By Miles Litvinoff, Publish What You Pay - United Kingdom
This post originally appeared on PublishWhatYouPay.org on June 25, 2018
PWYP UK’s short practical multi-lingual guide to accessing 90 UK-based extractive companies’ payments to governments reports is available now in English, French and Spanish.
More than 90 oil, gas and mining companies incorporated in the United Kingdom or listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) now publish their reports on payments to governments each year under UK law every year. Forty more extractive companies report in other European Union countries, 700 in Canada and 8 in Norway. Equivalent reporting legislation awaits implementation in the United States. Similar laws have been drafted and proposed in Switzerland, Ukraine and Australia. The UK government has recently concluded a positive initial review of its payments to governments regulations.
Publish What You Pay has campaigned for years for laws requiring extractive companies to disclose their payments to governments worldwide, country by country and project by project, every year, as a complement to the EITI. Now that we have a growing body of public mandatory payment data, it would be good to increase our use of the data.
New two-page guide from PWYP UK
To help PWYP coalitions, member organisations and others in civil society access and use the 90-plus UK-based extractive companies’ payments to governments reports, PWYP UK has produced a short practical multi-lingual guide to accessing these reports. The two-page guide is available in English, French and Spanish, with links to UK-incorporated company reports here and UK-listed (London Stock Exchange) company reports here.
The guide shows how to access data on payments made to governments in 2015, 2016 and 2017 all over the world. Companies that have published their payments this way include Aggregate Industries/LafargeHolcim, Anglo American, Antofagasta, BHP Billiton, BP, China Petroleum & Chemical (Sinopec), Gazprom, Glencore, Lonmin, Lukoil, Premier Oil, Randgold, Rio Tinto, Rosneft, Royal Dutch Shell, Seplat, Soco, South32, Total, Tullow and Vedanta.
As well as explaining how to access reports via the two official UK web portals, the guide also briefly explains NRGI’s www.resourceprojects.org portal. This provides access to mandatory payment data published across the EU (including in the UK) and in Canada and Norway.
Why should civil society access the reports and use the data?
Payments to governments reporting helps deter and prevent corruption and fiscal mismanagement. Companies that are required to publish their payments are less likely to enter into corrupt or questionable deals with governments. Governments are less likely to mismanage the revenues knowing that the money received is publicly reported.
Civil society can achieve more by understanding and publicising the payments made and reported by companies in particular countries and for specific projects. Knowledge empowers. If we detect surprising or questionable payments, we can call for the government and company involved to explain. We can use the data to help citizens and local communities judge if individual oil, gas or mining projects are good value and to demand accountability for how each government spends the money. This includes judging whether a project’s public revenues and how they are spent compensate fairly for negative social and environmental impacts at national or subnational level.
Fiscal transparency is also potentially a step towards greater transparency and accountability for extractive industry impacts on livelihoods, human rights and the environment. If we can also achieve full beneficial ownership disclosure and contract transparency (better still, open contracting) – as well as disclosure of payments to governments for the first sale oil, gas and minerals (commodity trading) – we will be well on the way to opening up the extractive sector.
The UK government, the European Commission and others have asked civil society for evidence that payments to governments reports really do help improve extractive industry governance and ultimately citizens’ lives. The more we can make this happen and demonstrate it is happening, the more secure will be the political achievement of opening up extractive company payments and government revenues to public scrutiny.
Data-based advocacy partnerships
Building on its 2016 Data Extractors project, PWYP UK is interested in working with other PWYP coalitions and members around the world to analyse payments and conduct data-based advocacy focused on UK-based extractive companies’ transparency reports. To discuss possible collaboration, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org in English, French or Spanish.
By Katarina Kuai, Natural Resource Governance Institute
This post originally appeared on resourcegovernance.org on June 12, 2018
NRGI is proud to announce the arrival of Petronia, an interactive online course unlike any other in the resource governance field, where learners can “play” at influencing resource governance outcomes in a simulated context.
More than any other NRGI resource to date, Petronia makes learning about resource governance fun and interactive with dynamic animations and a close focus on learning through roleplaying and gamification. It is ideal for online learners with limited background in the field, but a desire to understand key issues.
The course explores the policy challenges in the Republic of Petronia, a fictional developing country that has made a potentially game-changing oil discovery. Learners join a team of experts deployed to advise the country’s policy-makers in a series of missions exploring different aspects of resource governance over time. Learners build their knowledge of the technical issues while developing an understanding of the different perspectives and complex trade-offs of managing resource wealth for development.
Learners not only think and reflect about policy choices in Petronia, they can also “do” by consulting stakeholders, analyzing government and international data, and developing recommendations with their team. We hope this “serious gaming” aspect will appeal to both adult and youth learners alike.
Petronia is available free and on demand, which is especially convenient to those unable to commit to the more resource- and time-intensive NRGI in-person learning courses or the massive open online course.
Learners set their own pace and choose missions according to their interests in Petronia’s immersive reality, which draws from the best of NRGI’s learning tools, including case studies, modelling tools, plain-language policy explanations and data tools. This course requires English proficiency and takes between four and eight hours depending on reading commitment.
Check out Petronia and let us know what you think. Visit www.petronia.games.
Katarina Kuai is a senior capacity development officer with the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI).
By Mukasiri Sibanda, Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association (ZELA)
This post originally appeared on mukasirisibanda.wordpress.com on June 10, 2018
On 6 June 2018, Zimbabwe Platinum Mines (Zimplats) publicly announced that it has amicably resolved a six-year long dispute with government which was seeking to compulsorily acquire part of its mining claims measuring 27,948 hectares. This dispute was pending in the courts of Zimbabwe.
Consequently, Zimplats agreed to release 23,093 hectares to government “to ensure participation by other investors in the platinum mining industry.” Zimplats now owns 24,632 hectares with a new special lease valid for the lifetime of the mine. A significant development that warrants public scrutiny into how well the country’s mineral wealth is governed for the benefit of all Zimbabweans.
It is a positive development that this dispute was amicably resolved. But it must be noted that the dispute had been going on for six-long years, and such lengthy period riddled with uncertainty on government’s commitment to property rights and Zimbabwe as an unattractive investment destination. Such disregard for investment agreements also provides scant comfort to existing and prospective investors.
Notably, Zimbabwe is one of the least attractive investment destination according to Fraser Institute’s Policy Perception Index. Interestingly, Zimbabwe’s mineral potential is ranked among the top under the same organisation’s Mineral Potential Index. This partly explains why, despite Zimbabwe’s abundant mineral wealth, the country is struggling to attract much needed investments to realise the sustainable development dividend from its huge mineral wealth endowment.
One could also spin the agreement between Zimplats and government as positive in that the released land creates space for the entrance of new players in the platinum industry. In all mineral sectors, the entrance of new players is largely problematic as most of the land has been taken.
It is noteworthy that the new Minister of Mines, Honourable Winston Chitando publicly stated during the Chamber of Mines AGM held last month that from next year, government will enforce the law on renewal of mining titles. Paying ground rental and mining inspection fees will no longer suffice, but evidence to back capital expenditure will be required. He stressed that this is not a new requirement at all. Perhaps Zimplats was cornered by this development and it had no option but to release the ground. In this regard Chitando’s leadership is coming to bear, a man with strong private mining sector background.
Worryingly, Zimplats got a new mining lease valid for the life span of the mine. Its special mining lease was due to expire in August 2019. Terms and conditions of the new special mining lease have not been disclosed. What we know is that in the previous mining lease, Zimplats had a 2.5% royalty stabilisation agreement with government which undermined the country tax code in which platinum royalties were pegged at 10%.
In 2015, Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA)’s annual revenue performance report revealed that mineral royalty income was in the red at $19,421,653.62. A factor attributed to a royalty refund of $101.55 million. Although the report did not state Zimplats, the refund came after Zimplats had won a court dispute with the tax agency on legality of the 2.5 percent royalty stabilisation agreement with Ministry of Mines.
Section 315 (2) (c) of the Constitution requires transparency and accountability in the negotiation and performance monitoring of mining contracts. It remains to be answered whether Parliament was involved in this deal? A government that was established against the backdrop of restoring order should be at the forefront of respecting the Constitution.
Now that government is in possession of released ground, what happens next? The privately-owned Zimbabwe Independent on Friday reported that Lucas Pouroulis, whose company Karo Resources, last month signed a $4.2 billion platinum deal with government, has been given the land in the resource rich Great Dyke.
The African Mining Vision, to which government is a signatory, cautions that known mineral reserves should be disposed through bidding to allow room for government to pick an investor who offers greater development outcomes like infrastructure, skills development, technology transfer and the development of local supply chains in addition to taxes.
The secrecy around the deals being announced currently leaves too much room for corruption. Lessons can be learnt from the acquisition of claims from Anglo American owned Unki Mine by government in 2008 as empowerment credits, which ended up in the hands of speculators. Government got $100 million from CAMEC, which later resold the Bougai and Kironde claims for nearly $1 billion dollars.
Much as Parliament is preoccupied with the issue of allegedly missing $15 billion diamond revenue from Marange, a lot is going on in the mining sector with mega deals being announced frequently. Parliament should keep its eye on the ball.
By David Mihalyi, Natural Resource Governance Institute, and Jim Cust, the World Bank
This post originally appeared on resourcegovernance.org on November 29, 2017
Resource-rich countries tend to experience slower economic growth and more social problems than do less-endowed countries—a phenomenon dubbed the “resource curse.” But it turns out that in many cases, economic growth begins to underperform long before the first drop of oil is produced; this we call the “presource curse.”
In a recent research paper, we found that, following oil discoveries, growth systematically underperforms the forecasts made by the International Monetary Fund. For certain countries with weak institutions, the discoveries have even led to significant growth disappointments, compared with pre-discovery trends.
We propose that the presource curse is driven by elevated expectations. Expectations can in turn drive suboptimal behavior. For example, governments may be pressured by voters to embark on risky borrowing on the back of overly rosy projections.
To find out more, read our new article published in Finance and Development.
The underlying World Bank research paper provides econometric evidence of this phenomenon.
Elsewhere, we discuss how expectations of resource wealth drove policy making in Ghana, Lebanon, Mongolia, Mozambique and Sierra Leone. On the other hand, Tanzania is an example of a country that so far has avoided the presource curse.
Our brief on premature funds discusses the risks of governments creating sovereign wealth funds in countries when resource revenues are small, distant or uncertain.
David Mihalyi is an economic analyst with the Natural Resource Governance Institute.
Jim Cust is an economist in the Office of the Chief Economist, Africa, at the World Bank.
Click here for the archives to see our full list of posts.