Tag Archives: civil society

Behavioural Patterns of Civil Engagement

Christina Toepell, MAAPPS // Feb 23, 2015

With all of us sharing best practices in sub-national reporting and trying to slowly find solutions for Mongolia, the issue of the needs and preferences of civil society in Mandal Soum still creates a big question mark. The past weeks have seen us researching on local and sub-national reporting in 13 different countries, slowly understanding the opportunities and pitfalls of new projects and getting more and more excited to implement best practices in Mongolia. But what about civil society in Northern Mongolia? Do they think corruption is an issue? Do they believe public participation can tackle this issue? Would they see a potential sub-national report even as relevant or needed? While not forgetting that one civil society never exists and individuals all have different desires, it is important to dive into behavioural patterns and take a closer look at perception of corruption and civil society involvement in Mongolia.

The major conclusion I draw from analyzing sub-national reporting in the Philippines is its inherent believe that civil groups and individuals can elicit change and can have an impact on society as a whole. Understandingly, this has not always been purely positive when examining the myriad of uprisings in the past years and decades. It is certainly important for our cause. My feelings are backed by reports from Transparency International Philippines. NGOs and the media are two of the three least corrupt bodies in public opinion and perception, implicating a stable acceptance of organized interest groups and a solid control mechanism through media reporting. With this proactive nature of a cultural group, sub-national reporting initiatives are easier accepted by stakeholders. This might certainly explain the relative ease with which sub-national reporting was implemented in Compostela Valley on the Southern island of Mindanao. But what behavioural challenges and opportunities would a sub-national reporting scheme face in Mongolia?

Civil society rights and transparency score relatively high in Mongolia. According to Freedom International, Mongolia enjoys high freedom of civil liberties. Freedom of expression and belief and organizational rights are both valued and cherished. Looking at Open Society Forum, a Mongolian public opinion and policy research think tank, transparency and disclosure of forms have increased in the past years. However, only by consulting Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index, we understand the feelings and beliefs of civil society. Examining the corruption perception of Mongolian institutions, NGOs rank very high. With only 16% of Mongolian respondents believing that they are corrupt, NGOs are the second least corrupt institution, as perceived by civil society.

For us most relevant, however, is belief in the impact of public involvement. 46% of Mongolians agree or strongly agree that ordinary people cannot make a difference in the fight against corruption. This poses significant challenges on all initiatives working on transparency, and makes a potential implementation of sub-national reporting even harder. I fear that public society would miss the relevance of reporting initiatives and would dismiss them too soon. If we are to go through with a sub-national reporting initiative, the behavioural approach cannot be neglected. We need to put additional effort and care into how to approach civil society and how to nudge individuals into being involved in the project, into believing that their impact matters.

The EITI Journey in Indonesia – Part 2: Challenges to Subnational Reporting

Justin Kwan, MAAPPS // Feb 23, 2015

Despite the fact Indonesia only recently achieved EITI compliant status in October 2014, the country has actually implemented since 2010, laws which regulate the transparency of national and local extractive industry revenues.Subnational reporting in the case of Indonesia has been met with positive responses but has experienced difficulty in its practical implementation. ThePresidential Regulation Republic of Indonesia, Number 26, Year 2010guarantees the need for establishing the Transparency of National/Local Extractive Industry Revenues. For instance, it regulates the the creation of an Implementation Team (Tim Pelaksana), which is comprised of three seats for subnational government officials on the EITI Indonesia multi-stakeholder working group as well as three regional secretaries. The produced framework here shows strong a commitment to EITI transparency principles and the appropriate context for subnational reporting to operate.

Despite this, the practical implementation of subnational reporting has been met with unexpected results. One of the largest issues that has surfaced is the topic of district-licenced mining permits. Indonesia’s 2000 decentralization law allows for local districts to issue licence permits. Regional autonomy was seen as the next logical reform in Indonesia, which came about during the increasing democratic reforms that were being put into place after the end of the Suharto regime. While the Ministry of Energy and Minerals was aware that 10,500 district licences were issued in 2011, the government only had adequate levels of information for only 4000 of them. Given Indonesia’s population size and the geographical area of the archipelago, the decision to decentralize is logical, as more individualized attention could be given by local governments. The unintended consequence is that tracking at the national level is extremely difficult.

In conversation with Indonesian civil society organizations, I received responses from different groups which were located across the country. What appears to be evident is the increasingly strong push for civil society engagement in Jakarta, in which detailed plans for subnational reporting and beta testing are already occurring. Meanwhile, in the province of Riau, discussions of subnational reporting had been made at the local level, but were not being discussed at the national level, according to my correspondence with their civil society groups. With EITI compliance stronger in some areas more than others, there must become a way to identify which regions are priorities for subnational reporting. Then, EITI can have a strong impact on improving the transparency of the extractive industry.

So what are the next steps for Indonesia? The EITI Implementation Team Meeting on September 9, 2014 agreed upon the upcoming working plan for the 2014-2015 year. In regards to subnational reporting, the team is looking at three important areas: (1) regularly publishing the Revenue Sharing Fund (DBH) per District Per Company/Unit Production (2) involving Regional Governments in the extractive industries transparency process and (3) having Regional governments push companies to open up their tax data. The two largest obstacles cited in this implementation plan include the fact there are limited human resources needed to handle the revenue calculations as well as a lack of understanding by regional governments of the importance of EITI.

Clearly, Indonesian stakeholders and EITI must work together to identify the most lucrative extractive resource industry areas of the country and create a targeted plan to ensure that subnational reporting is operating in these target areas. While the “One Map Policy” appears to be one response to the problem, the government must also find a way to engage with local governments in a meaningful way to further the transparency process. In a large country like Indonesia, a targeted and refined plan is needed in priority areas before focusing on widespread implementation across the country.

How CIVIL SOCIETY ENGAGEMENT helps cope with corruption IN KAZAKSTAN

Lotus Ruan, MAAPPS // Feb 8, 2015

Kazakhstan is the 9^th largest national territory in the world. Its oil reserves are ranked 12th in the world and its natural gas reserves are 19th. It is a global leader in the production of coal, copper, zinc, bauxite, uranium and chrome ore. The extractive industries contributed 33.4% to Kazakhstan’s GDP and because of its substantial amount of natural resources and a relatively open approach to economic reform and foreign investment, Kazakhstan has been enjoying more than two decades of impressive economic growth.

The annual volume of FDI has been increasing year by year since 1998 and the share of investments in the oil and gas industry in total volume of FDI remains high. But over the last several years, state participation in the oil and gas industry has increased. The vertically integrated National KMG controls 20% of total oil and gas proved reserves of Kazakhstan and produces 27% of total oil and gas condensate and 14% of gas.

Under the leadership of President Nursultan Nazarbayev, Kazakhstan has been experiencing an impressive economic growth for the past two decades. With a GDP of US$ 201.7 billion and a population of less than 17 million, Kazakhstan aims to join the world’s top 30 economies by 2050.

However, Kazakhstan’s heavy reliance on natural resources has also made it more susceptible to external pressure. As I mentioned in my previous blog post, the slumping oil prices has taken its toll on the economic growth of this oil-rich country. At the same time, rising social problems such as shrinking job markets in some ageing oilfields and domestic security concerns, potential political instability because the successor of the 73-year-old President Nursultan Nazarbayev remains unknown, worrying Russia-Ukraine and other geopolitical crisis, as well as the global economic recession have all contributed to the slowdown of Kazakhstan’s economic growth.

Another issue facing Kazakhstan’s healthy development of its extractive industries and the country as a whole is corruption and a lack of public supervision in government spending. The level of corruption remains sufficiently high, especially in the spending of public funds. Kazakhstan ranked at the 126th out of 175 countries in the 2014 Corruption Perception Index. The International Crisis Group estimated that more than 50% of Kazakhstan’s GDP is controlled by a single sovereign-wealth fund, Samruk-Kazyna, which was once led by President Nazarbayev’s son-in-law.

Perhaps that’s why the EITI introduced new rules and requirements on the issue of sub-national reporting on resource revenues in July 2011. The rationale behind such is that a more accurate disclosure of corporate payments and government revenues at the local level in the extractive industries would help curtail corruption and other forms of mismanagement of funds.

Kazakhstan, despite its corruption problems and unlimited presidential authority, is worth studying and learning from in terms of civil society participation in the EITI process.

Sergey Gulyayev, General Director of Decenta Public Foundation (DPF) in Kazakhstan, introduced in my exchange of emails with him that local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as well as civil society organizations (CSOs) initiated the discussion of sub-national reporting earlier than the EITI’s new standard was introduced.

When it comes to civil society engagement, NGOs and CSOs in Kazakhstan have been working hard to push forward public participation. According to a report by DPF, there were a few attempts to develop communication strategy on EITI in Kazakhstan to help better engage the public. These attempts have been made by: Coalition of NGOs “Oil Revenues – Under Public Control”, Dialogue Platform of NGOs, National Stakeholders Council, Working Group of the National Stakeholders’ Council, and Ministry of Information and Culture with Ministry of Industry and New Technologies.

Despite the good progress in civil society engagement and all stakeholders’ awareness of sub-national reporting, Sergey Gulyayev remarked that few specific steps or plans have been taken so far to develop strategy of sub-national development for EITI reporting.

Still, civil society was still the most interested party to promote EITI in Kazakhstan. The experience and progress in EITI Kazakhstan can served as a learning model for other countries such as Mongolia. Advancements in transparency have been seen in Kazakhstan now but additional efforts will be needed to strengthen the accountability side of the equation.