Presentasi ini disampaikan dalam Regional Meeting "Advancing Transparency and Anti Corruption Movement in Asia Pacific"

1. A Transparency International Global Thematic Network Initiative
Led by Transparency International Australia
Lisa Caripis
Research and Policy Coordinator
lisacaripis@transparency.org.au

2. Phase I (2016 – 2017): Assessing Risks
www.transparency.org.au
Risk assessments in 18 resource-rich countries to understand the
source and nature of corruption risks in mining approval processes.
M4SD

3. Phase II (2018 – 2020)
www.transparency.org.au
Transparency International National Chapters develop and implement
action plans to address the specific corruption risks identified in Phase I.
Working with:
Government - Civil society - Local communities - Industry
GLOBAL
REGIONAL
NATIONAL STRATEGIES
M4SD

4. MINING APPROVAL REGIMES
Mining approvals:
Government decisions about when, where
and under what conditions mining is
permitted, including who can be awarded
licenses and contracts
M4SD

5. MINING APPROVAL REGIMES
M4SD
ESIA and
environmental
approval
Community
consultation duties,
including FPIC
The licencing
agency, technical
bodies, Ministry of
Mines/Resources
Instrument for
allocating rights to
explore or mine
Applicable laws,
codes, regulations,
administrative orders
and policy
Online platform for
licence applicants and
licence-holders
Register of licences
and maps of licence
areas/concessions

6. Understanding corruption risk
www.transparency.org.au
 Mining approvals in all jurisdictions are vulnerable to
corruption - no matter the stage of economic
development, political context, geographic region or the
size and maturity of the country’s mining sector.
 140 distinct types of corruption risks identified and
assessed.
 6 key questions help identify where and how an
approvals regime is vulnerable to corruption.
Change starts by answering these questions
M4SD

7. 1. Who benefits from mining approval decisions?
www.transparency.org.au
M4SD
Corruption is more likely to arise when:
• The real owners or beneficiaries of mining companies applying for
licences are not disclosed
 making it difficult to determine whether the government decision-
makers have conflicts of interest and could personally benefit from
their own decisions
• The regulation of political donations and lobbying is weak and lacks
transparency
 allowing industry players to have undue influence over the design of
laws and approvals decisions
• Controls on the movement of staff between industry and government
(revolving doors) are inadequate or absent
 risking disclosure of privileged information and prioritising personal
considerations over the public interest

8. 2. How ethical and fair is the process for
opening land to mining?
www.transparency.org.au
Corruption is more likely to arise when:
• Land rights are poorly protected and not properly registered
 increasing the chance that licence-holders will not compensate land
owners for access to land or will abuse the licence area to conduct
other activities
• Rules and criteria for opening land to mining are not clear or
transparent
 enabling investors to take advantage of decision-makers’ discretion by
pressuring them into opening areas in exchange for kickbacks
M4SD

9. 3. How fair and transparent is the licencing process?
www.transparency.org.au
M4SD
Corruption is more likely to arise when:
• Steps in the application and evaluation process are not clear or
transparent
 opening doors for investors to offer and licencing staff to solicit bribes or
other inducements to speed up the licencing process or to get a
favourable outcome
• Decisions of licencing staff are not regulated by clear evaluation
criteria or are vulnerable to ministerial interference
 allowing for approval to be given for political or personal reasons
• The licensing authority is inadequately funded and has low human and
technical capacity
 increasing the likelihood of bottlenecks and delays in processing,
creating an incentive for applicants to offer bribes or facilitation
payments
• The mining licence register has information gaps and is not transparent
 enabling manipulation of applications, breach of the “first come first
served” principle, and reducing opportunities for public scrutiny

10. 4. Who gets the right to mine?
www.transparency.org.au
Corruption is more likely to arise when:
• Due diligence on past conduct and compliance, financial resources,
beneficial owners or technical capacity is weak
 allowing dishonest applicants to lie or provide misinformation about
their qualifications which results in unqualified investors or companies
with a history of corruption being granted mining rights
• The regulation and disclosure of licence transfers is ineffective
 enabling unscrupulous actors to bypass due diligence mechanisms and
obtain mining licences
M4SD

11. 5. How accountable are companies for their
environmental and social impacts?
www.transparency.org.au
Corruption is more likely to arise when:
• ESIA reports are not publicly available and there are no clear and
transparent criteria for environmental approval
 creating space for environmental approvals to be given or denied for
political or personal reasons
• The relevant government authority doesn’t have the skills or resources
to verify the contents of ESIAs
 enabling applicants to knowingly provide incorrect information about the
potential impacts of their project
• The relevant government authority is unable to monitor compliance
 opening the door for applicants to commit to conditions that they have
no intention of fulfilling
M4SD

12. 6. How meaningful is community consultation?
www.transparency.org.au
M4SD
Corruption is more likely to arise when:
• Consultation only occurs with elites who do not represent community
interests
 allowing leaders to take advantage of negotiations for personal gain
• The negotiation process is not transparent and agreements are not
published
 making it difficult to detect whether negotiations have been manipulated
• There are no clear, binding requirements for consultation
 opening the door for the duty to consult to be ignored or undertaken
superficially

13. Addressing corruption risks
www.transparency.org.au
Government
Lawmakers, senior government officials, and licencing authority officials – have a
critical role in:
• Setting clear, transparent, and effective rules and criteria for mining
approvals processes
• Ensuring public access to information about mining approval processes and
decisions
• Establishing meaningful opportunities for affected communities and civil
society to participate in the aspects of mining approvals that directly affect
them
• Making sure that agencies tasked with administering mining approvals have
the necessary institutional capacity to effectively perform their functions
• Conducting due diligence on licence applicants and their beneficial owners
• Implementing effective mechanisms to identify, manage and reduce
conflicts of interest
M4SD

14. Addressing corruption risks
www.transparency.org.au
Industry
Companies and industry associations – have a significant role in ensuring
cleaner practices in their own operations and championing good practice by:
• Being transparent about their operations, including their subsidiaries,
joint venture partners and where they operate
• Disclosing their project rights and obligations, including contracts,
licences, and environmental and social impact management plans
• Committing to and conducting meaningful community consultation
• Going “beyond compliance” where a country’s licencing standards or
disclosure requirements are lax and below best practice
• Understanding corruption risk in mining approvals in the countries where
they operate and introducing internal integrity systems to prevent and detect
corruption in their operations
M4SD

15. Addressing corruption risks
www.transparency.org.au
The public
Civil society, the media, and mining-affected communities – have an important
role as accountability actors by:
Observing the process to understand how the mining approval process is
undertaken and where the process is vulnerable to corruption risk
Scrutinising approvals outcomes and decisions so they can hold
government and the mining industry to account
Taking up meaningful opportunities to participate in aspects of mining
approvals that directly affect them
M4SD

16. Get our report!
www.transparency.org.au
Publication dates
• First week of Nov: Snapshot of key findings, select case studies
and our Corruption Risk Assessment Tool
• Last week of Nov: Full report based on 18 individual country
assessments.
Spanish and French translations will also be available.
Available on our website: transparency.org.au
Country risk assessments are already available via our website.
Follow us on twitter and share with your networks: #M4SD
@SustDevMining
Register to have the case studies and report emailed to you directly:
mining@transparency.org.au
M4SD