March, 09 2010, 01:02pm EDT
Decisive Moment for Global Transparency Effort
Most Countries Miss Deadline to Demonstrate Openness on Petroleum, Mining Revenues
WASHINGTON
An international initiative that seeks to promote more openness
about how countries profit from their oil, gas, and mining resources
should not weaken its modest membership standards because governments
are unable or unwilling to meet them, Human Rights Watch said today.
Twenty of the 22 current candidates to join the Extractive
Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) have not fulfilled the basic
requirements to have their candidacy assessed by today's deadline,
raising serious doubts about their commitment to disclose their
revenues from oil, gas, and mining, Human Rights Watch said.
"It's easy for governments to sign up for the initiative and claim
they are open about the money they earn from lucrative natural
resources," said Arvind Ganesan, director of the business and human
rights program at Human Rights Watch. "But the proof is in whether they
actually do what they promised, and so far the results have been
dismal."
EITI is a voluntary initiative that aims to increase the
transparency of natural resource revenues by developing standardized
reporting requirements for companies and governments. It was created as
a way to foster public scrutiny and greater accountability over the
revenues received by governments. Today EITI is a multi-million dollar
effort that has been embraced by governments, industry, civil society,
and multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund. Countries that join may do so in order to attract
investment, while companies may seek positive publicity. For civil
society groups, the main benefit of enhanced disclosure and monitoring
of government revenues is that it can help combat the large-scale
corruption and mismanagement that fuel human rights abuses and
undermine development in many resource-rich countries.
Under the initiative's rules, candidates for membership have two
years to complete an external review of their compliance with the
initiative's basic standards, a process known as "validation." Today's
deadline applies to 22 countries that were accepted as candidates in
2008. Ten candidate countries that joined more recently, including
Afghanistan and Iraq, face later validation deadlines.
To qualify to be considered "EITI compliant," countries must meet
several requirements. For example, they must publish at least one
national report disclosing company payments and government revenues
from the extractives sector and have in place a functioning national
multi-stakeholder group that includes civil society participation. The
EITI board must also certify that the candidate countries have complied
with requirements following an evaluation of a validation report
prepared by an accredited third-party. The validation process is
designed to provide quality assurance for the initiative's global
standards.
Only two of the 22 countries that faced today's deadline completed
EITI's validation process within the mandated two-year time frame.
Following a review by EITI's board, both countries - Azerbaijan and
Liberia - were found to be "compliant." One country, Guinea,
voluntarily suspended its candidacy.
Nineteen other candidate countries are at various stages of
implementation, with some relatively advanced and others lagging far
behind. For example, Sierra Leone, Sao Tome e Principe, and some others
have not even initiated the validation process. Equatorial Guinea,
despite having signed up to join the initiative in 2008, only hired a
firm to carry out its validation review on the eve of the deadline to
complete the validation process.
In cases where validation is pending, the EITI board, which is
composed of governments, companies, and civil society representatives,
has the authority to grant additional time if the country demonstrates
that its delays were due to "exceptional and unforeseen circumstances."
Extension requests by candidate countries will be reviewed at the next
board meeting, scheduled to take place in Berlin in mid-April 2010.
"The integrity of EITI is on the line," Ganesan said. "The EITI
Board should only grant extensions for legitimate reasons. Lack of
political commitment and willful neglect shouldn't be used as excuses
to get more time."
Human Rights Watch also called on the board to disclose publicly the
basis for any extensions, to insist that extensions be offered only
once, and to provide that countries failing to meet the revised
deadline be automatically dropped from the initiative, or "de-listed,"
without the need for further board action.
Even if the board approves requests for more time for some
candidates to complete the national validation process, this provides
no guarantee that they will ultimately be approved as "compliant." In
cases where the validation review reveals that a candidate country
falls short of EITI's minimum standards, the board may permit it to
renew its candidacy if it is making meaningful progress to comply. A
country that has not demonstrated sufficient progress is de-listed,
although it may be allowed to reapply later.
Genuine civil society participation is one key criterion for
membership. In February, EITI's board rebuffed Ethiopia's desire to
become a candidate, citing a repressive law that in effect bars
independent civil society groups from doing any work that touches on
issues of human rights or governance.
A number of other current candidates also impose serious constraints
on civil society, particularly independent organizations focused on
human rights and on reducing corruption. For example, Equatorial
Guinea's government has not permitted a single independent human rights
group to obtain legal registration and it harshly suppresses any
domestic criticism.
"EITI should insist on full participation of independent civil
society as a non-negotiable membership condition," Ganesan said. "We
are encouraged that the board rejected Ethiopia and strongly urge that
decision to stand as a precedent for all governments involved in EITI."
Human Rights Watch supports the transparency initiative, but also
recognizes its limitations as a voluntary effort that currently only
enhances the transparency of government income. It does not address how
governments spend the money and thus cannot track corruption or assess
whether the funds from extractive industries are used to benefit the
public.
In February, a US Senate report
documented high-level corruption involving Angola, Equatorial Guinea,
Gabon, and Nigeria. Three of the four countries - Angola is the
exception - are current EITI candidates.
"EITI is at a crucial juncture," Ganesan said. "It should not lower
its standards for governments that are really not interested in public
scrutiny. EITI isn't credible if it does not lead to improvements in
governance."
Together with other members of the Publish What You Pay coalition,
Human Rights Watch also supports efforts to enact regulations requiring
greater transparency by companies about their payments to governments.
The Energy Security Through Transparency Act in the United States, for
example, would mandate disclosure by all publicly listed companies,
including non-US firms listed with the US Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular