Tag Archives: Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative

“Beyond Governments” – Do transparency initiatives work?

images-4

My review of “Beyond Governments: Making Collective Governance Work” by Eddie Rich and Jonas Moberg (2015)

“Beyond Governments” is a rare thing – a book written on collective governance by practitioners who are still in the midst of practicing the art. In some ways, it is an autobiography of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) by two of its leading protagonists, and given the endorsements at the start of the book, it is very much an authorized one. The fact that the EITI’s final chapters have yet to be written makes the book more compelling and timely – there is a lot to learn for anyone engaged in collective governance initiatives. This is very timely as we approach the launch of the 2015-30 UN Sustainable Development Goals with governments, business and civil society far from agreeing how they should cooperate in their governance.

As a reader, I found myself banging the table in violent agreement on some of the early key points: that collective governance is irresistible and that accountability has to be a three-way process between governments, business and civil society. There is some openness on the real motivations behind why some governments, businesses and civil society join such initiatives – the fear of ‘resource nationalism’ being high amongst these. My favorite is Chapter 4: “Build Trust through Building Momentum: Just Get on with It” should be on T-shirts and handed out to all collective governance entrepreneurs. There are some real gems here that often never see the light of day in more politically correct writing: voting represents weakness not strength, the voluntary/mandatory divide is a major distraction and that power imbalances need to be accepted. Essentially forward momentum is gold dust for collective governance work, endless years of discussing governance whilst not rolling up collective sleeves to work together on the ground (which has blighted some other multi-stakeholder initiatives) results in few benefits for rights-holders and communities.

Another stand out for me is Chapter 8 on Sunset Clauses – there should be no in-built assumption that new models of collective governance should be permanent. Rich and Moberg are very open about the degree of experimentation that is going on and some of the dangers of co-option or decline, as well as the vigor of having time-bound objectives. “Initiatives need to dismantle themselves or reinvent themselves” – a key point that so many other others have overlooked. Planning for redundancy used to be the mantra of the voluntary sector, before NGOs became part of the status quo, and it is a good default for collective governance initiatives. They might become the “new norm” but we, and especially they, must not assume that they will.

The book raises many questions but cannot fully answer all (because each would need a book in their own right). Firstly, I wonder how much collective governance is an art and how much it is a science. The book gives ample bullet points for those hungry to learn. These are good. But some of the dark arts of collective governance, and the authors are clearly practitioners, are harder to describe in text boxes. John Ruggie, another who practices and analyses in real time (although in his case he is a thinker turned practitioner – the reverse direction), often quotes Bismarck when asked how he achieved what he did with the MDGs, UN Global Compact or the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: “If you like the sausage don’t ask how it is made”. There must be a lot the authors had to leave out.

I also wonder if the “Beyond Governments” title is the right one. The content of the book does not suggest this: rather it is more “Helping National Governments and Other Actors to Do Their Jobs Better in a Complex Globalizing World” – but this is a less catchy title. Any sense of moving beyond governments will raise the hackles of many said governments, as well as many in civil society (who are oxymoronic on this point – governments are the main abusers of human rights yet UN Conventions further legitimize them); some of whom are also closing down space for civil society and in particular those that might receive international funding – an important component of how EITI works. Similarly, I wonder if EITI is really an alternative to regulation (as suggested in Recommendation 9). The Dodd Frank Act in the USA would not suggest that initiatives such as EITI delay binding laws, but rather they might make such legislation effective when it comes.

A final thought would be my predicable point on human rights. I guess I see the interrelationship between transparency and human rights to be much closer than the book suggests, or than that Clare Short inferred when Ethiopia joined EITI. The downgrade of Azerbaijan (on Page 60) was a brave move by EITI but the section really still fudges the relationship between freedom of expression, the right to privacy and the right to information (i.e. transparency). This alignment remains a central challenge for EITI moving forward, and is not one that has hindered transparency NGOs such as Global Witness and their recent work with the global Chinese mining sector.

I would like to congratulate Eddie and Jonas on the book and for taking the time to write it. It is a unique book in many ways and there is a reason that EITI is amongst the most successful of all multi-stakeholder initiatives. So read it.

The book is available from   www.greenleaf-publishing.com

* John Morrison is the Executive Director of the Institute for Human Rights and Business and author of “The Social License” (Palgrave MacMillan, 2014). The views expressed here are his own.

 

Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh: Are your gifts conflict free?

gift

If you are engaged in seasonal gift giving during December, or at any other time of the year for that matter, have you thought about the origin of what lies inside the box? All gift givers might like to tune into this week’s events at the United Nations.

If you are lucky enough to ever receive a diamond (the way Naomi Campbell is reported to have done one night in South Africa in 1997), then there is a chance you will know, or can find out, the mine from which it was dug. “Diamonds are forever”, but perhaps “blood diamonds” are not – given the publicity generated by the film of that name, the International Criminal Court (especially when supermodels testify) and the Kimberley Process between states –which has tried to establish some certification from the mine for larger diamonds at least, albeit a flawed one according to the NGO Global Witness who left the Process in 2011.

However, conflict metals and minerals are a much broader issue than glamorous rocks alone. For most of us, a mobile phone is a much more likely gift: there as many phones as people on the planet now.  Three wise men bearing gifts these days are unlikely to bring Frankincense and Myrrh, but there will be Gold – in their phones that is – together with Aluminium and small amounts of Antimony, Barium, Beryllium, Cobalt, Copper, Chromium, Gallium, Indium, Lead, Manganese, Nickel, Palladium, Platinum, Ruthenium, Rare Earths and Silver. In the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), known for its horrendous internal conflicts, it is Tin, Tantalum, Tungsten as well as Gold that are most associated with fuelling the conflict and which are the focus of Section 1502 of the Dodd Frank Act in the USA and now extended internationally through the OECD Due Diligence Guidance. You might like to hope that your electronic gift contains no conflict minerals but how do you know? You might like to ask your high street brands what precisely they are doing about it before making the purchase and hopefully there will be a coherent response. Some niche brands (such as “FairPhone”) make specific guarantees whilst helping to maintain trade with conflict-free miners in the DRC, many steps down the supply chain. For those only interested in the hard stuff, Fairtrade Gold is also available, where miners will receive a minimum price of 95 per cent of the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) price for their gold.

For those of you who think it is just western governments think about this, think again. Global Witness does not often commend a government but it did on 24 October 2014 when the Chinese Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals and Chemicals Imports and Exports, which is supervised by the Ministry of Commerce, launched its due diligence guidelines for Chinese mining companies operating abroad. These guidelines cover a range of environmental, labour and human rights considerations. This is part of a wider trend towards a stronger focus on companies disclosing payments to host governments in order to fight corruption, as highlighted by the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, as well as the reporting criteria of an increasing number of stock exchanges. In Switzerland, one of the leading global hubs in commodity trading, the Government has committed itself to bringing the industry and civil society around a table to agree standards and an implementing mechanism. It is a shame, at least to me, that the recent European Commission proposals stopped short of requiring companies to report on such issues, and that the American Petroleum Institute still fights mandatory disclosure of revenues as set out in Dodd Frank 1504.

On 2 December I have the privilege to moderate a discussion in the United Nations in Geneva (as part of the UN Annual Forum on Business and Human Rights) where representatives of both the US Government and China will elaborate further on their plans, as well as perspectives from key mining countries such as Chile and Myanmar.

There is much moving in the wrong direction in the world at the moment, but for those looking for stars to wish upon, here is one – that governments from all corners of the planet might increasingly cooperate to ensure global supply chains are free of conflict minerals and human rights violations. There are no awards to be given out, the domestic nature of mining in all these and other countries is still far too hazardous and communities all too often adversely impacted upon and inadequately consulted. But if we can all help to make state-state cooperation on such issues more normal, then there is a greater chance that business too will not compete on their social and environmental responsibilities. Conflict-free metals and minerals – what better gift could there be?