It ain\’t Ritchie\’s work though, is it?

I’m proud that my work on country-by-country reporting over the last decade lead to section 1504. I’m grateful for the tireless efforts of those who made that happen. We were all motivated by a concern for those in the poorest countries of the world who have never seen the benefit of the oil, gas, minerals and timber that their countries export. Some clearly want to keep it that way.

The extractive industries thing predates any of Ritchie\’s involvement in anything. It was up and running while he was still advising artistes on how to claim for greasepaint in Wandsworth.

He\’s looking for a CBE at least out of this and the more he claims he\’s done it the more likely it is that he\’ll get one, or something higher.

Repeat after me: the extractive industry\’s reporting system is nothing at all to do with Richard J Murphy.

Country by country reporting is indeed his development of the extractive industry\’s thing. But what\’s been enacted is the extractive industry thing, the thing he has copied, not the thing that he invented.

3 thoughts on “It ain\’t Ritchie\’s work though, is it?”

  1. We were all motivated by a concern for those in the poorest countries of the world who have never seen the benefit of the oil, gas, minerals and timber that their countries export.

    Hang on a minute. Aren’t Lefties usually against “unearned wealth”? Other than having been born by accident over an oilfield, what claim do the citizens of an exporting country have to the wealth beneath their feet over and above the foreigners who have spent considerable time, money, and expertise in realising that wealth? Without the foreigners, the wealth would remain in the ground, completely unrealised. So if ever there was a case of unearned wealth, there is is right there. All the exporting countries are doing is claiming rents in much the same way as a landlord does, but since when has the Left been supporting them?

    *Note that I don’t have a problem with exporting countries charging rents, but it does seem a bit inconsistent with Lefty thinking in other areas.

  2. He can claim some credit for the idea of forcing it into accounting standards. The EITI move was to make companies and countries (more importantly) admit to what was paid. But not in every country and not in their accounts.

    Shifting accounting standards to meet the needs of other stakeholder groups is a “progressive” idea. I’m not sure that this wont do more harm than good – because it will make compliant good companies less able to do business in the dodgiest countries meaning that there will be dodgier companies doing business there.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/309034c2-f047-11e1-b7b2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz290u2y2Ah

    A big part of what makes EITI helpful is that it encourages the creation of domestic civil society groups who can then use the information given out, whereas I suspect the rules will do little to ease the problems in the likes of Angola or the DRC.

  3. Pingback: FCAblog » Great news on country by country reporting!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *