• 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»Signature and Compliance with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI)

Signature and Compliance with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI)

Helpdesk Report
  • Sumedh Rao
August 2012

Question

What explanations does the published and grey literature on the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) provide in relation to: national governments' decisions to sign up to the EITI, or not; and the non-compliance of existing signatories?

Summary

There is an abundant literature which documents the process of signing and complying with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), as well as the benefits of doing so. However, with the exception of a detailed case study on Nigeria, few studies examine the political, economic and social factors that have led governments to sign and comply with the EITI. Expert comments confirm the lack of literature on key motivators but suggest factors that motivate signature and compliance with the EITI. Furthermore, from the existing literature it is possible to identify factors which may have contributed towards signature and compliance and factors which may have undermined support for the EITI.

The key contributory factors have been:

  • reform-minded politicians
  • international and domestic kudos
  • international support through multilateral programmes or debt restructuring
  • national healing.

The ability to build capacity and local ownership has been crucial for continued success. Supportive factors may have been an increasingly widespread recognition of the importance of regulating the extractive industries and the significance of transparency as a positive value in itself, and the degree to which implementation of the EITI left mainstream politics untouched.

In Nigeria key factors supporting EITI signature and compliance were:

  • President Obasanjo’s personal motives
  • the strength of the reform team
  • debt rescheduling
  • a modular approach to reform
  • antagonism towards international oil companies
  • support from the international community
  • civil society’s (albeit weak) support
  • insights from the last oil boom.

Factors that undermined support and ongoing compliance with EITI in Nigeria may have been:

  • the premature conclusion of the Paris Club process
  • resentment by other politicians of the popularity of the reformers
  • reaction against a process perceived as ‘Western’
  • President Obasanjo’s push for a third presidential term, contrary to the constitution
  • institutional inertia.
file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • Australian Government

Related Content

Transparency and performance
Helpdesk Report
2017
Transparency and accountability initiatives in the extractives sector
Helpdesk Report
2017
Parliamentary transparency and accountability
Helpdesk Report
2017
Transparency and accountability in fragile and conflict-affected settings
Helpdesk Report
2017
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021

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