Publish What You Pay: the Data Extractors programme (Joyce Nyamukunda - Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association)
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•343 views
This was presented by Joyce Nyamukunda from the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association at the Impacts of Civic Technology Conference (TICTeC 2018) in Lisbon on 19th April 2018. You can find out more information about the conference here: http://tictec.mysociety.org/2018
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (19)
Ähnlich wie Publish What You Pay: the Data Extractors programme (Joyce Nyamukunda - Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association)
Ähnlich wie Publish What You Pay: the Data Extractors programme (Joyce Nyamukunda - Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association) (20)
Mehr von mysociety
Mehr von mysociety (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Publish What You Pay: the Data Extractors programme (Joyce Nyamukunda - Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association)
- 1. Using the data? Sharing experiences of different approaches to data literacy to make use of data for accountability
- 2. Session Structure Part 1 (40 minutes) • Duncan – presenting Miles Litvinoff’s cases (PWYP-UK) • Joyce Nyamukunda – presenting the work ZELA has been doing in Zimbabwe • Katherine Wikrent – presenting the work Open Contracting Partnership has been doing. Part 2 (40 minutes) • Facilitated discussion to exchange experiences in building data literacy and usage of data.
- 3. Extractive sector transparency and accountability • Extractives = huge revenues Help lift poor out of poverty Address “resource curse” • Payment transparency deters/reveals corrupt & questionable deals and mismanagement • Mandatory payment data: UK/EU 2016; Canada 2017; Norway 2015 US law (2010) Potentially: 84 of 100 largest oil & gas companies, 58 of 100 largest miners 3
- 5. • 2 year pilot programme to support PWYP members around the world to make use of the data for accountability. • Started in 2016 and supported 24 individuals from 21 countries • Supported via workshops, mentoring, WhatsApp, email lists and slack. • A real mix of different PWYP members, looking at different problems, using different sources of data, in a wide variety of different contexts… resulted in a wide range of different types of outcomes PWYP Data Extractors
- 7. Takeaways • Limited success • Demonstrated that we are watching • What if host government refuses info? • Accountability not easy in practice • Challenge of forging shared North/South priorities • Data ownership and accessibility • Language issues • Early days; more time needed 7
- 9. Training local communities to use data enabled them to secure a voice in budget allocations Presented by Joyce Nyamukunda
- 10. Background • Lack of use of available data
- 11. Background continued… • EU, UK and Canada mandatory disclosure of payments • Access to information
- 12. Strategies used • Trainings • Case: Anglo American’s Unki, Zimplats, Marange, Caledonia mines in Zimbabwe.
- 13. • The use of “Data User Story” template.
- 14. Outcomes • Engagement • Participation • Collection of data, analysis and use of data for change - social audits: Rural electrification levy paid by mining companies - Analysis of CSR budgets by mining companies
- 15. Assessing Data on Mineral Revenue Flows
- 16. Conclusion • CSOs must not be a barrier to change. Communities must be empowered to demand the change they want to see • Equipping CBOs with skills to identify their information needs, to map sources of information, extract and analyse data and using data to demand change • Social accountability platforms such as participatory budgeting and mining company engagement forum with communities presents opportunities to hold to account government & mining companies accountable.
- 17. Themes for discussion Partnerships Culture and behaviours Capacities Peer-review/quality assurance of analysis Perceived value of different data Learning
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Intro myself and focus of the session To share some experiences in using data for the purposes of accountability, and facilitate a conversation on experiences of different approaches to building data literacy and usage of data.
- Intro to PWYP Started as a campaign in 2002 to call for oil, gas and minerals companies to publish the payments they make to governments Why extractive sector transparency and accountability? Huge sector: world extractives (oil, gas, minerals) exports US $3.8 trillion in 2014 Finite resources with potential to help lift poor out of poverty, but big questions over who currently benefits Over 1 bn world’s poorest live in countries rich in oil, gas, minerals, e.g. Africa’s 30% of world minerals, 10% of oil, 8% of natural gas Corruption costs 5% of global GDP annually; extractive industries most corrupt sector (OECD) Why Payment transparency? PWYP believes it deters and helps reveal corrupt/questionable deals and mismanagement of revenues Can help citizens & civil society to make governments and companies more accountable Helps show how far revenues compensate for negative impacts What does mandatory reporting cover? Annual payments to governments reporting by large registered & listed oil, gas & mining companies in UK/EU since 2016, in Canada since 2017, in Norway since 2015 US transparency law (2010) awaits implementation Potential coverage (with US) of 84 of world’s 100 largest oil & gas companies and 58 of 100 largest miners
- So what kind of data is being published? Here’s an example: Reporting is electronic/online Example: RD Shell report to UK Cos House on 2016 UK currently only country requiring open & machine readable data - via XML schema that outputs to 4 x CSV or Excel files covering payments by project disaggregated by 7 x payment types, project totals, payments by recipient government entity disaggregated, government entity totals UK & Canada currently only countries with central repositories/platforms This has clearly been a big win for the extractives transparency movement. BUT Lots of data now being published… but as yet not much of it is being used effectively! So PWYP conceived a pilot programme to support usage of extractives data.
- Intro to Data Extractors programme 2 year pilot programme to support PWYP members around the world to make use of the data now available in their work to hold their governments accountable. Started in 2016 and in the 2 years supported 24 individuals from PWYP coalitions from 21 countries. A cohort of 13 in year 1, 11 in year 2 Supported via workshops, 1-2-1 mentoring by OpenOil, peer-learning via WhatsApp, email lists and slack. A real mix of different PWYP members, looking at different problems, using different sources of data, in a wide variety of different contexts Joyce and I are going to talk about a couple of these projects.
- Intro to Miles Litvinoff’s extractors project Project undertaken in 2016 Experimental/pilot project using the 1st year of mandatory extractives payment data from the UK Collaborative: working North/South – really trying to explore the relationship between “home” countries (where a company is listed) and “host” countries (where extraction takes places) These cross country collaborations are likely to be an ongoing focus of PWYP’s work going forward. Aims Test how data can be used and what it can tell us Strengthen PWYP’s work as North-South evidence-based advocacy coalition Help build cadre of “infomediaries” Demonstrate to companies & govts we’re using the data Approach Worked with 4 x PWYP coalitions in host countries to identify key payments reported by UK-registered/listed companies and what questions to ask host governments Put questions to host governments, pressing for accountability 4 x countries: Nigeria, Iraq, Indonesia, Tunisia 4 x companies: Shell, BP, BG Group (taken over by Shell in early 2016), Petrofac 2015 payments reported by 4 companies in 4 countries totalled US $7.4 bn Infographics Miles produced infographics for Nigeria, Tunisia, Indonesia; for Iraq he produced key data summary in Arabic He Highlighted main payments, the main recipient government entities, highest-paying projects and largest payments Listed key questions (agreed with Southern partners) to put to government about payments disclosed and revenues How these outputs were used & outcomes PWYP Nigeria sent these infographics to the relevant government entities (Department of Petroleum Resources, Federal Inland Revenue Service, Central Bank, Niger Delta Development Commission and Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation) with cover letters asking for verification/confirmation of revenues; when all refused info, freedom of information submission made, still refused; a press campaign was considered but not undertaken Indonesia: sent to government with request for verification/confirmation; government refused info, said civil society must wait for next Indonesian EITI report –EITI is an international extractives transparency initiative which reports transparency reports every 2 years. Tunisia, Iraq: for combination of reasons, not used by coalitions, despite expressing intention to use. Not clear at this point the reasons are but will be explored more in the review we are conducting of the Data Extractor programme.
- In terms of governance outcomes - Test/pilot project at best only partially successful. In terms of learning outcomes, more positive Did send message to governments “we are watching” Also message to 2 x companies when contacted with questions arising from data analysis It was not clear what to do if host government refuses to engage with the information, and resources needed to challenge this in-country were not available Accountability as has been demonstrated in many other sectors is harder to achieve and requires more than understandable/usable information. Forging complementary objectives and priorities in North and South not easy Whose data is it and is the data accessible/useful/relevant enough? Language issues (Iraq) Early days; more time & diff approaches needed – PWYP will be looking at diversifying its approaches to data usage.
- 2-page hands-on guide to accessing & downloading data in Eng, Fr, Esp – available on the PWYP website Main focus: 90+ UK-registered/listed companies’ reports to 2 x official web portals Also shows how to access in all jurisdictions via NRGI’s www.resourceprojects.org Aims: raise awareness of data available in a few clicks; encourage direct data use/ownership; encourage collaboration Potential collaboration approaches: verification requests to governments; communicating payments reported more widely to citizens/civil society/communities in country; raising questions with reporting companies; explore other areas
- Lack of use of available data by CSOs and CBOs for improved transparency and accountability in the management of mineral wealth Publicly available data from local sources, such as local government budgets and financial statements, has so far not been used to its full extent to empower citizen participation in local public financial management systems. The data from the EU, UK and Canada mandatorydisclosure of payments made to governments by MultinationalCorporations (MNCs) in the extractives also needs to be usedmore thoroughly.
- Lack of use of available data by CSOs and CBOs for improved transparency and accountability in the management of mineral wealth Publicly available data from local sources, such as local government budgets and financial statements, has so far not been used to its full extent to empower citizen participation in local public financial management systems. The data from the EU, UK and Canada mandatorydisclosure of payments made to governments by MultinationalCorporations (MNCs) in the extractives also needs to be usedmore thoroughly.
- The data from the EU, UK and Canada mandatorydisclosure of payments made to governments by MultinationalCorporations (MNCs) in the extractives also needs to be usedmore thoroughly.
- The data from the EU, UK and Canada mandatorydisclosure of payments made to governments by MultinationalCorporations (MNCs) in the extractives also needs to be usedmore thoroughly.
- The data from the EU, UK and Canada mandatorydisclosure of payments made to governments by MultinationalCorporations (MNCs) in the extractives also needs to be usedmore thoroughly.
- Facilitate a conversation around 3-4 areas from: Partnerships: what has been learned about developing the partnerships critical to the success of effective use of data? I would imagine there are similar "sector" knowledge issues that others face when trying to build partnerships between those with strong tech/data skills with those with strong sector knowledge and/or advocacy skills. Culture and behavior change: what shifts are needed in terms of culture, behaviours and ways of working to make data use part of the way activists work? Capacity: what were the challenges in supporting a diverse range of participants with very different levels of skills and experience in accessing, analysing, and clearly and confidently communicating the findings of data projects? Peer review: What level of quality assurance was needed to ensure confidence in the validity of claims being made? Perceived value of different sources of data: what sources of data were perceived to be of more value in different contexts and problems? Learning: what was learned about supporting ongoing learning amongst participants in the programme? Depending on numbers in the room do a full group discussion on topics of interest. If group too large, move to small group discussions on single topic areas. Explain exercise, explain each topic, split into groups (5 minutes) Small group discussion - nominate facilitator and rapporteur (15 minutes). Can Rapporteurs share notes with me at end of the session? Report back to plenary - 3 key elements discussed. (8 minutes) Close session