solutions to challenges related to conflict minerals in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Great Lakes Region (GLR) of Central Africa. Leaders worldwide are calling for action to address conflict-mineral concerns while delivering solutions that benefit those involved in responsible minerals trade in the GLR. The PPA aims to demonstrate that it is possible to secure legitimate, conflict-free minerals from the region. Fair trade
Specifically operating in the context of artisanal and smallscale mining (ASM), fair trade has been defined as “a trading partnership based on dialogue, transparency and respect that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers—especially in the South” (WFTO 2014). Fair trade organizations (backed by consumers) are engaged in supporting producers, raising awareness, and campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade. The Communities, Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining initiative’s document Certification and Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining considers a detailed analysis of ASM in the context of fair trade, including practical detailing steps for community-based mining engagement and drivers (CASM 2008). 8.6 EMERGING GLOBAL NORMS AND STANDARDS
As is true for good EI sector management in general, the effective introduction, implementation, and maintenance of EI sector transparency will depend on the participation of all affected parties. However, the diversity of approaches to transparency and accountability has been evident in the proliferation of governance-related initiatives in recent years.24 In the previous section a number of voluntary initiatives were presented. This section focuses on efforts that states themselves have taken toward clarifying global transparency standards, such as article 10 of the UN Convention against Corruption, which requires signatory states to enhance transparency in the administration of their obligations (UNODC 2004). Both individually and collectively, states themselves are instrumental in creating a more transparent EI sector. The emerging norms and standards are summarized in the following material by reference to the players who drive them or who have a stake in them.
Host governments
Two kinds of national governments are involved: those in resource-producing states (host governments) and those in investor states (home governments). They are not mutually exclusive. Resource-producing states have a key role in any initiative to require transparency and to foster accountable processes. A significant number of these states have committed themselves to revenue disclosure through the EITI process,25 as has been discussed. Some have considered a further step of contract disclosure. Increasingly transparent proactive hostgovernment legislation, regulation, and administration across the EI Value Chain stands to provide instructive examples for other countries seeking to improve their own EI sectors.
Home governments
Among host governments, some investor states are compelling companies to disclose information and modify behavior according to legislative measures adopted in these states. Among the examples of this are the Canadian Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act of 2015, the U.K. Reports on Payments to Governments Regulations of 2014 No. 3209, and the EU Accounting and Transparency Directives (see section 8.4). Norway has also been a leader with respect to transparency, having required since 2014 that extractives companies disclose payments to governments at the project level. This supplements existing antibribery legislation in some countries, such as the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the U.K. Bribery Act, and other acts specifically prohibiting bribery of foreign public officials in Canada and Australia. Given the large percentage of extractives market share that is represented on international stock exchanges, the collective impact of the noted mandatory legal requirements is likely to be significant. Specifically, 68 of the world’s 100 largest oil and gas companies and 40 of the 100 largest mining companies are registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and therefore captured by section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Also of the 100 largest oil and gas companies and mining companies, 24 and 28, respectively, are listed on an EU-regulated exchange or incorporated in an EU member country and therefore captured by the EU Transparency and Accounting Directives; 14 and 16, respectively, are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange; and 2 and 1 on the Oslo stock exchange, with similar effects from the national legislation (PWYP 2015). The practices of some major stock exchanges underline the trend but perhaps also the limits of these efforts to promote adoption of mandatory rules. For example, the Hong Kong
CHAPTER 8: TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
231
