March, 09 2010, 12:27pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Phone,+1 617 482 1211 (Toll-free 1-800-77-OXFAM),Email,info@oxfamamerica.org
Many Countries Failing Test of Political Will to Implement Oil and Mining Industry Anti-Corruption Initiative
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative deadline arrives with many governments falling short
WASHINGTON
Tuesday, March 9 marks the deadline for candidate
countries to complete external "validation" of their implementation of
the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI), a voluntary
initiative to increase transparent and accountable management of
natural resource wealth. Of the 22 countries subject to the deadline,
the fact that 20 have not completed validation will further test the
credibility of the EITI process.
While these countries are at various stages of implementation - some
making laudable progress - many have shown a lack of political will to
fully open their books on oil, gas, and mining payments in these
countries, says international aid agency Oxfam.
With more than half of the world's poorest people living in
countries rich in natural resources, the problems associated with oil,
gas, and mining booms - increased corruption, conflict, and
environmental degradation - are pressing concerns for Oxfam and its
partners around the world. Transparency of financial flows is an
important condition needed to unlock billions of dollars in oil and
mining revenues to help fight poverty.
Transparency and accountability
"These industries generate billions of dollars per year in poor
countries. The revenues amount to far more than official aid flows and
could fund health, education, and other essential services, but are too
often squandered or siphoned off by government officials," said Raymond
C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. "The goal of EITI is to increase accountability and transparency in
those countries where it is most needed. It's disappointing that many
countries haven't yet cleared this hurdle, and it's clear that other
complementary measures focused on company and government disclosure are
urgently needed."
Only two countries - Liberia and Azerbaijan - met the deadline and
were subsequently judged compliant by the EITI board. While several
countries, such as Ghana, Nigeria, Mongolia, and Timor-Leste have
completed draft validation reports, others, such as Mali, Mauritania,
Niger, Equatorial Guinea, and Peru are further behind. According to
EITI's rules, countries that fail to meet the deadline will be "delisted" or dropped from EITI with
the option to reapply for candidate status. Countries have been advised
that they may apply for an extension if they provide evidence of
"exceptional and unforeseen circumstances" outside the country's
control that prevented them from meeting the deadline.
"The validation deadline was an important test of political will for
governments who say that they are implementing EITI. The EITI board
must carry out a fair, transparent process for granting any possible
extensions to ensure that the initiative maintains credibility. In
addition, supporting countries such as Spain should more actively
promote the implementation of EITI within their bilateral and
multilateral relationships," said Laura Ruiz Alvarez, extractive
industries advocacy officer of Intermon Oxfam (Spain).
A lack of transparency in the oil, gas, and mining sectors
- including secret payments, contracts, and opaque government budgets -
is a major contributor to the problems in these countries. Oxfam
affiliates and local partners around the world have pressed for greater
disclosure of information on payments from companies to governments,
contracts, and how revenues are spent.
Success where EITI is supported
Despite weak government capacity - as in many resource-rich
countries - Liberia was able to be validated and achieve "compliant
status" in 2009, proving that even very poor, post-conflict countries
can meet the deadline when EITI is strongly supported and promoted at
the highest levels of government. "For those governments truly
interested in implementation, millions of dollars of technical
assistance from donor governments are available. The board should not
accept sluggish government implementation as sufficient reasons for
extensions. If extensions are given, the board should explicitly
disclose the reasons for the extension cited by the country in its
request," said Offenheiser.
Since October 2006, a strong governance structure has been in place for EITI,
including a multi-stakeholder board including company, government, and
civil society representatives as well as a clear process for
implementation and validation. In 2008, the first 22 candidate
countries were given the March 9, 2010 deadline to assess their
progress as input into a board decision as to whether or not they are
fully "compliant" with the rules of the initiative.
The EITI board will consider all extension requests received by the March 9 deadline at its meeting on April 15/16. Oxfam International believes that any extensions given should be based on the existing EITI rules and contain a hard deadline
whereby a country failing to meet the new deadline would be
automatically dropped from the initiative without any further board
discussion.
Supporting civil society
Oxfam International has been supporting civil society partners
- many part of the global Publish What You Pay coalition - in several
EITI implementing countries who are working to ensure that their
governments faithfully follow through on EITI commitments. In several
EITI implementing countries, civil society activists promoting revenue
transparency have faced harassment, criminal charges, and jail time
merely for exercising their rights to freedom of expression as part of
their anti-corruption campaigning. Unfettered and independent civil
society participation at every step of the EITI process is
non-negotiable. In addition, transparency is needed in other areas to
ensure that citizens receive a fair deal from the development of
extractive industries. This includes disclosure of contracts and easy
access to government budget and expenditure information.
While the burden of implementation is on host governments, EITI does
not require international oil and mining companies to act unless host
governments decide to join the initiative. Given uneven EITI progress
to date, additional disclosure rules for oil, gas and mining companies are needed.
US could lead the way
One such measure, The Energy Security through Transparency Act
(ESTT), is a bi-partisan piece of legislation introduced in the United
States Senate in September 2009 by Senators Lugar and Cardin. This
legislation would require all oil, gas, and mining companies to
disclose payments to host countries and extend transparency as a truly
global standard for company operations. The ESTT Act would apply not
only to US companies, but to all companies registered with the US
Securities and Exchange Commission. This includes European companies,
such as Shell and BP, as well as those in emerging markets like China,
India, and Brazil. In addition to the US passage of this law, other
financial jurisdictions in Europe and elsewhere should pass similar
legislation.
"Those countries that are the headquarters for the global mining industry including Australia, Canada, and the US should also lead by example
by committing to become EITI countries themselves. They should also
emphasize the importance of EITI implementation in their bilateral
relations with resource-rich countries" said Serena Lillywhite of Oxfam
Australia.
"The decisions made by the EITI board following this deadline are
crucial for real progress in the global movement for oil, gas, and
mining industry transparency. Faithful implementation of the EITI,
complemented by other disclosure requirements, such as the Energy
Security through Transparency Act, will create a new global standard
for transparency and help citizens hold their governments accountable
for directing revenues to essential services like health and
education," said Offenheiser.
Oxfam International is a global movement of people who are fighting inequality to end poverty and injustice. We are working across regions in about 70 countries, with thousands of partners, and allies, supporting communities to build better lives for themselves, grow resilience and protect lives and livelihoods also in times of crisis.
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