THE GHEITI PROCESS SO FAR
Presentation at a Workshop to Disseminate
the 2009 GhEITI Audit Report
Steve Manteaw, Campaigns Coordinator, ISODEC;
Convener, PWYP – Ghana, Chairman CS Platform on
Oil and Gas, Member, World Bank Extractive Industries
Advisory Group
Tarkwa, November 23, 2011
The Road so far traversed
• Endorsement
• Initiation – governance, work plan, audit ToR, Templates
dev’t
• Implementation – appt. of aggregator, data gathering,
reporting
• Civic engagement – report launch, forums, civil society
feed back
• Policy and institutional reforms – review of royalty rate,
guidelines for royalty utilisation, institutional
strengthening
• Validation
• Extension to oil and gas
Seeking a way out of the trap
• The launch of EITI at the 2002 WSSD was
most opportune for natural resource
endowed countries caught in the resource
curse trap and seeking a way out.
• Even though the Chamber was publishing
payments it lacked visibility public trust.
• Ghana signed on to the initiative in 2003
and almost immediately took steps to
begin implementation.
• The formal proclamation was in Elmina
that year, following the Lancaster
conference.
Establishing the framework for
GhEITI Implemnetation
• Having signed on to the initiative, the next step
was to set up structures for implementation.
• The constitution of the Multi-stakeholder Group
required nominations from the tri-partite
stakeholders.
• For the government and the Chamber it was
fairly easy to get representatives;
• For CSOs it wasn’t that simple.
• GAPVOD’s nominee, ISODEC in 2004 took
steps to broaden CSOs participation.
• Today, PWYP-Ghana has 20 institutional and
over hundred individual members.
The CSO Objective for
Engaging in GHEITI (Contd.)
• Our objective for engaging in the EITI
process has been to influence the process
in a way that addresses our concerns in
terms of scope and content.
• From the onset, opinion had been divided
on whether or not we should be in this
business of EITI.
• The concerns we find on the ground are
largely at variance with the EITI principles
and criteria.
The Thrust of Community
Concerns
• In PWYP-Ghana’s engagement with
communities concerns have generally centred
on the relationship between mining companies
and the communities in which they operate.
• In particular, issues of crop compensation, lack
of transparency in the disbursement of mineral
royalties traditional authorities, environmental
cost and compensation, livelihood insecurity,
and human right abuses perpetrated by mining
companies, working in tandem with state
security agencies have been the most nagging
ones.
The Ghana EITI Work Programme
• Having constituted the MSG, a TOR that spelt
out the group’s mandate was developed and
adopted.
• A work programme was then prepared, which
included template development and adoption.
• Because most implementing countries were oil
focused and the global template had been
developed with oil and gas in mind, the global
template had to be adapted to our circumstance.
• The various revenue streams in the mining
sector were mapped out, and on the basis of
those, appropriate templates were developed.
• The various stakeholders then had the liberty to
consult their constituencies for input
Contentious Issues
• Whether or not to include PAYE – the
argument is that PAYE are payments from
workers and not the company. The
company only acts on behalf of the
employees;
• CSR, in-kind payments and how to treat
them
• Whether or not to include traditional
authority in the audit of payments, receipts
and utilization
Sensitization Activities
• The MSG found it necessary to constitute two subcommittees to lead in the various dimensions of the
implementation – Technical and Communication
• It then embarked on a massive sensitization drive,
where stakeholders had the opportunity to make
input into the design, finalization, and adoption of
the templates
• The most difficult stakeholder group has so far been
traditional authority.
• GHEITI took a decision to still go ahead and publish
payments to chiefs regardless of their intransigence.
• Maybe the constitutional reform process will clarify
the constitutional ambiguity that has created this
problem.
Appointment of the Aggregator
• Securing the independence of the
aggregator was paramount
• MSG developed the Aggregator’s
ToR, put out the adverts, undertook
the pre-selection and interviewed
applicants
• Disagreement with the WB on
recruitment process
GhEITI Reporting
• Implementation began with a “Scoping” or
“environmental scan” or better still “pilot” and
resulted in the release of an inception report,
published in 2006
• The first substantive report released in February
2007, and covered Jan – June 2004
• By the close of that year, the second report,
covering July – Dec. 2004 was released.
• And in 2008 the third report, covering 2005 was
released
• Then a long lull.
Explanation for the Inertia
• It is tempting for the casual observer to conclude
that the delay in producing subsequent reports, was
caused by a certain waning commitment to the
initiative
• Factors accounting for the delay included: the
political transition, the decision to secure WB
funding for the next phase and the elaborate
process that it required, including the procurement
of a new aggregator, developing roadmap for oil and
gas, and preparing for validation
• So, though no report was produced between 2008
and now, a great deal was being done in respect of
EITI
Dissemination
• The weakest link in GhEITI’s work has
undoubtedly been that of dissemination of
reports.
• Our dissemination strategy has been mainly
road shows, meeting with stakeholders in mining
enclaves in workshop settings to discuss the
findings of the reports
• But this is now changing. For the 2006-8 reports
we issued a press release to announce its
adoption; we organized a formal launch; and
published abridged or popular versions of the
reports.
• Our dissemination activities unlike previously, is
guided by a clearly articulated communications
strategy document
Dialogue and Critical
Engagement
• For us at GHEITI, the essence of EITI is not just
churning out reports but securing critical stakeholder
engagements around the reports, and chatting a
course for addressing adverse findings made.
• The approach has been to hold a meetings to bring
the findings of the EITI audits to the citizenry,
particularly community people, who are most
immediately impacted by extractive activities. Our
expectation, and indeed the initiative’s rationale is to
arm the people to be able to demand accountability
from those to whom responsibility for managing the
revenues has been bestowed.
Fallouts from GHEITI
• Enhanced stakeholder dialogue
• Help in adopting a consensus-building approach to
extractive sector policy initiatives
• Institutional weaknesses highlighted
• Revision of the royalty rate
• Guidelines for use of mineral royalties at the district
level
• Provided a great deal of lessons for the emerging oil
and gas sector – several of the provisions in the
PRM and the E&P bills are informed by the
experience of GHEITI and other lessons drawn from
the mineral sector
Looking into the future
• EITI remains an incomplete balance
sheet, but presents opportunities for
addressing some revenue.
management and utilization concerns
• Value-chain approach imminent.
• Sustainability - legislation will sustain
commitment and ensure that GHEITI
is not abandoned midstream
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION