91 11. RECOMMENDATIONS
92 Recommendations When <strong>EITI</strong> stakeholders make decisions, regarding the direction and steps to take with the <strong>Initiative</strong>, quite a complex and dynamic set of issues needs to be considered. The following recommendations aim at preparing the <strong>EITI</strong> to monitor and evaluate results while accounting for the very real financial and staffing constraints that exist for the <strong>EITI</strong> internationally and nationally. STRATEGY 1. Focus on measurability of outcomes and impact of the <strong>EITI</strong> (Requirement 7): Without a timely introduction of M&E, categories of effectiveness and impact cannot be adequately assessed in the future. The regular monitoring instruments of the work plan, annual report, annual activity report and Validation report were found to primarily provide an overview of the activities undertaken to ensure compliance with <strong>EITI</strong> Requirements and achieving the (largely <strong>EITI</strong> process-related) objectives. As put in an evaluation report five years ago weaknesses remain in the form of “little impact at the societal level” and “lack of links with larger public sector reform” (Scanteam 2011). Much has been done since 2011 to tackle those problems, not least the introduction of the 2013 Standard. Validation is a check of countries’ compliance to the <strong>EITI</strong> Standard, and not an evaluation of impacts – unless the latter is consistently fostered as part of the Standard. If the ambitious level of Requirement 7 is upheld, reporting will need to focus on results that are higher in the hierarchy of a results model. These are outcomes and impacts. They can be identified with a casespecific theory of change. The generic results model of this study can be used for improving results measurement and highlighting the value of the <strong>EITI</strong> as an instrument for evidence-based reform processes that, if applied, can help the <strong>EITI</strong> to be successful in the long-term. However, measuring outcomes and impacts requires expertise beyond the capacity to understand the fiscal and technical aspects of <strong>EITI</strong> Reports, and the Validation process does not have standardized methodologies that ensure this will happen. For example, there is no provision to assess stakeholder views outside of MSGs, apply benchmarks like international indices, and no guidance on how to qualitatively determine if there has been public debate and anti-corruption measures or just some report launch events and ads in the newspaper. In between the generic results model (global) and country-specific results models (in this study for DR Congo and Mozambique) it can be helpful to develop the following category-specific results models for better analytical results: I. Level of development: Categories based on the IMF’s World Economic Outlook (WEO), advanced economies (in Table B of the WEO 2016), and emerging market and developing economies (in Tables D and E of the WEO 2016), furthermore heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs), and low-income developing countries (LIDCs). II. Level of resource-endowment: Categories based on EI share of GDP, EI revenue share of budget, EI share of exports according to IMF and World Bank data. III. Level of good governance: Categories based on democratic/autocratic systems according to BTI. IV. Analytical level for results logic: global/international, national, local. 2. Measure the perception of impact: The <strong>Initiative</strong> needs to deliver primarily in contexts of weak governance. Those contexts are often characterized by a lack of statistical data and weak monitoring and evaluation capacities. Use of systems in implementing countries and mainstreaming monitoring of the <strong>EITI</strong> is desirable. However, in the original group of <strong>EITI</strong> countries (Sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia) the statistical and monitoring capacities are weak. Furthermore, it will take a long time until the impact of the 2013 Standard can be evaluated based on macro data. Given that approximately USD 50 million is spent globally every year to support <strong>EITI</strong> reporting, it may be justified to apply an <strong>EITI</strong> related benchmarking system to measure status and progress, until the day when it will be possible that the impact of implementation of the 2013 Standard can be monitored in data of third parties (e.g. World Bank, HDI, BTI). The approach of the online survey of this study (Annex III) could be adapted for this purpose. If so, the adaptation should consider making the results more reliable compared to this study, e.g. to establish a panel of resource persons that can be interviewed frequently (annually or biannually) over longer