Français   RWI Home  |  About RWI  |  Our Work  |  News


There are a few important issues to note about this analysis:

  • The ten indicators are by no means exhaustive. Different stakeholders in different countries will identify additional elements that require improvement.
  • Some of the indicators reflect EITI requirements. For these, we note the corresponding EITI criteria or validation indicators. Others are optional, but represent a very modest set of good practices.
  • The indicators deal only with the reports themselves, not the process of their preparation. Process issues, such as stakeholder inclusion and report dissemination, deserve careful attention but are not addressed in this exercise.
  • The assessment relied only on the information provided in the reports. We did not cross-check its accuracy or completeness from third sources. For example, if the report said all companies reported, we did not investigate whether the company list was complete.
  • Often, a report did not clearly score a 'yes' or a 'no' for certain indicators. In such cases, we made a judgment call by looking at how the report compared with its counterparts.
  • The EITI Secretariat, the World Bank, French EITI members, and civil society groups provide important further discussions of report quality.1
For certain indicators, our methodology requires further explanation:

    4. Data reliability

    a) and b) If the report provided no information about audit requirements, the country scored a NO. If some companies or agencies failed to provide audited data according to the audit requirements, the country scored a NO. If the EITI committee required only certain companies or agencies to provide audited data, and they complied, the country scored a YES.

    5. Coverage

    f) If all the companies selected by the EITI committee reported, the country scored a YES even if the selection is incomplete.

    g) If the report provided the average price for at least one commodity, the country scored a YES.

    h) Countries only scored a YES if the reports provide total production data (not just in-kind volumes received or SOE production data) for at least one commodity.

    6. Disaggregation

    a) through d) We assessed the availability of disaggregated financial data (not physical flows). If the report provided partial disaggregation, the country scored a YES.

    c) For project disaggregation, countries that provided financial data for individual concessions, mines or oil fields scored a YES. Physical or production data was not sufficient.

    d) Countries scored a YES for commodity disaggregation if they provided data for each mineral (gold, silver, etc.) and/or individual petroleum products (crude oil, gas). Disaggregation by sector, such as providing revenue totals for mining verses petroleum, was NOT considered commodity disaggregation.

RWI hopes that this project will prompt efforts to improve future EITI reports. This analysis is far from a comprehensive review of report quality. The process of producing better reports will require contributions from all EITI implementing bodies, the reconcilers, the companies and governments that provide the data, stakeholders including local and international civil society, and the providers of EITI technical assistance. We encourage these steps towards realizing EITI's intention to set the standard for petroleum and mineral sector transparency.

[1] EITI Secretariat: "Overview of EITI Reports" (2009, 2010); the World Bank: "Towards Strengthened EITI Reporting"(2010); and French EITI members: "Recommendations for improved implementation of the EITI" (2011). Publish What You Pay country coalitions and member organizations, such as those in Gabon and Azerbaijan, often produce country-specific report critiques which can be found at