Transparency Initiative (EITI)

89
where transparency can lead to reform. 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.
They could have equally been commissioned along
the given questions of interest (e.g. Scanteam 2011 evaluation
informing the strategy reform that led to the
Standard 2013). 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.
They may, however, be in balance with the level
of internationally funded activities in the respective
country, unrelated to EITI-specific conditions. The EITI
has no rules against this but encourages accountability
through the Board (Rich/Moberg 2015: 110). The review
of literature and documents did not produce a full picture
of modes of delivery, allocation of budgets and aspects
of cost-efficiency – and neither did the interviews.
This impedes a fair and sound assessment of the efficiency
of the EITI.
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.
23. Decisions by consensus, not sufficiently based on evidence:
The question of whether the 2013 Standard is
sustainable is a critical one. By heavily engaging the EI-
TI in routine operations at country level implementation,
it became less of an ‘initiative’ and more of an ‘organization’.
An extensive strategy review was conducted
by the EITI prior to the Standard and a governance review
thereafter, but there was no ex-ante evaluation to
provide a systematic basis of evidence before the farreaching
decision to introduce the Standard was taken.
Ex post, an external and independent assessment
came to the conclusion in early 2015 that not a single
one of the EITI countries had met all the governance
Requirements of the Standard (MSI Integrity 2015). Given
that not all countries have reported under the Standard,
let alone been validated against it, the bulk of firsttime
Validations will not be completed until the end of
2017 and will likely show results of rather weak national
M&E systems. Furthermore, officially mandated evaluations
of the Initiative have not been applied, which
could be of use to guide decisions.
24. The Initiative holds a key to change the governance dimension:
Regarding the dimensions of economic, social
and environmental sustainability, the EITI has the