• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Oil and gas revenue sharing

Oil and gas revenue sharing

Helpdesk Report
  • Anna Strachan
July 2014

Question

Please identify a selection of examples of revenue sharing models in the oil or gas sector in fragile or conflict-affected states, and summarise how they operate and what factors have contributed to their success or failure.

Summary

In the oil and gas sector, there are several revenue sharing models in operation around the world. These range from those that favour the derivation principle i.e. each subnational government’s share is related to the oil revenue originating in its territory, to those that are more like intergovernmental transfers (Ahmad and Mottu, 2002, pp. 15-16).

Examples of revenue-sharing models in fragile and conflict-affected states include:

  • Indonesia: The government has adopted an asymmetric revenue sharing model. The primary objective of this arrangement is to prevent resource rich conflict-affected regions from seceding. The arrangement has fulfilled this aim, although it has not succeeded in achieving the levels of equality between regions that were anticipated when it was designed.
  • Iraq: The revenue sharing model currently applied in Iraq has suffered from ambiguity. For example, existing agreements on revenue sharing are not clear about who is responsible for the management of oil and gas revenues. Moreover, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and the federal government are engaged in an ongoing dispute over oil and gas revenues.
  • Nigeria: The formula-based revenue sharing model adopted in Nigeria has been in place for some years. However, the model has proven to be inefficient and oil revenues have resulted in widespread corruption. Moreover, the revenue sharing arrangement has not resulted in development in the oil producing Niger Delta.
  • Sudan: The Agreement on Wealth Sharing (AWS) was an important component of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed between the governments of Sudan and Southern Sudan in 2005. Implementation of the agreement, which included provisions for the equal division of oil revenues between the North and the South, was more successful than expected. However, the South is believed not to have received its fair share of revenues and relations between the North and the South deteriorated after South Sudan’s independence in 2011. Oil remains a major source of tensions between the two countries.
file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Related Content

Social Safety Nets in Fragile and Conflict-Affected States
Helpdesk Report
2019
Approaches to remote monitoring in fragile states
Helpdesk Report
2017
Organised crime, violence and development
Topic Guide
2016
Urban governance in fragile cities
E-Learning
2016
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2019; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2019; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2019
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2019; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2019; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2019

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more