Skip to main content
  • News
  • Events
  • Blog
  • Search

Natural Resource Governance Institute

  • Topics
    Beneficial ownership
    Economic diversification
    Mandatory payment disclosure
    Revenue sharing
    Civic space
    Energy transition
    Measurement of environmental and social impacts
    Sovereign wealth funds
    Commodity prices
    Gender
    Measurement of governance
    State-owned enterprises
    Contract transparency and monitoring
    Global initiatives
    Open data
    Subnational governance
    Coronavirus
    Legislation and regulation
    Revenue management
    Tax policy and revenue collection
    Corruption
    Licensing and negotiation
  • Approach
    • Stakeholders
      • Civil society actors
      • Government officials
      • Journalists and media
      • Parliaments and political parties
      • Private sector
    • Natural Resource Charter
    • Regional knowledge hubs
  • Countries
    NRGI Priority Countries
    Colombia
    Guinea
    Nigeria
    Tanzania
    Dem. Rep. of Congo
    Mexico
    Peru
    Tunisia
    Ghana
    Mongolia
    Senegal
    Uganda
    OTHER COUNTRIES
  • Learning
    • Training
      • Residential training courses
        • Executive
        • Anglophone Africa
        • Francophone Africa
        • Asia-Pacific
        • Eurasia
        • Latin America
        • Middle East and North Africa
      • Online training courses
        • Advanced
        • Negotiating Contracts
        • Massive open online course (MOOC)
        • Interactive course: Petronia
      • Trainers' modules
        • (empty)
    • Primers
    • Glossary
  • Analysis & Tools
    • Publications
    • Tools
    • Economic models
  • About Us
    • What we do
      • 2020-2025 Strategy
      • Country prioritization
    • NRGI impact
    • Board of Directors
    • Emeritus Board Members
    • Advisory Council
    • Leadership team
    • Experts and staff
    • Careers and opportunities
    • Grant-making
    • Financials
    • Privacy policy
    • Contact us
  • News
  • Events
  • Blog

You are here

  1. Home
  2. Blog

Civil Society Opportunities within EITI Mainstreaming: A Perspective from the Philippines

28 October 2019
Author
Matthieu Salomon
Topics
Subnational governanceCivic space
Countries
Philippines
Stakeholders
Civil society actorsGovernment officialsPrivate sectorParliaments and political partiesJournalists and media
Social Sharing

The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) has been moving toward “mainstreaming,” with implementing countries transitioning away from standalone EITI reports in favor of meeting EITI requirements via routine and publicly accessible government and company reporting. This has the potential to significantly improve the timeliness, contextualization and quality of disclosed data. In parallel, the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI) has initiated a reflection on the opportunities and risks this process represents for civil society participation. While these changes offer several opportunities to strengthen the role of civil society organizations (CSOs), many civil society actors worry that the mainstreaming processes could undermine the multi-stakeholder nature of EITI in the wider context of continued attacks on civic freedoms and dialogue.

Cielo Magno is an assistant professor at the University of the Philippines’ School of Economics; a civil society representative on the EITI international board; the former national coordinator of Bantay Kita-Publish What You Pay Philippines; a member of NRGI’s board of directors; and a founding member of EITI-Philippines. Using civil society’s EITI journey in her country as a jumping-off point, we asked her to reflect on the opportunities and risks related to mainstreaming for civil society consultation and participation. This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

NRGI: What was the initial reaction of civil society when the Filipino government joined the EITI in 2012? And how has the EITI’s implementation spurred civil society’s participation in the governance of extractives?

Cielo Magno: Civil society was hesitant to join EITI because we saw the possibility of the government using it to somehow “whitewash” what communities considered the real issues of the extractive sector: specifically, the negative social and environmental effects of mining, including water pollution, deforestation, the rehabilitation of abandoned mines, or the displacement of residents and violence in some mining areas. But we decided to engage in the process, and through EITI implementation I must say civil society has been able to get a lot of relevant information related to mining, oil, and gas disclosed, including social and environmental data. The EITI Multi-Stakeholder Group (MSG) agreed to have companies’ social expenditures and environmental data disclosed even before EITI required that. This data included water use, tree cutting permits, mining monitoring reports and full contracts. It’s a work in progress, and not all information is publicly available yet. But the MSG’s vision and mission is to work toward making all this information publicly available. This has allowed civil society to engage on specific technical issues, like the taxation of the mining sector; monitoring how much revenue local governments get from mining through subnational transfers; and creating a real dialogue with extractive companies.

Given that the EITI experience of civil society in the Philippines has been more positive than negative, what do you expect will be the impact of mainstreaming on the participation of civil society in the governance of extractives?

I expect EITI mainstreaming to help institutionalize further the participation of civil society in the management of extractives, to genuinely operationalize and strengthen the existing mechanisms created by laws. This includes strengthening the current space for CSOs to participate, in particular by improving access to information (easier access to more timely data). Another expectation is for the MSG to have a more engaged role in monitoring the implementation of extractives policies. Obviously there will always be pushback to limit what EITI covers. But the MSG members who appreciate open discussion among stakeholders would understand that having open lines of communication actually minimizes conflict and facilitates solutions. I am not part of the MSG anymore, but I really hope the different stakeholders realize that mainstreaming is not about making MSG irrelevant, but making it actually more relevant. The production of reports and discussions could be devolved to local stakeholders and the MSG could have a monitoring role. It can then also discuss governance issues that are not covered by EITI.

Could you tell us more about the existing mechanisms related to the consultation and participation of civil society in the management of extractives that mainstreaming could build on in the Philippines?

Currently, our devolved system has institutionalized spaces for CSOs to participate in governance in general and the governance of extractives in particular. In every province where there is mining, the regional offices of the Mines and Geosciences Bureau have to create a multi-stakeholders mining regulatory board (PMRB) that has the mandate to regulate small-scale mining. It is very much like EITI, but focuses on small-scale mining. Another multi-stakeholder committee—the Mining Multipartite Monitoring Team, created by the 1995 Mining Act—is tasked with monitoring the mining projects quarterly at the local level, especially their environmental impacts.

EITI mainstreaming could support further the institutionalization and operationalization of these boards and teams, and ensure that genuine representation of civil society is achieved. These spaces and opportunities have existing mandates and authorities under the law that are consistent with EITI. But because of limited attention, resources and capacity, they have not been maximized. Mainstreaming can make these mechanisms more effective. For example, the reporting and monitoring requirements for PMRBs could be incorporated into EITI reporting, expanding EITI coverage to small-scale mining. The disclosure of these reports would then help strengthen accountability of PMRB members. In parallel, capacity building activities could target them to make sure they really know how to monitor mining operations.

Beyond extractives, the 1991 Local Government Code mandates CSO representation in local public finance. EITI mainstreaming could mean tapping these opportunities to make sure mining revenues are used according to what is mandated by law. Monitoring the accuracy of subnational transfers, how they are budgeted and how they are spent can help maximize the benefits we get from mining.


Matthieu Salomon is a senior governance officer with the Natural Resource Governance Institute.

 

Related content

Closing the Gap: Strengthening the Development and Implementation of Natural Resource Commitments in the Open Government Partnership

13 November 2017

Emerging Economies: Transparency and Accountability in the Extractive Industries Working Paper Series

28 November 2012

Philippines Local Governments Seek the Gold Standard in Transparency

Roslita ArsyadMarietta CauchiVarsha Venugopal
9 January 2015

Natural Resource Charter Benchmarking Framework: 170 Crucial Questions for Resource-Rich Countries

Robert PitmanDavid Manley
17 October 2016

Local Level Agreements in Mongolia: A Need for Government Leadership and Policy Clarity

Byambajav Dalaibuyan
17 April 2018
Helping people to realize the benefits of their countries’ endowments of oil, gas and minerals.
Follow on Facebook Follow on Twitter Subscribe to Updates
  • Topics
    Beneficial ownership
    Civic space
    Commodity prices
    Contract transparency and monitoring
    Coronavirus
    Corruption
    Economic diversification
    Energy transition
    Gender
    Global initiatives
    Legislation and regulation
    Licensing and negotiation
    Mandatory payment disclosure
    Measurement of environmental and social impacts
    Measurement of governance
    Open data
    Revenue management
    Revenue sharing
    Sovereign wealth funds
    State-owned enterprises
    Subnational governance
    Tax policy and revenue collection
  • Approach
    • Stakeholders
    • Natural Resource Charter
    • Regional knowledge hubs
  • Priority
    Countries
    • Colombia
    • Dem. Rep. of Congo
    • Ghana
    • Guinea
    • Mexico
    • Mongolia
    • Nigeria
    • Peru
    • Senegal
    • Tanzania
    • Tunisia
    • Uganda
  • Learning
    • Training
    • Primers
  • Analysis & Tools
    • Publications
    • Tools
    • Economic models
  • About Us
    • What we do
    • NRGI impact
    • Board of Directors
    • Emeritus Board Members
    • Advisory Council
    • Leadership team
    • Experts and staff
    • Careers and opportunities
    • Grant-making
    • Financials
    • Privacy policy
    • Contact us
  • News
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Search