Source: Global Witness
9 March 2010 - The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), a pioneering initiative to bring more openness to the world's oil and mining industries, faces a major credibility test after 20 out of 22 countries failed to meet a key deadline today.
Today (March 9) is the deadline for countries to complete Validation, a third-party assessment which checks that they are implementing the EITI in accordance with its rules. Kazakhstan, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo are among the countries which must ask the EITI Board for more time to finish Validation.
"The EITI Board must assess countries' requests for more time in a rigorous and transparent way that fits the EITI rules," said Diarmid O'Sullivan of Global Witness, which is a member of the EITI Board.
"Some countries have made impressive progress but others have clearly been dragging their feet for several years. Any hint of special treatment towards the latter would undermine the credibility of the whole initiative," said O'Sullivan.
The EITI was launched in 2002 to bring more transparency to the flow of payments to governments from oil, gas and mining companies. In many countries, lack of transparency has enabled deep corruption, entrenched poverty and instability.
Global Witness is a co-founder of Publish What You Pay, a global coalition of civil society groups which give the EITI much of its legitimacy. EITI supporters include governments like the United States, European countries and Japan, major oil and mining companies and international bodies like the World Bank and African Union.
So far, only two countries have completed Validation. Azerbaijan and Liberia were both awarded the status of EITI Compliance, the highest status of the initiative, in 2009. This means that citizens are able to access detailed and regular reports about revenue payments to their governments by oil, gas or mining companies.
Of the other 20 countries facing the deadline, Guinea has voluntarily suspended itself from the EITI. The other 19 countries can get more time to complete Validation, provided they can show that the delays were caused by "exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances" beyond the country's control.
"Some of these countries have been involved with the EITI for several years, with very limited results. So the Board must make sure that delays were really unforeseeable and not just caused by lack of political will," said O'Sullivan.
Several climate security studies have assessed the risks of climate change to security and examined potential foreign policy responses, but the connection between climate change and foreign policy remains underexplored. The new Climate Diplomacy Report of the German Foreign Office takes up the challenge.
Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan are currently engaged in vital talks over the dispute relating to the filling and operation of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Nile River. While non-African actors are increasingly present in the negotiations, the African Union (AU) is playing a marginal role.
Climate change was more central than ever at this year’s Munich Security Conference (MSC), the leading international forum for senior military, security and foreign policy leaders. The release of the inaugural “World Climate and Security Report 2020” (WCSR 2020) by the Expert Group of the International Military Council on Climate and Security (IMCCS) should help policymakers take effective action.
The mission of the Munich Security Conference is to “address the world’s most pressing security concerns”. These days, that means climate security: climate change is the ultimate threat multiplier, and anyone discussing food security, political instability, migration, or competition over resources should be aware of the climate change pressures that are so often at the root of security problems.