Towards Understanding South Africa’s Differing Attitudes to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and the Open Governance Partnership

This research paper examines why South Africa is a founding member of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) but remains absent from the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). The author argues that South Africa's reliance on general domestic transparency laws is insufficient for the specific needs of the extractive sector and suggests that the government's reluctance is tied to geopolitical perceptions of double standards between the global North and South.

• South Africa exhibits a contradiction in its global transparency commitments: it was one of eight pioneering states to launch the Open Government Partnership (OGP) on 20 September 2011, yet it is not a signatory to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI).
• The South African government justifies its absence from the EITI by claiming that existing domestic frameworks provide sufficient transparency regarding mineral resource revenues.
• The Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) of 2000 is an insufficient alternative to the EITI because it does not allow for the independent verification of corporate payments against state revenues, as it only provides access to information held by the state.
• The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) of 2002 fails as an EITI alternative because it focuses on state regulation of corporations without providing equivalent checks on the state or providing civil society with means to access relevant information.
• There is a lack of a unified government position on the EITI in South Africa, with confusion over whether leadership belongs to the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR), the National Treasury, or the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO).
• South Africa's reluctance to join the EITI is partly driven by a perceived double standard, as many resource-rich countries in the global North (such as the US, UK, Canada, and Australia) have historically been reluctant to implement the initiative while pushing it on the global South.
• The author suggests that South Africa may be more likely to join the EITI if it perceives that its status as an emerging global power is acknowledged and if the global North improves its own record of implementation.

APA

Comparé, N. (2013). Towards Understanding South Africa’s Differing Attitudes to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and the Open Governance Partnership. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Occasional-Paper-146.pdf

Chicago

Comparé, Nadège. Towards Understanding South Africa’s Differing Attitudes to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and the Open Governance Partnership. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2013. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Occasional-Paper-146.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Comparé |first1=Nadège |title=Towards Understanding South Africa’s Differing Attitudes to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and the Open Governance Partnership |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=May 2013 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Occasional-Paper-146.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{compar2013towards, author = {Comparé, Nadège}, title = {{Towards Understanding South Africa’s Differing Attitudes to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and the Open Governance Partnership}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2013}, month = may, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Occasional-Paper-146.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }