Document Abstract
Published:
2011
Achievements and strategic options: Evaluation of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. Final report
Evaluation of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
During the short period since Evaluation of Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) ,became operational with an elected Board and Secretariat in 2006-07, EITI has seen an impressive growth in the number of countries that have joined the compact, and in the high-level endorsement that it has received for its Principles and the Standard for transparent revenue management in the extractive industry sector.
Three country studies (Gabon, Nigeria and Mongolia) point to establishment of national EITI systems, innovative reconciliation studies, legal foundations for the work, and public access to information as important Outputs, increased trust, more attention to public sector management at Outcome level while little Impact at societal level can be discerned. This is partly due to the short lifetime of EITI so far, but largely due to lack of links with larger public sector reform processes and institutions.
The lack of societal results is confirmed by testing “Big picture” indicators proposed by EITI. This revealed that there is not any solid theory of change behind some of the EITI aspirations, nor do data show any links at this aggregate level. Results focus should therefore rather be at country level.
But the lack of societal change is also a function of the narrow focus of EITI activities. If the Standard were more in line with its own Principles and if it had more focus on strategic partnerships beyond the sector, EITI would be more likely to reach its objectives.
The main Recommendations and conlcusions is thus for EITI to:
Three country studies (Gabon, Nigeria and Mongolia) point to establishment of national EITI systems, innovative reconciliation studies, legal foundations for the work, and public access to information as important Outputs, increased trust, more attention to public sector management at Outcome level while little Impact at societal level can be discerned. This is partly due to the short lifetime of EITI so far, but largely due to lack of links with larger public sector reform processes and institutions.
The lack of societal results is confirmed by testing “Big picture” indicators proposed by EITI. This revealed that there is not any solid theory of change behind some of the EITI aspirations, nor do data show any links at this aggregate level. Results focus should therefore rather be at country level.
But the lack of societal change is also a function of the narrow focus of EITI activities. If the Standard were more in line with its own Principles and if it had more focus on strategic partnerships beyond the sector, EITI would be more likely to reach its objectives.
The main Recommendations and conlcusions is thus for EITI to:
- consider a Standard that covers a greater part of the value chain in the sector, combined with a flexible rating scheme that would grade actual performance rather than giving a Yes/No value
- EITI should also develop a more rigorous and realistic results framework for global and national levels
- the central governance bodies of EITI – Global Conference, Members’ Meeting, Board, Secretariat – are seen to be largely appropriate in structure, stretched to the limit as far as resources go, and with a need for rethinking task strategies as the organisation grows, mobilizing more funds, while
strengthening the support to country implementation - overall, however, EITI has a structure andorganisation that must be considered “very fit for purpose”
