Skip to main content

The Board agreed that Guatemala has made inadequate progress overall in implementing the 2016 EITI Standard.

Outcome of the Validation of Guatemala.

Decision reference
2020-03 / BC-284
Decision basis
EITI Articles of Association 2019-2021, Article 12.1. ix)

Board decision

The Board came to the following decision: 

Guatemala has made inadequate progress overall in implementing the 2016 EITI Standard.

The Board recognises Guatemala’s efforts to implement the EITI Standard but notes that EITI implementation has suffered from weak stakeholder engagement, gaps in reporting and lack of impact. The Board recognises that the lack of engagement and progress is related to the wider context of the extractive industries in the country, where activity has declined significantly in recent years with the closure of large mines and the de facto moratorium on new oil, gas and mining licenses since 2017.

While acknowledging the broader context, the Board expresses concern over the government’s apparent lack of commitment to the EITI and challenges in providing dedicated funding. The Board regrets that Guatemala’s EITI Reports are not comprehensible nor contributing to public debate, given inconsistencies and gaps related to issues of interest to stakeholders such as subnational payments and transfers as well as comprehensive and reliable disclosures of government revenues from the extractive industries.

The Board highlights the scope for Guatemala’s EITI implementation to support dialogue to address social opposition to mining as a means of improving the sector’s prospects for recovery. Guatemala is urged to re-energise its EITI implementation on the basis of renewed and sustained commitment from the Ministry of Energy and Mines. All stakeholders are strongly encouraged to demonstrate their commitment as partners in the EITI process. The Board urges Guatemala to improve the quality of its EITI reporting and to link EITI implementation to on-going challenges in the extractive sector and national reform priorities.

The Board has determined that Guatemala will have 18 months, i.e. until 23 July 2021 before a second Validation to carry out corrective actions regarding the requirements relating to government engagement (Requirement 1.1) and company engagement (1.2), civil society engagement (1.3), MSG governance (1.4), work plan (1.5), license allocations (2.2), license register(s) (2.3), the government’s policy on contract disclosure (2.4), export data (3.3), comprehensiveness of revenue disclosures (4.1), direct subnational payments (4.6), level of disaggregation (4.7), data quality (4.9), sub-national transfers (5.2), mandatory social expenditures (6.1), economic contribution (6.3), public debate (7.1), follow-up on recommendations (7.3) and outcomes and impact of implementation (7.4).

Corrective actions and strategic recommendations

The EITI Board agreed the following corrective actions to be undertaken by Guatemala. Progress in addressing these corrective actions will be assessed in a second Validation commencing on 23 July 2021.

  1. In accordance with Requirement 1.1, the government, especially the Ministry of Energy and Mines is required to demonstrate commitment to EITI implementation by ensuring that the MSG is supported by adequate human and financial resources and key documents and data are produced in a timely manner. The Ministry of Energy and Mines is encouraged to reiterate high-level commitment to EITI implementation and utilise the EITI to promote national objectives related to extractive sector governance. Reporting government agencies should comply with data assurances agreed by the MSG. The MSG is encouraged to engage with municipalities to ensure that they participate fully in EITI reporting.
  2. In accordance with Requirement 1.2, industry must be actively and effectively engaged in the EITI process. Thus, the Chamber of the extractive sector should be proactive and encourage companies to participate and comprehensively disclose their payments to the government, even prior to receiving any official request.
  3. In accordance with Requirement 1.3, the civil society constituency should fully and actively engage in overseeing EITI implementation and contributing to public debate related to extractive sector governance. The government should ensure that it treats civil society as an equal partner in the EITI process in both regulatory and practical terms.
  4. In accordance with Requirement 1.4, the MSG should update its internal governance rules to cover all provisions of Requirement 1.4.b and publish procedures for nominating and changing MSG representatives, including the duration of mandates. Each constituency is required to select representatives to the MSG through an inclusive, transparent and well-documented process. The government is required to ensure that all constituency can effectively table issues for discussion.
  5. In accordance with Requirement 1.5, Guatemala must elaborate a new work plan including its sections (a) to (g). This new work plan must set EITI Implementation objectives and ensure that they reflect national priorities for Guatemala. In elaborating this work plan, the MSG may wish to consider applying for an adapted implementation in accordance with Requirement 8.1. The Board encourages the MSG in Guatemala to evaluate a recalibration of the scope of its EITI process for the future, to ensure it is useful and aligned with the concerns and national priorities of the country. The International Secretariat should offer and provide support to this end.
  6. In accordance with Requirement 2.2, Guatemala is required to (1) disclose oil and mining licenses awarded or transferred in the year(s) under review, (2) describe the process of transferring a license, (3) highlight any non-trivial deviations in practice (4) clarify the technical and financial criteria used for assessing allocations and transfers of both oil and gas contracts and for mining licenses, and (5) disclose the list of applicants and bid criteria for licenses awarded through a bidding process. To strengthen implementation of requirement 2.2, the MSG may also wish to comment on the efficiency of the current contract allocation and transfer system as a means of clarifying procedures and curbing non-trivial deviations.
  7. In accordance with Requirement 2.3, Guatemala should also ensure that the license holder names, dates of application, award and expiry, commodity(ies) covered and coordinates for all mining and petroleum licenses held by material companies are publicly available. Where this information is already publicly available, it is sufficient to include a reference or link in the EITI Report. Where such registers or cadastres do not exist or are incomplete, the EITI Report should disclose any gaps in the publicly available information and document efforts to strengthen these systems.
  8. To strengthen implementation of Requirement 2.4, Guatemala is required to clearly document its policy on contract transparency and make voluntary royalty agreements publicly available.
  9. In accordance with Requirement 3.3, Guatemala is required to disclose complete data on exports; specifically, on mining export volumes. Additionally, it is suggested to disclose how volumes and values documented in the EITI Report have been calculated.
  10. In accordance with Requirement 4.1, in advance of the reporting process the MSG is required to agree which payments and revenues are material and therefore must be disclosed, including appropriate materiality definitions and thresholds. A description of each revenue stream, related materiality definitions and thresholds should be disclosed. In establishing materiality definitions and thresholds, the MSG should consider the size of the revenue streams relative to total revenues. The MSG should document the options considered and the rationale for establishing the definitions and thresholds. The MSG is also required to clearly define material companies based on the materiality decisions taken. The EITI Report should clearly document non-reporting companies and assess whether their omission materially affects the comprehensiveness of reconciliation. The government is required to ensure that all relevant government entities participate in EITI reporting and that the total figure of all government revenues is comprehensive. If there are significant practical barriers preventing full government disclosure, these should be documented in the EITI Report.
  11. In accordance with Requirement 4.6, Guatemala is required to map and clearly define direct payments from extractive companies to subnational government entities. The MSG should discuss whether it considers the payments material and clearly document the decision and its rationale. If material, the MSG should ensure that the payments are comprehensively reconciled.
  12. In accordance with Requirement 4.9, Guatemala is required to ensure that the EITI Report includes an assessment of whether payments and revenues are subject to credible, independent audits. The MSG is required to agree data quality assurances to be requested from reporting entities. The EITI Report should document whether reporting entities complied with the agreed assurances. The MSG is required to ensure that the Independent Administrator submits complete summary data based on the current template provided by the International Secretariat.
  13. In accordance with Requirement 5.2, Guatemala must fully disclose revenues generated by the extractive industries which are transferred between national and subnational government entities. A more complete and understandable explanation of income’s distribution should be described, including the legal and real role of FONPETROL and the flows between this fund, the CODEDES and the COCODES. Also, the MSG must disclose the applicable revenue sharing formula, the amounts calculated according to such formula for transfers, and identify any discrepancy between the amounts calculated and the amounts transferred. Finally, if possible, these transfers should be reconciled.
  14. In accordance with Requirement 6.1, where material social expenditures by companies are mandatory, these must be disclosed and disaggregated by type of contribution and beneficiary and reconciled where possible.
  15. In accordance with Requirement 6.3, Guatemala must disclose complete information about the contribution of the extractive industries to the economy. This information must include the employment in the extractive industries as a percentage of total employment (Requirement 6.3 (d)) and an estimate of informal sector activity (Requirement 6.3 (a)).
  16. In accordance with Requirement 7.1, Guatemala should ensure that EITI Reports are consistent, comprehensible, actively promoted, publicly accessible and contribute to public debate. The MSG should continue to seek to carry out outreach events to spread awareness of and facilitate dialogue about the EITI Report across the country. The MSG is required to agree an open data policy and make EITI Reports available in open data format.
  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 with a view to strengthen the impact of EITI implementation on natural resource governance. In particular the MSG should consider improving its procedures to analyse and process recommendations resulting from EITI reporting.
  18. In accordance with Requirement 7.4, the MSG is required to document its annual review of impact and outcomes of EITI implementation in an annual progress report or through other means, including for 2017. All stakeholders should be able to participate in reviewing the impact of EITI implementation. Civil society groups and industry involved in the EITI, particularly, but not only, those serving on the multi-stakeholder group, should be able to provide feedback on the EITI process and have their views reflected in the annual review of impact and outcomes.

The government and the MSG are 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 review of impact and outcomes of EITI implementation.


In accordance with the 2016 EITI Standard, an initial assessment was undertaken by the International Secretariat [English | Spanish]. The findings were reviewed by an Independent Validator, who submitted a draft Validation report [English | Spanish | French] to the MSG for comment. The MSG’s comments on the reports [English | Spanish] were taken into consideration by the independent Validator in finalising the Validation report [English | Spanish | French].

The Government of Guatemala committed to implement the EITI in March 2010, and established a multi-stakeholder group (MSG) in 2010. The country was accepted as an EITI Candidate in March 2011. On 25 October 2016, the Board agreed that the country’s Validation under the 2016 EITI Standard would commence on 1 April 2018.

The Validation Committee reviewed the case on 8 January 2020. Based on the findings above, the Validation Committee agreed to recommend an overall assessment of “inadequate 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 (...) iii.   Inadequate progress. The country will be suspended and requested to undertake corrective actions until the second Validation. For the suspension to be lifted, the country must in its second Validation demonstrate at least meaningful progress."

The Board has agreed that “If a country has made inadequate progress or less on any one of the requirements relating to stakeholder engagement (Requirements 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3), suspension pursuant to requirement 8.3.c.i would apply”. The assessment of “inadequate progress” on Requirement 1.1 therefore implies that Guatemala should be suspended.

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 timetable for Guatemala’s upcoming EITI Reports.

Scorecard for Guatemala: 2020

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

Senior government officials’ support has decreased after Guatemala became an EITI compliant country in 2011. The Executive Coordinator of EITI Guatemala and Minister of Energy and Mines, have not taken an effective government leadership role. Government engagement in the EITI is limited to government representatives’ regular participation in the MSG and in EITI data collection upon request.

1.2Company engagement

There is an enabling environment for company participation. Industry is engaged in the EITI process and works closely with the MSG. However, five out fourteen companies invited to participate in reporting failed to submit data for the 2014-2015 EITI Report. Industry is encouraged to help re-energise the EITI process, as well as engage its members in outreach activities related to the EITI. Companies could also fund EITI-related activities and use EITI data more actively.

1.3Civil society engagement

There are no indications of legal or practical barriers for civil society to engage in EITI-related public debate, operate freely, communicate and cooperate with each other. Activists involved in the mining sector have faced threats, but this has not affected CSOs involved in EITI. However, weak government commitment and lack of momentum in EITI implementation is reducing civil society’s interest in the process.

1.4MSG governance

Stakeholders do not appear to be treated as equal partners. Agenda-setting is largely controlled by the Ministry of Energy and Mines. The MSG includes self-appointed representatives from each constituency. However, the its composition appears to be defined ad hoc. Nomination procedures are not sufficiently documented. The MSG ToR is outdated and does not include all elements required by the Standard.

1.5Work plan

The work plan includes clear objectives, linking them to national priorities. However, it does not appear to reflect constituencies’ priorities. It lacks account of costs and funding sources, and its latest version is yet to be published. The work plan does not address the scope of EITI reporting or follow-up of recommendations - reflecting deficiencies in the MSG’s work. Implementation of the work plan is lagging behind due to funding constraints.

Licenses and contracts

2.2License allocations

It is unclear which mining licenses were awarded in 2015 and whether any license transfers took place. The process for transferring mining and oil licenses is not described. The technical and financial criteria for awarding or transferring oil or mining licenses is not disclosed. There is no indication that the MSG has considered possible non-trivial deviations from the licensing framework.

2.3License register

The Mining Cadastre provides a list of mining licenses active in 2014-2015 and reveals general information such as the license-holder name, the commodities extracted in the mines and license coordinates. For oil, each Production Sharing Contract provides the same information. However, in mining, the Mining Cadastre does not appear to include dates of application or award. Moreover, the Mining Cadastre does not include the duration of the license.

2.4Policy on contract disclosure

The Government of Guatemala supports and practices contract transparency. Contractual arrangements in the mining sector do not exist. Oil and gas contracts are published in the official gazette and in the Ministry of Energy and Mines’ portal.

2.1Legal framework

The 2014-2015 EITI Report provides a comprehensive description of the legal framework and fiscal regime governing the extractive industries and addresses reform efforts. It also includes a description of the roles of the main regulatory body as well as the degree of fiscal devolution.

2.5Beneficial ownership

Not assessed

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. Nonetheless, Guatemala has made some progress in agreeing a three-year beneficial ownership roadmap published on the EITI-Guatemala website, even if beneficial ownership reporting is yet to begin.

2.6State participation

Not applicable

Given that there was no state participation in the mining and oil sector for the 2014-2015 period, this requirement is not applicable in the country.

Monitoring production

3.1Exploration data

The Report discloses an overview of the extractive industries, clarifying that there were not any significant exploration activities. The report also raises concerns over the lack of public sources of information and technical data on mineral reserves.

3.2Production data

The 2014 and 2015 Mining Statistical Yearbooks in the MEM´s website include data on production volumes and values for 2014 and 2015. For oil, the report does not disclose production volumes or values, but this data is disclosed in publicly-accessible government sources (MEM).

3.3Export data

The report discloses oil export volumes and values. Regarding mining, export values are provided. No export volumes however are provided, even though according to all stakeholders Guatemala exports significant quantities of minerals.

Revenue collection

4.3Barter agreements

Not applicable

This requirement is not applicable for Guatemala.

4.6Direct subnational payments

Even though direct payments of municipal mining royalties were included in the reconciliation, several municipalities (most likely 10) failed to report. Information on payments made from Perenco to subnational collectives such as COCODES is contradictory and confusing and could not be clarified despite continuous requests by the International Secretariat.


The 2014-2015 EITI Report presents data by individual company, government entity and revenue stream therefore data is disaggregated to the level required by the EITI Standard.

4.9Data quality

The MSG appointed a IA to reconcile payments and revenues. Reporting companies correctly fulfilled the requests for information from the IA. Instead, government agencies were not consistent in the way they reported, and did not adhere to the agreed templates from the IA. Despite the text within the ToR, the IA and the documentation failed to demonstrate that methodologies as to ensure data quality were really applied.


The MSG has not agreed a definition of materiality, nor of reporting thresholds – there is no evidence of discussions on this. Not all revenue streams listed in 4.1.b were considered. From the 4 oil producing companies, only Perenco was selected to report for the significance of its contributions - the other 3 were invited to participate voluntarily. The MSG did not work with the IA to address materiality.

4.2In-kind revenues

Not applicable

This requirement is not applicable for Guatemala.

4.4Transportation revenues

Not applicable

This requirement is not applicable for Guatemala.

4.5SOE transactions

Not applicable

This requirement is not applicable for Guatemala.

4.8Data timeliness

The EITI Report covers fiscal years 2014 and 2015 and was published in January 2017, complying with the Standard.

Revenue allocation

5.1Distribution of revenues

The report explains the distribution of revenues to the National Budget, and provides a link to the accounting system consolidating the financial information. No reference is made either on a revenue classification system or international data standards.

5.2Subnational transfers

The 2014-2015 EITI Report is not clear about this point, and even the role and scope of FONPETROL is presented in a confusing manner. Revenue sharing formulas explaining subnational transfers amounts are included in publicly accessible laws, but not in the report, which also fails to compare the amount arising from applying the formula to the amounts transferred.

5.3Revenue management and expenditures

Not assessed

There is no additional information disclosed on country’s budget and audit processes nor links to publicly available information about expenditure. This requirement is only encouraged or recommended and should not be taken into account in assessing compliance.

Socio-economic contribution

6.1Mandatory social expenditures

According to stakeholders there are no social expenditures mandated by law, but the report does not confirm this. A list of voluntary contributions from mining companies, is disclosed, but these payments´ materiality was not discussed and therefore amounts not reconciled.

6.2Quasi-fiscal expenditures

Not applicable

Given that there are no SOEs in the country, this requirement is not applicable.

6.3Economic contribution

Information is incomplete and inconsistent. Size of extractive industry is presented in absolute terms and as a percentage but lacks information on informal sector. The report has inconsistencies regarding government revenues. Exports are reported as requested, both in absolute terms and as a percentage, as well as disaggregated by commodity. Employment data lacks an accurate governmental register.

Outcomes and impact

7.2Data accessibility

Not assessed

Guatemala has published summary data for its three EITI reports covering fiscal years 2010 to 2015, however these are not publicly available. Moreover, the MSG members did not have comments on these reports.

7.4Outcomes and impact of implementation

The MSG does not seem to be involved in producing APR – they are mostly done, by the Secretariat. The APR 2016 makes no reference to the recommendations suggested by the IA in the latest EITI Report. It mentions recommendations from Reports 2010-11 and 2012-13, but these have not been implemented. The APR 2017 was not produced, despite the International Secretariat suggestion. Little effort has been made to review impact of EITI.

7.1Public debate

The MSG should make efforts to link the EITI process to the public debate. EITI reports should achieve quality and consistency, so that citizen can read and understand them. There is no evidence of interaction between the EITI process and the topics on the public agenda regarding extractives. An open data policy should be agreed.

7.3Follow up on recommendations

Lessons learned and follow up recommendations from the latest EITI Report, were not prioritized. Meeting minutes describe a general review of recommendations was made a few times, but it is not clear if follow up steps were set.