Skip to main content

The Board agreed that Tanzania has made meaningful progress overall in implementing the 2016 EITI Standard.

Outcome of the Validation of Tanzania

Decision reference
2017-53 / BM-38
Decision basis
2016 EITI Standard, Requirement 8.3 EITI Validation deadlines and consequences

Board decision

The Board came to the following decision regarding Tanzania's status:

The Board agrees that Tanzania has made meaningful progress overall in implementing the 2016 EITI Standard. The Board’s determination of Tanzania’s progress with the EITI’s Requirements is outlined in the assessment card below.

The EITI Board agreed that Tanzania has made satisfactory progress in meeting the requirements in the EITI Standard on Requirements 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 3.1, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 and 7.4. The Board further agreed that Tanzania has made meaningful progress in meeting requirements 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 2.4, 2.6, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.6, 6.3, 7.1 and 7.3, inadequate progress in meeting requirements 2.2, 2.3, 4.5, and 5.1, and no progress in meeting requirements 4.4 and 6.2. The areas of concern relate to government engagement (requirements 1.1), multi-stakeholder group governance (1.4), EITI work plan (1.5), license allocations and register (2.2 and 2.3), the government’s policy on contract disclosure (2.4), state participation (2.6), production and export data (3.2 and 3.3), comprehensiveness of revenue disclosures (4.1), transportation revenues (4.4), state-owned enterprises transactions (4.5), direct subnational payments (4.6), revenue management and expenditures (5.1), quasi-fiscal expenditures by state-owned enterprises (6.2) economic contribution (6.3), public debate (7.1) and follow-up on recommendations (7.3).

Accordingly, the EITI Board agreed that Tanzania will need to take corrective actions outlined below. Progress with the corrective actions will be assessed in a second Validation commencing on 25 April 2019. Failure to achieve meaningful progress with considerable improvements across several individual requirements in the second Validation will result in suspension in accordance with the EITI Standard. In accordance with the EITI Standard, Tanzania’s multi-stakeholder group may request an extension of this timeframe, or request that Validation commences earlier than scheduled.

The Board’s decision followed a Validation that commenced on 1 January 2017. In accordance with the 2016 EITI Standard, an initial assessment was undertaken by the International Secretariat. The findings were reviewed by an Independent Validator, who submitted a draft Validation report to the MSG for comment. The MSG’s comments on the report were taken into consideration by the independent Validator in finalising the Validation report and the independent Validator responded to the MSG’s comments. The final decision was taken by the EITI Board.

Corrective actions and strategic recommendations

The EITI Board agreed the following corrective actions to be undertaken by Tanzania. Progress in addressing these corrective actions will be assessed in a second Validation commencing on 25 April 2019:


  1. In accordance with requirement 1.1, the government should demonstrate that it is fully, actively and effectively engaged in the EITI process. The government should demonstrate its commitment to the EITI by appointing a government lead to chair the process, publicly restate its commitment to extractives transparency, and ensure that senior government officials are represented and engaged in the multi-stakeholder group. The government should also ensure that links are made between Tanzania EITI’s objectives and ongoing work within their respective agencies. In accordance with requirement 8.3.c.i, the government is requested to develop and disclose an action plan for addressing the deficiencies in government engagement documented in the initial assessment and validator’s report within three months of the Board’s decision, i.e. by 25 January 2018. It is recommended that the regulations supporting the TEITA Act are developed and promulgated to demonstrate government commitment and ensure clarification of the terms of engagement for government and other key stakeholders in the EITI process.
  2. In accordance with requirement 1.4.a.ii, the MSG should ensure that its procedures for nominating and changing multi-stakeholder group representatives are public and confirm the right of each stakeholder group to appoint its own representatives. In accordance with requirement 1.4.b.ii and 1.4.b.iii, the MSG should ensure that stakeholders are adequately represented. In accordance with requirement, the MSG should ensure an inclusive decision-making process throughout implementation, particularly as concerns industry and civil society. The MSG should develop TORs for its work, with input from all constituencies represented on the MSG, which clearly outline the role and responsibilities of the MSG in their oversight of the EITI process. Each constituency should ensure that their representatives’ attendance at MSG meetings is consistent and at sufficiently high level to allow the MSG to take decisions and follow up on agreed matters.  
  3. In accordance with requirement 1.5, the MSG should adopt a regular cycle of operational workplans and, with input from stakeholders, ensure that their work plans include objectives and outcomes that are clearly linked to the national priorities for the extractive sector.
  4. In accordance with requirement 2.2, Tanzania should disclose a description of the process for awarding licenses, including an overview of petroleum or mining licences awarded or transferred during the reporting period, information on the technical and financial criteria for awarding licenses, and any non-trivial deviations from the applicable legal and regulatory framework for awarding licenses. Should any of this information already be available, the MSG should consider providing direct references to the relevant sources. The MSG may also wish to include commentary on the efficiency and effectiveness of licensing procedures, and could consider tasking the Independent Administrator to provide an evaluation of the licensing process and make recommendations for its improvement.
  5. In accordance with requirement 2.3, Tanzania should further ensure that information on awarded oil and gas licenses is disclosed, including name of license holder(s), date of application, date of award and duration of the license, and the commodity being produced. The MSG should also ensure that license coordinates are included in the mining license cadastre, if collated. If coordinates are not collated, the government should ensure that the size and location of the license area are disclosed. The government could consider establishing a public petroleum cadastre.
  6. In accordance with requirement 2.4, the government should ensure that its policy on contract disclosure is clearly disclosed, as well as actual practice. This should include reference to the relevant provisions in the TEITA Act and progress made in implementing these.
  7. In accordance with requirement 2.6.a, Tanzania should provide an explanation of the prevailing rules and practices regarding the financial relationship between the government and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in both the petroleum and the mining sector. This should include an explanation of the rules and practices governing transfers of funds between the SOEs Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation (TPDC) and State Mining Corporation (STAMICO) and the state, retained earnings, reinvestment and third-party financing. The rules and practices governing TPDC’s role as conduit of company payments to government should be disclosed and supported by payment figures where applicable. Tanzania should also confirm whether any loans or loan guarantees have been granted from the government/SOEs to companies operating in the country during the fiscal year covered by the EITI Report, and make information on this publicly available.
  8. The government should also, in accordance with requirement 2.6.b, ensure annual disclosure on the level of ownership held by the government and SOEs in mining, oil and gas companies operating within the country’s oil, gas and mining sector, including those held by SOE subsidiaries and joint ventures, and any changes in the level of ownership. This information should include details regarding the terms attached to their equity stake, including their level of responsibility to cover expenses at various phases of the project cycle, e.g., full-paid equity, free equity, carried interest. The government should also provide a comprehensive account of any loans or loan guarantees extended by the state or SOEs to mining, oil, and gas companies operating in the country.
  9. In accordance with requirements 3.2 and 3.3, Tanzania must disclose production and export data for the period covered in by the EITI Report. The MSG should seek to improve the consistency and comprehensiveness of production and export data in volume and value terms across the extractive sector, and to ensure that the value of gas production as well as data on export values are disclosed.
  10. To ensure that the revenue and payment disclosures are comprehensive in accordance with requirement 4.1, Tanzania and the MSG should ensure that EITI reporting covers material payments from the sector including revenues collected by SOEs, revenues from transportation of oil, gas and minerals, and direct sub-national payments from oil, gas and mining companies.
  11. In accordance with requirement 4.4, the government should ensure that material revenues collected by the government and SOEs from the transportation of oil, gas and minerals are disclosed. The MSG should investigate and document in the EITI Reports whether the government or SOEs receive revenues from the transportation of oil, gas and minerals, and if this is the case, determine whether these are deemed material.
  12. In accordance with requirement 4.5, the MSG must ensure that the reporting process comprehensively addresses the role of SOEs, including material payments to SOEs from extractives companies, and transfers between SOEs and other government agencies. The MSG should ensure that transactions related to SOEs operating in the oil, gas and mining sector, in particular TPDC, are adequately disclosed. This should include revenues that TPDC pass on to the Ministry of Energy and Minerals after deducting its costs.
  13. In accordance with requirement 5.1.a, the MSG should ensure that the EITI Report adequately explains how extractive sector revenue is distributed beyond the first receiving government entity. The MSG could also consider to initiate a discussion of extractive sector revenue in a broader budgetary context, including requesting more detailed information on the management of extractive sector revenue and related expenditures to be included in the EITI Reports. The MSG may further wish to refer to revenue classification systems in the reports.
  14. In accordance with requirement 6.2, the MSG should consider the existence and materiality of any quasi-fiscal expenditures undertaken by extractives SOEs and their subsidiaries, ensuring that all material quasi-fiscal expenditures are disclosed in future EITI reporting. The MSG should in particular seek to shed more light on the operations of TPDC, distinguishing clearly between its public functions and its operations on own account. This should include considering whether there are any material quasi-fiscal expenditures by TPDC in accordance with provision 6.2, and develop a reporting process with a view to achieving a level of transparency commensurate with other payments and revenue streams.
  15. In accordance with requirements 6.3, the MSG should expand on the contribution of the extractive sector to the economy and ensure that contribution of the extractive sector to GDP in absolute terms (6.3.a), and the percentage share of total government revenue (6.3.b), exports (6.3.c) and employment (6.3.d) is disclosed for the year(s) under review. This could also include providing direct links to further data on extractive sector contribution to the economy.
  16. In accordance with requirement 7.1, the MSG should seek to raise greater public awareness of the EITI and understanding of what the data disclosed under EITI reporting mean, to create public debate about how resource revenues can be used effectively. This could be done through more strategic engagement with the media, concerted efforts to disseminate information to affected communities, and wider outreach efforts beyond the EITI launch of the EITI Report. The government and the MSG should discuss the role the EITI could play in achieving national priorities and how it can generate public debate around natural resource use.
  17. In accordance with requirement 7.3, the MSG is required to take steps to act upon lessons learnt; to identify, investigate and address the causes of any discrepancies; and to consider the recommendations resulting from EITI reporting. The MSG could consider a more systematic follow-up by the MSG on the EITI Report recommendations and ensuring that these highlight gaps identified through the reporting process to help ensure that the EITI could serve as a tool for improved extractive sector governance.

The MSG is encouraged to consider the other recommendations in the Validator’s Report and the International Secretariat’s initial assessment, and to document the MSG’s responses to these recommendations in the next annual progress report.


Tanzania committed to implementing the EITI in 2008 and was accepted as a candidate country in February 2009. A multi-stakeholder group was formed in late 2009 to oversee EITI implementation. The country became compliant with the then EITI Rules in December 2012.

The Validation process commenced on 1 January 2017. In accordance with the Validation procedures, an initial assessment was prepared by the International Secretariat. The Independent Validator reviewed the findings and wrote a draft Validation report. Comments were received from the MSG. The Independent Validator reviewed the comments and responded to the MSG, before finalising the Validation report.

The Validation Committee reviewed the case on 20 September 2017. Based on the findings above, the Validation Committee agreed to recommend the assessment card and corrective actions outlined below.

The Committee also agreed to recommend an overall assessment of “meaningful progress” in implementing the 2016 EITI Standard. Requirement 8.3.c. of the EITI Standard states that:

ii.    Overall assessments. Pursuant to the Validation Process, the EITI Board will make an assessment of overall compliance with all requirements in the EITI Standard.

iv.   Meaningful progress. The country will be considered an EITI candidate and requested to undertake corrective actions until the second Validation.

The Validation Committee agreed to recommend a period of 18 months to undertake the corrective actions. This recommendation takes into account that the challenges identified are relatively significant and seeks to align the Validation deadline with the deadline for the 2017 EITI Report. 

Scorecard for Tanzania: 2017

Assessment of EITI requirements

  • Not met
  • Partly met
  • Mostly met
  • Fully met
  • Exceeded
Scorecard by requirement View more Assessment View more

Overall Progress

MSG oversight

1.1Government engagement

The passage of the Tanzania Extractive Industries (Transparency and Accountability) Act in 2015 was an important milestone. However, since then, poor attendance by government representatives at multi-stakeholder (MSG) meetings, inability to appoint an MSG chair, the absence of an EITI Champion, and apparent lack of political support at the highest level—all corroborated by strong stakeholder views in the same direction—suggest weak government engagement in the EITI process.

1.2Company engagement

The passage of the Tanzania Extractive Industries (Transparency and Accountability) Act in 2015 was an important milestone. However, since then, poor attendance by government representatives at multi-stakeholder (MSG) meetings, inability to appoint an MSG chair, the absence of an EITI Champion, and apparent lack of political support at the highest level—all corroborated by strong stakeholder views in the same direction—suggest weak government engagement in the EITI process.

1.3Civil society engagement

Tanzania’s record of respecting civil society’s rights and freedoms as key to EITI implementation has traditionally been strong. Overall, the freedoms guarded by the Civil Society Protocol are not impeded.

1.4MSG governance

The multi-stakeholder group (MSG) does not have clear terms of reference. For its practice, it draws from both the TEITA Act (which is still lacking regulations) and the Draft Rules (that are a bit more detailed but remain in draft form and not public). Frustrated by the top-down approach of the national secretariat, the MSG is unable to play its oversight role. MSG meetings lack sufficient advance notice and timely distribution of documents. The attendance record of government is particularly poor, while the quorum rule is weaker in the TEITA Act than in the Draft Rules.

1.5Work plan

TEITI operates with rolling multi-year workplans. The minimum elements of an EITI workplan, as per Requirement 1.5, are mostly met, with the exception being an inconsistency between the deadlines for EITI reporting and the target dates. The objectives/outcomes of the workplan are not linked to the EITI Principles nor do they appear broad enough to reflect “national priorities for the extractive industries” (Requirement 1.5.a). The workplan was approved by the MSG, but there is no record of stakeholder input and discussion.

Licenses and contracts

2.2License allocations

Disclosures in the EITI Report on license allocations fall well short of the information mandated/encouraged by this provision.

2.3License register

The online license register for the mining sector meets all requirements except for license area coordinates. The oil and gas sector does not have a public license register, nor does the EITI Report disclose any license information.

2.4Policy on contract disclosure

The government's policy and actual practice on contract disclosure is not described in the EITI Report or on MEM’s website. Looking ahead, the TEITA Act includes provisions related to contract transparency, which are described in the EITI Report.

2.1Legal framework

The legal framework and fiscal regime of extractive industries and the responsibilities of relevant government agencies are disclosed. Ongoing and proposed reforms are also described.

2.5Beneficial ownership

Not assessed

Tanzania has a beneficial ownership roadmap which addresses all aspects of Requirement 2.5.b.ii, but in some cases lacks detail on how activities will be carried out. Implementing countries are not yet required to address beneficial ownership and progress with this requirement does not yet have any implications for a country’s EITI status.

2.6State participation

The oil/gas and mining subsectors in Tanzania each feature a state-owned enterprise that is, both, an operating concern (participating in EITI reporting) and holder of certain developmental and regulatory functions. Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation (TPDC) is described in the EITI Report as a conduit of certain revenue streams from the oil/gas sector destined in part to the Ministry of Energy and Mines, but the rules and practices of this role are not disclosed and the related transfers are not disclosed. Considering the State Mining Corporation (STAMICO)’s limited role in the mining sector, it is adequately described in the EITI Report.

Monitoring production

3.1Exploration data

The EITI Report contains an overview of the extractive sector, including exploration activities.

3.2Production data

Production volume and value data are not consistently disclosed across the extractive sector with some details on production values for gas missing. The EITI Report discloses additional information on production volumes and values by the 15 main producing mining companies.

3.3Export data

Export volumes and values are not consistently disclosed in the EITI Report, with export values not being comprehensively reported. The report does provide additional information on prices for certain commodities.

Revenue collection

4.3Barter agreements

Not applicable

EITI Requirement 4.3 on barter and infrastructure transactions is not applicable to Tanzania.

4.6Direct subnational payments

The EITI Report discloses and reconciles subnational direct payments (local levies) to local government authorities, although these are not disaggregated by each local authory hosting extractive operations.


EITI data is disaggregated by company and revenue stream, with the exception of direct subnational payments to local authorities which are not disaggregated by receiving government entity.

4.9Data quality

Data quality are adequately assured in the EITI Report. Approval of the ToR and the appointment of the IA are documented in the MSG minutes.


The EITI Report describes the ratonale for setting the materiality threshold. The threshold in terms of a company’s total payments to the government is clearly stated. Total revenue from the extractive sector is disclosed, although a small fraction of it (0.3 percent) is not detailed by payment type but only by main receiving government agency. There are concerns about the comprehensiveness of the revenue figures given gaps in disclosures by the Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation (TPDC), transportation payments and direct sub-national payments.

4.2In-kind revenues

Not applicable

EITI Requirement 4.2 on in-kind revenues is not applicable in Tanzania.

4.4Transportation revenues

The EITI Report does not mention actual or possible revenue from the transportation of oil/gas and minerals, despite the use of several gas pipelines in the country.

4.5SOE transactions

Disclosure of Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation (TPDC)’s transactions in the EITI Report is incomplete, missing the accounting for revenues that TPDC should pass on to the Ministry of Energy and Mines after deducting its costs.

4.8Data timeliness

The record across six EITI Reports shows efforts to ensure that EITI reporting is timely, with a delay only in the 2012/13 EITI Report.

Revenue allocation

5.1Distribution of revenues

The distribution of extractive sector revenue is not disclosed, beyond the first receiving government entity. Extractive sector revenue is not put into a broader budgetary context, and revenue classification systems are not referenced.

5.2Subnational transfers

Not applicable

Sub-national transfers do not appear to be part of the extractive sector revenue system in Tanzania. Rqeuirement 5.2 on sub-national transfers is therefore not applicable to Tanzania.

5.3Revenue management and expenditures

Not assessed

Apart from a general description of the budget and audit process, the EITI report does not contain information on the management of extractive sector revenue and related expenditures. Reporting on revenue management and expenditures is encouraged but not required by the EITI Standard and progress with this requirement will not have any implications for a country’s EITI status.

Socio-economic contribution

6.1Mandatory social expenditures

Not applicable

There are no mandatory social payments from the extractive sector in Tanzania. Requirement 6.1.a is therefore not applicable. The EITI Report disclosures voluntary social payments by extractive sector companies (or cash equivalent). Information on the beneficiaries of these social payments are not included.

6.2Quasi-fiscal expenditures

Despite an assurance to the contrary, there is evidence in the EITI Report of quasi-fiscal expenditures by Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation (TPDC), whose details remain undisclosed.

6.3Economic contribution

The contribution of the extractive sector to the economy is addressed separately for oil/gas and mining, with some details on the share of GDP, exports and employment missing.

Outcomes and impact

7.2Data accessibility

Not assessed

EITI Reports are not yet machine readable, although key information is available online. Capacity-building activities have focused on enhancing the capacity of the secretariat staff and less that of civil society, citizens, media and others. Requirement 7.2 on data accessibility is encouraged but not required by the EITI Standard and progress with this requirement will not have any implications for a country’s EITI status.

7.4Outcomes and impact of implementation

The Annual Progress Report 2015 was published within the deadline, and the report reflects Tanzania EITI’s main activities and progress made during 2015.

7.1Public debate

Tanzania EITI maintains only a low level of dissemination and outreach activities, with limited evidence of public debate. The multi-stakeholder group (MSG) has not agreed on a clear policy on access, release and re-use of EITI data.

7.3Follow up on recommendations

Recommendations from EITI Reports are aimed at EITI process rather than wider issues arising from the EITI data. The multi-stakeholder group (MSG) has taken some steps to act upon lessons learned and in responding to the EITI Report recommendations.