Transparency Initiative (EITI)

92 Recommendations
When EITI stakeholders make decisions, regarding the direction
and steps to take with the Initiative, quite a complex
and dynamic set of issues needs to be considered. The
following recommendations aim at preparing the EITI to
monitor and evaluate results while accounting for the very
real financial and staffing constraints that exist for the EITI
internationally and nationally.
STRATEGY
1. Focus on measurability of outcomes and impact of the
EITI (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 EITI Requirements and
achieving the (largely EITI 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 EITI 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 EITI
as an instrument for evidence-based reform processes
that, if applied, can help the EITI 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 EITI
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 Initiative 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 EITI is desirable.
However, in the original group of EITI 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 EITI reporting, it may be justified
to apply an EITI 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