Appendix: Summary of EITI’s Strategy Consultation With Implementing Countries
EITI undertook a strategy consultation with implementing countries between December 2019 and January 2020. The aim of this consultation was to ensure that country contexts and interests were reflected in the themes of the EITI Board Strategy Retreat in February 2020 – energy transition, corruption and measuring impact. A survey was sent to all 52 (at that time) EITI-implementing countries through their national secretariats, and regional calls were held with country managers in Francophone Africa, Anglophone Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Central Asia and Southeast Asia. A total of 35 countries participated, with 26 responding to the survey, and 12 participating in regional calls. The anonymized results are presented here.
Most countries agreed that EITI should be involved in discussions relating to energy transition. Of the 26 countries that responded to the survey, 21 agreed, with several noting the urgency of EITI engagement. One major oil exporter stated that involvement in energy transition would be consistent with EITI’s 2019 Standard, which includes environmental Requirements, and suggested the need to question how transition will affect the issues and challenges that brought EITI into being. One major minerals exporter noted the potential benefits of transition, with growing demand for strategic minerals presenting economic and employment opportunities. Participants on one regional call similarly agreed that transition would affect the extractive industries, and inevitably EITI, with some countries at risk of stranded assets and others having to rapidly improve their oversight of strategic minerals.
Respondents suggested several potential roles for EITI at country level, including:
- Raising awareness around the concept and importance of energy transition;
- Encouraging greater use of RE, including in extractives, and where it can enhance access to energy;
- Monitoring the energy sources and emissions of companies in the extractive industries; and
- Helping manage the decline of extractives, with commitments to coal phase-out, for example.
Respondents also identified several entry points and next steps, including:
- Linking EITI processes to existing energy policy and power sector reforms;
- Widening dialogue to include those with responsibility for energy and climate policy;
- Reviewing the mandate and work plans of multi-stakeholder groups (MSGs) to incorporate transition; and
- Integrating issues relating to transition in EITI reporting, from contextual information to new data and disclosures.
While the economic risks associated with transition were mentioned by some countries and on the regional calls, the roles and entry points listed above focus largely on domestic energy policy. The implications of transition for economic governance and public financial accountability did not feature prominently in either the survey responses or the regional calls. The suggested roles for EITI and entry points at country level, for example, focused largely on domestic energy policy and emissions reporting, rather than on economic policy and the analysis of climate-related risks to anticipated revenues and investments. At the Board Strategy Retreat, too, stakeholder-led discussion initially focused on access to energy and domestic energy transition, before considering the economic impacts of transition.
Some respondents also suggested a role for EITI at the regional and international level. One low-income and low-capacity country noted that EITI would be well placed to support peer-to-peer learning on energy transition between implementing countries. One upper-middle-income country highlighted how country dialogues could feed into international processes, and described EITI involvement with energy transition as complementary to its role in the G20 Energy Transitions Working Group, ‘since [EITI] too constitutes a process of dialogue to maintain a balance between sectors with different interests and visions’. Several countries also stated their commitment to sustainable development and to climate action under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), albeit without drawing direct links to EITI.
Respondents identified several policy and practical barriers to EITI involvement. Ministries of oil and gas, energy and/or resources are typically the lead actors for government in EITI processes, and some suggested engagement with RE directorates within these institutions, where they have been established. Other respondents highlighted the need for engagement with ministries and government agencies that have responsibility for aspects of transition, but that are not currently involved in EITI processes, including ministries of climate change. At the same time, however, many respondents cited weak institutions, low levels of capacity and the early stage of policy discussions on transition and its implications for the extractive industry as barriers to engagement, and stressed the need to consolidate EITI’s progress in-country as a foundation. However, while some felt that MSGs would have to wait for government to identify priorities, others saw opportunities to encourage and shape policy.
There were differing opinions on the appropriate scope of EITI engagement. Several respondents noted that their EITI processes and reports were already considering issues relating to energy transition. One suggested that future versions of the EITI Standard should be amended to require the disclosure of information on national plans or policies linked to transition and emissions mitigation, and another suggested that in countries where MSGs could provide a central forum for debates on energy transition, EITI reports could contain recommendations for implementation. Others remained more cautious about mandatory requirements relating to energy transition due to the technical nature of some parts of the discussion and the potential to overstretch EITI. One respondent noted EITI’s responsibility to ensure that engagement does ‘not undermine or neglect current progress being made in extractives governance and transparency, and its continued importance in economic development’.
Only three countries stated that EITI should not be involved in current energy transition debates at all. They include one advanced economy with fossil fuel production, which did not cite a reason, and one developing country with well-established fossil fuel production, which stated that there were already ‘sufficient organizations’ to do this. One further developing country with emerging fossil fuel production questioned EITI engagement on the practical basis that it would already take some time to develop country ownership of new EITI reporting requirements for gender and environment; however, it did reiterate its commitment to international action on climate change and sustainable development, and suggested the need for a study on the role that EITI can play in transition. Three further countries submitted separate and conflicting responses, with civil society typically supporting involvement, industry opposing it, and governments’ positions varying from country to country.