratic countries people experience less
impact from the EITI. The prospects for impact appear
to be highest for the countries in-between: hybrid
countries tend to be rather weak in many dimensions
of statehood and a certain capacity level of stakeholders
(e.g. ability to produce timely and meaningful reports,
constituencies to understand this data along with
political rights to express their informed political
will, consensus-building, effective use of support,
policy learning) needs to meet a trajectory of general
political and economic transformation. Therefore,
implementing the EITI causes more of a change in
these hybrid countries in transformation compared to
stable democracies and autocracies.
18. Countries can delink increased transparency from increased
accountability: In order to safeguard civil society
participation in the EITI, the Civil Society Protocol
was developed by the Board and made part of the
Standard in 2015. However, the study could not identify
robust methodology in the Validation process as established
in 2016 that would consistently detect whether
there is freedom to debate the outputs of the EITI. In
the validation reports of the past, there has been very
little consideration of this, despite it being a part of the
2011 Rules. The “custodians” of the Standard, the EITI
Board and International Secretariat, can only guarantee
the production and assurance of the Requirements under
the EITI Standard, which is done through the Validation
process. Unless the Board integrates items into
the standardized EITI methodology and/or the Secretariat
includes those in the guidance notes which interpret
the Requirements, countries can dodge the debate
and political consequences, and in doing so they are
able to delink increased transparency from increased
accountability.
19. No overarching ‘transparency and accountability metrics’:
Given the broad range of objectives and institutional
solutions observed, this study found it feasible to
produce a generic results model, but not feasible to develop
a single overarching indicator for EITI-induced
systemic sector development or ‘transparency and accountability
metrics’ that cover the diverse set of 50
plus country cases. The EITI is implemented by countries
and indicators measuring impact need to fit to the
individual country case of systemic strengthening of
good governance. The theory of change and the generic
EITI results model of the study is designed to cover this
demand-driven and flexible approach.
EFFICIENCY
20. Research into its own impact neglected: None of the officially
mandated evaluations and reviews has served
the purpose of producing longitudinal baseline data. In
that respect, the EITI has not used its resources meaningfully
to conduct research into its own impact.
21. Accountability of remunerations: Country case studies
indicate that remunerations for EITI activities and per
diems in lesser developed countries can be out of balance
with poverty or income levels in those countries.
SUSTAINABILITY
22. Consensus to make transparency meaningful for the
target groups: The EITI is unified in the approach to
make transparency meaningful for the target groups
(e.g. Progress Report 2016 – From Reports to Results). It
has been widely ascertained by stakeholders that more
of the same (publishing reports that remain largely unread
by the target audience in some countries) does not
lead to better results and can at a certain point be an
impediment to impact and sustainability.