Côte d'Ivoire

The government has reiterated its commitment to the EITI on multiple occasions and two senior government officials have been appointed to lead EITI implementation, albeit only the chair leads day-to-day implementation. Government officials participate actively in EITI reporting and MSG deliberations, but evidence of use of EITI data by the government to promote public debate or monitor government revenues remains limited.

Senior industry representatives, participate actively in MSG meetings, although the representation of the mining industry sub-constituency can be improved. In addition to MSG meetings, companies participate in EITI reporting, in dissemination and outreach activities and in resolving conflicts. Oil companies’ representatives have provided their expertise to help explain the functioning of the production sharing agreements, while the contracts remain confidential. Mining companies also proactively disclose material payments as the sector continue to expend rapidly.

Civil society representatives are fully, actively and effectively engaged in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the EITI process. They help lead day-to-day implementation through the appointment of a civil society representative as technical director of the EITI national secretariat. They also conduct studies, take the lead on outreach to local communities and dissemination campaign of EITI Reports. Having successfully campaigned for EITI implementation, civil society representatives work diligently to protect and use the space created by the EITI process to influence government policy. While the fragmented nature of the civil society constituency may have diminished their effectiveness, there are also ample evidence that civil society can influence government policy in the drafting of the new mining code.

The government of Côte d'Ivoire and the MSG have made significant efforts to ensure a renewal of the MSG and appropriate representation of each constituency. The MSG’s Internal Rules are publicly available, as well ad its per diem policy and meeting minutes. Despite this renewal, efforts need to be made to clarify nomination and renewal procedures. The MSG should also ensure that all constituencies, especially the industry constituency are well-organized and establish clear nominations and representation guidelines that ensure that the broader constituency is well-represented and actively consulted.

EITI Côte d’Ivoire's 2019 work plan is publicly accessible and fully costed, with timelines aligned with EITI reporting and Validation deadlines. While the work plan lists national priorities, the EITI’s contribution to national priorities for the extractive industries is insufficiently articulated in the work plan. The work plan addresses the scope of EITI reporting, highlights funding gaps and outlines the MSG’s plans for following up on recommendations from EITI reporting and Validation. There is evidence that the process for developing the workplan was transparent and inclusive of the views of members of the broader industry and civil society constituencies. The work plan includes activities related to overcoming capacity constraints on issues related to revenue disclosures and social expenditures, but none related to MSG members’ capacity constraints. However, the work plan does not include any activities related to overcoming legal and regulatory obstacles to EITI implementation.

EITI Cote d’Ivoire work plans include objectives that reflect national priorities, such as the extension of the scope of EITI reporting to artisanal mining. Work plan activities are measurable, but not always time-bound, and not fully costed. The work plans also include activities aimed at addressing capacity constraints and activities aimed at implementing the new beneficial ownership roadmap and the government open policy.

The 2017 EITI Report lists the licenses awarded and transferred in the hydrocarbon sector , including an overview of the statutory procedures for license awards and transfers in both sectors. The lack of license awards through competitive bidding is confirmed. While the report clearly describes the technical and financial criteria assessed for license awards and transfers in the mining sector, it does not detail the criteria assessed in the oil and gas sector aside from referring to applicants’ capacities. While the report provides the names of companies receiving licenses in 2017 in both mining and oil and gas, it only provides a summary of the MSG’s assessment of non-trivial deviations from statutory procedures for license awards in mining, not in oil and gas.

The 2017 EITI Report provides all information listed under Requirement 2.3.b aside from dates of application, dates of expiry for 7 exploration licences awarded in 2017 and some geographical coordinates (for eight of the 28 blocks) in oil and gas, and aside from dates of application for 70 of the 160 exploration licenses and all 16 production licenses in mining. Côte d’Ivoire’s efforts to establish an online mining cadastral portal are commendable, although the uploading of all mining licenses was still ongoing at the commencement of Validation.

The EITI Report provides a clear description of the government policy, which is not applied in practice. Despite a clear legal mandate to publish production sharing agreements in the hydrocarbon sector since 2012, the law has not been implemented in practice. Government officials at the Ministry of Hydrocarbon and Energy have argued against the publication of the production sharing agreements in a clear violation of article 12 of law N° 2012-369 of 18 April 2012. The government of Côte d'Ivoire has made efforts to ensure that some contracts are made public on the national EITI website.

The international Secretariat took note of the study published by the MSG in December 2016, which reviews the legal and regulatory framework and sets out a methodology for agreeing a definition of beneficial ownership, the mechanism of collecting and publishing beneficial ownership data as well as the level of details to be disclosed. However, the International Secretariat notes that many stakeholders were not aware of this study and implementation of the beneficial ownership roadmap has been delayed. Moreover, very few oil and gas companies disclosed their legal owners as part of the 2015 EITI Report.

The 2017 EITI Report establishes the materiality of state participation in the extractive industries through two SOEs (PETROCI and SODEMI) and provides an explanation of the prevailing rules and practices regarding the financial relationship between the government and SOEs. The mandate of PETROCI on behalf of the state is described, including its swap arrangements with two oil and gas companies (for natural gas against crude oil). Links to publicly-accessible summaries of the two SOEs’ financial statements are provided. The state and the SOEs’ interests in mining, oil and gas companies and projects are listed comprehensively, although the terms associated with each state or SOE participation are not consistently provided.

The 2015 EITI Report provides an overview of extractive industries, including significant exploration activities and ongoing project developments. The International Secretariat takes note that the Report also includes an overview of the artisanal mining sector of diamond and gold, including ongoing reforms to formalise the ASM sector.

The 2015 EITI Report includes volume and value of production by commodity. The information is disaggregated by producers for the hydrocarbon sector, and by region for the artisanal mining of diamond. Information on production and export was reconciled with the producers in the case of oil and gas and clearly sourced to the DGMG, which monitor production in the mining sector.

The 2015 EITI Report discloses total export volumes and the value of exports by commodity, and in some cases this information has been reconciled and disaggregated by exporter. Export data is clearly sourced, but the Report does not include information on how export data has been calculated.

The 2015 EITI Report lists and describes all material companies and revenue streams. The materiality of revenues from non-reporting companies is assessed. While two mining companies making material payments (NEWCREST HIRECote d'Ivoire SA and Ampella Mining) were first omitted from the list of reporting companies, they were subsequently included in the reconciliation process and all but three oil, gas companies (Lukoil, CIPEM and PAN Atlantic) that made material payments in 2015 fully reported all payments in accordance with the agreed reporting templates. Payments made by the three non-reporting companies were relatively insignificant, less than 0.2% of total reported revenues from the extractive sector, therefore did not affect the comprehensiveness of the Report. Full government disclosure is provided for companies below the materiality threshold.

The 2017 EITI Report confirms the materiality of in-kind revenues in the oil and gas sector and not in mining. The report comprehensively discloses the volumes of in-kind revenues collected by PETROCI on behalf of the state. While it disaggregates the volumes of oil and gas sold and the proceeds of those sales for the SIR refinery and the CIE electricity generation company, it does not disclose and disaggregate the sales of 519 726 barrels of government in-kind oil revenue exported in 2017, despite the lack of objections of government and SOE stakeholders consulted to the publication of cargo-level data on these sales.

The 2017 EITI Report describes two types of (related) barter-type arrangements: Profit Gas for Profit Oil and gas for electricity exchanges of goods in-kind. The report provides a brief overview of the gas for oil swap, albeit without reference to the statutory regulations governing the arrangement and provides the volumes and estimated values of the two counter-balancing benefit streams (oil and gas). While the report alludes to the delivery of electricity in settlement for supplies of natural gas and the CN-ITIE website provides the valuations of the two counter-balancing benefit streams (gas and electricity) in 2017, the report does not provide an explanation of the key terms of the arrangement that would be necessary to understand the figures provided. While key aspects of this requirement are being addressed, the broader objective of transparency in barter-type arrangements has yet to be fulfilled.

The IA and MSG concluded assessed the materiality of transport revenues and concluded that these payments were not material. The 2015 EITI Report and stakeholders’ consultation confirms that transport revenues were immaterial in the oil, gas and mining sector for the year covered by the Report.

The 2017 EITI Report provides the results of reconciliation of company payments to SOEs. Dividend payments from PETROCI to the Treasury (DGTCP) were disclosed and reconciled. The level of budget support for SODEMI in 2017 remains unclear from the EITI Report, although stakeholders consulted confirmed that SODEMI did not receive budget transfers in 2017 but rather relied on a funding model described in the EITI Report.

Together with the IA, the MSG has considered definition of materiality with regards to direct subnational payments and concluded that such payments are not material due to the principle of unity of account, which mandate that all budgetary revenues are collected by the central government, registered in the Public Treasury account. Municipal taxes collected at the central level and then transferred to local communities are covered under Requirement 5.2, subnational transfers, below.

The financial data disclosed in the 2015 EITI Report is disaggregated by individual company, government entity and revenue stream. In-kind revenues, which represent the largest revenue stream to the government via PETROCI are also disaggregated by producing license. Following recommendations from the IA, the MSG has included a feasibility study of project level reporting in its 2017 work plan.

The MSG has made significant improvements in the timeliness of EITI reporting and regularly published timely EITI Reports in accordance with the EITI Requirement.

The IA undertook a review of the audit and assurance procedures in Cote d’Ivoire and recommended quality assurance procedures that were largely followed by reporting entities. Oil, gas and mining companies had their financial statements audited for data covered by the The IA undertook a review of the audit and assurance procedures in Cote d’Ivoire and recommended quality assurance procedures that were largely followed by reporting entities. Oil, gas and mining companies had their financial statements audited for data covered by the 2015 EITI report, and largely adhered to the agreed quality assurance procedures, except Newcrest Hire, Perseus Mining CI, and Amara Mining CI, which collectively paid 0.43% of total revenues. Newcrest Hire and Perseus Mining CI submitted certified data after the deadline for reconciliation. On the government side, IGE conducted an audit of all companies submitting data and certified all the state declarations except for DGH, which declared 6% of total revenues. The IA assessed the impact of these gaps on the quality of the report and concluded that despite these omissions data presented in the 2015 EITI Report reflect reasonably the extractive sector’s contribution to the state budget (2015 EITI Report, p.16).

The 2017 EITI Report states that all extractives revenues are transferred to the single Treasury account, although there is a lack of clarity on whether extractives-related revenues such as DGH training and equipment fees are recorded in the national budget. The public accessibility of audited financial statements for several recent years for both SOEs is welcome. However, the MSG has yet to provide a clear categorisation of extractives revenues that are and are not recorded in the national budget.

The 2017 EITI Report describes earmarked funds but clarifies that there are no transfers of extractives revenues to local governments in 2017. The 2017 EITI Report refers to “infranational transfers”, although it clarifies that these are earmarked revenues to government departments rather than transfers to local governments (pp.59-60). Annex 2 (p.116) provides details on the transfers of 10% of the “droits fixes” to the Ministry of Mines (p.60).

EITI Cote d’Ivoire has made some effort to include information on the government’s budget-making process in the EITI Report. However, the MSG did not make efforts to include additional information on extractives revenues that are off-budget and earmarked to specific regions (CDLM) and specific government agencies (DGH).

The 2017 EITI Report provides a cursory explanation of the legal and contractual basis for mandatory social expenditures, although there is evidence of reporting of certain mandatory social expenditures for which the legal and contractual basis is unclear. The EITI Côte d’Ivoire website has published a spreadsheet of mandatory social expenditures in the mining sector, through local community development funds, which provides the information listed under Requirement 6.1.a. In oil and gas, the report discloses and reconciles contributions for training and equipment to the oil and gas regulator (DGH), but there is no consensus among stakeholders consulted whether these should be considered as forms of mandatory social expenditures. In addition, the comprehensiveness of reporting of these contributions is unclear, given the low number of oil and gas companies reporting such contributions. Additional mandatory social expenditures are reported by three oil and gas companies, although disclosures by one company do not describe the legal basis for the expenditures nor the identity of non-government beneficiaries.

While the 2017 EITI Report marks an improvement on the MSG’s reflections on quasi-fiscal expenditures since the first Validation, the narrow focus on the PETROCI Fondation risks omitting other types of quasi-fiscal activities such as off-budget subsidies on natural gas. The mandate and budget of the PETROCI foundation have also been made publicly available.

The 2015 EITI Report shows that according to INS data, the extractive industries contributed 5.15% of GDP, 5.14% in government revenues and accounted for 10.81% of total exports from the country in 2015. Gold accounted for 6.16% of total export, while crude oil accounted for 4.44% of total exports. Mining companies employed 5,291 in 2015, whereas, oil and gas companies employed only 934.

EITI Cote d’Ivoire has ensured that the EITI Reports are accessible to the public and contribute to public debate and conflict resolutions in some extractives regions. Dissemination activities involving civil society groups appear to have been effective in stimulating an informed debate about the management of the extractive sector. Industry representatives appear eager to use EITI data to improve community relations. The MSG has played a key role in developing more formalised consultation mechanisms with mining-affected communities, through village elders and traditional chiefs.

EITI data for 2017 is available in machine readable format through the EITI Cote d’Ivoire website. Such efforts are encouraged but not required and are not assessed in determining compliance with the EITI Standard.

The MSG has been thorough in taking steps to act upon lessons learned and monitoring progress with the implementation of recommendations in EITI Reports, but the RCI has made limited progress in implementing substantive recommendations made in EITI Reports. Together with the IA, significant efforts have been made to identify, investigate and address the causes of discrepancies in EITI reporting.

The 2018 annual progress report focused more on activities and outcomes than on impact. The report provided details on follow up to recommendations and progress in meeting EITI Requirements. However, the PWYP civil society coalition was contracted to prepare a standalone impact assessment on behalf of EITI Côte d’Ivoire, which documents both the EITI’s impact and the limits of the MSG’s outreach activities and impact. Despite the lack of evidence indicating that MSG members canvassed their respective constituencies to seek their views and feedback on the annual progress report, stakeholder consultations confirmed that the draft annual progress report was made available to the broader constituencies and that a broad cross-section of stakeholders were consulted in the development of the standalone impact study.