Évolution des normes en matière de stabilisation

The document examines the evolution of stabilization clauses in the extractive sector, arguing for a shift away from 'freeze' and 'economic equilibrium' clauses toward a model based on the 2021 OECD Guiding Principles. It distinguishes between non-fiscal stabilization, which it argues should be abandoned to protect the state's right to regulate for the public interest, and fiscal stabilization, which should be limited to specific, time-bound commercial needs. The guide provides detailed model language for laws and contracts to ensure revenue certainty for governments and predictability for investors, while explicitly excluding the use of stabilization to protect against anti-tax avoidance measures or climate-related regulations.

• The OECD Guiding Principles effectively delegitimize the use of non-fiscal stabilization clauses, asserting that governments must be able to introduce non-discriminatory changes to legislation to pursue legitimate public interest objectives.
• Rather than monetary compensation for non-fiscal legal changes, the OECD framework suggests that compliance costs should be treated as operational expenses for tax deductibility and cost recovery purposes.
• Fiscal stabilization should not be a default requirement but a commercial choice based on proven need, limited in scope to key tax conditions and defined for a specific period rather than the entire project life.
• The document introduces 'revenue certainty' as a counter-balance to investor stability, stating that good-faith measures to combat tax avoidance or profit shifting should not be considered legal changes restricted by stabilization clauses.
• A 'responsive' tax regime is proposed as an alternative to rigid stabilization, using mechanisms like variable royalties or profit-sharing to automatically adjust the distribution of financial benefits based on commodity prices or profitability.
• Historical data indicates that stabilization clauses have been most prevalent in Sub-Saharan Africa and other developing regions, while being virtually non-existent in OECD countries.
• The guide warns that traditional stabilization clauses did not account for climate risks, and there is a potential conflict between these clauses and future climate-based fiscal or non-fiscal measures, such as carbon taxes or the forced closure of fossil fuel projects.
• The Global Minimum Tax (15% effective rate) is identified as the type of measure that should not be restricted by stabilization clauses, as it aims to reduce profit shifting and is supported by over 140 countries.

APA

International Institute for Sustainable Development (2025). Évolution des normes en matière de stabilisation. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2025-05/evolving-stabilization-standards-mining-fr.pdf

Chicago

International Institute for Sustainable Development. Évolution des normes en matière de stabilisation. 2025. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2025-05/evolving-stabilization-standards-mining-fr.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=International Institute for Sustainable Development |title=Évolution des normes en matière de stabilisation |date=March 2025 |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2025-05/evolving-stabilization-standards-mining-fr.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{internationalinstituteforsustainabledevelopment2025volution, author = {{International Institute for Sustainable Development}}, title = {{Évolution des normes en matière de stabilisation}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2025}, month = mar, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2025-05/evolving-stabilization-standards-mining-fr.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }