 Thank you for coming. My name is Duncan Edwards. I am the director of global initiatives and impact that publish what you pay and that's really echoing so I'm going to move slowly. So the focus of the session today is both publish what you pay and open contracting we'd be sharing some of our experience in using data. And then we want to open it up to a conversation to share experience of different dimensions of building data literacy and make making greater usage of data that is now available. Is that clear to everyone? Yeah, brilliant. Thank you very much. So two parts of the session for the first part is about 30 to 40 minutes of presentation. So, unfortunately, Miles Lipanoff, who is the UK coordinator for publish what you pay, hasn't been able to travel. He had to cancel at the last minute, so I will be endeavouring to cover his work with some degree of quality. And then we have Joyce, if you'd like to stand up. Say hello. Joyce works for Zella in Zimbabwe, and she works with the published what you pay coalition there. She's going to be talking about their work there. And we have Catherine, an open contracting partnership, and she's going to be talking about her work. And then we'll be moving to a 40 minute, actually it's probably going to be near a 30 minute interactive discussion. Brilliant. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So publish what you pay, it's an organisation that started in 2002. It was really looking to bring more transparency and accountability around the revenues that paid to government in relation to extractive industries. So the extraction of oil, gas, minerals. Okay. Why is it a big problem? Because it's a huge amount of resources, a huge amount of money. We have NRGI in the room who know a lot more about extractives than I do. I'm very new to publish what you pay. So why is payment transparency important? Publish what you pay believes it deters and helps to reveal corruption or questionable deals and mismanagement of revenues. It can help citizens and civil society to make governments and companies more accountable. And it helps shows how far revenues compensate for negative impacts. A big part of publish what you pay's work is to try and make the payments of oil companies to governments or transparent. We call this mandatory disclosures. So what does that cover? It's essentially annual payments to governments reported by large registered listed oil gas mining companies in the UK, EU since 2016. In Canada since 2017 and in Norway since 2015. In the US there was a transparency law that was drafted in 2010 but that awaits implementation. The potential coverage with the US and all this legislation covers 84 of the world's 100 biggest oil gas companies and 58 of the 100 biggest mining companies. So what kind of data is being published? Here's an example. It's reported electronically online. This is an example of a Royal Dutch Shell report to the UK in 2016. The UK currently is the only country requiring open machine-readable data by XML. It covers payments by project disaggregated by seven payment types, project totals payments by recipient government entities and lots more jargon. If we want to get into that but you're not all extractives people. The UK and Canada are currently the only countries where there are central repositories and platforms that bring all this data from different companies together. So what we're seeing is there's a lot more data available that's been published by these countries. So this has been a big win for publish what you pay over its lifetime. But there's lots of data now being published but as yet not much of it is being really used effectively. So publish what you pay, conceive a pilot program to support the usage of extractives data and that was our data extractives program. So it's a two-year pilot that is supporting publish what you pay members in 40 different countries to make use of data. So in this pilot project we supported 24 individuals in 21 countries to make use of the data that is now published. We supported these activities via workshops, mentoring, WhatsApp groups, email lists, Slack, so on and so on. It's a real mix in terms of different publish what you pay members from lots of different countries. Some in the north, some in the south, very different levels of capacities, looking at different problems, looking at different sources of data as well. And it's resulted in a number of very different outcomes. So this is some of the work that Miles did using UK published data from UK companies. He did this in 2016. It was very much an experimental pilot project and it was using data from the first year of mandatory disclosures in the UK. It was very much a collaborative project trying to work with some of our coalition members in southern countries. And it was really trying to explore the relationship between home countries, the countries in which extractive companies are based, with people working, activists working in host countries to try and explore how they could be using this data for greater accountability. And I think given the nature of publish what you pay's work, these kind of cross-country collaborations will be a core focus of our work moving forward. So the aims of the project was to test how data could be used and what it can tell us. It was trying to strengthen and publish what you pay's work in kind of north, south, evidence-based advocacy. And it was trying to build essentially a cohort or cadre of infomeduaries who could analyse the data and make it more accessible to people. And it was also to demonstrate to companies and to governments that we were actually looking, that we were scrutinising the data they were publishing. The approach used in this example, Miles worked with four different publishers for what you pay coalitions in the host countries, so in southern-based countries, to identify key payments reported by UK companies. And he did some analysis and produced a number of infographics and drew out some key questions that could be asked to relevant government entities within those countries. So it's trying to get answers to questions that arose in the data. The countries he looked at were Nigeria, Iraq, Indonesia and Tunisia. The four companies he looked at were Shell, BP, the BG Group and Petrovac. And it was looking at two payments in 2015 by four companies in four countries totaling $7.4 billion. The infographics he produced were for Nigeria, Tunisia and Indonesia. And for Iraq he created a kind of Arabic translation in summary of some of the issues in the data. He highlighted main payments to government entities, identifying the highest paying projects and the largest payments. And he listed key questions that could be put to those government entities. So in terms of outputs and some of the outcomes, it was a bit of a mixed picture. Publish what you pay Nigeria, took the outputs from the analysis that Miles did. They sent them to the relevant departments, so the Department of Petroleum, the Federal Inland Revenue Service, et cetera, et cetera, with cover letters asking them to explain and verify these revenues. Every single one of them refused to respond to that. Then they made freedom of information submissions, asking the same questions. These were still refused. And then they then were looking at options in working with press, but for various reasons that didn't go forward. In Indonesia, published what you pay Indonesia, sent these infographics and these series of questions with covering letters to relevant departments. Again, refusal to engage and produce the information that was being asked of them. And they were actually told that they must wait for the next EITI report, so EITI, hello. There were some questions that were posed to the companies and they did actually respond and responded because it was identifying some discrepancies in the data and they were then corrected. The reasons for the payments are pretty clear. It's paying for the extractives revenue. The question to the government is, did you receive this and how have you used it? Then in Tunisia and Iraq, basically for a number of reasons, not much happened. So what we see is there's some analysis of some data, there's some questions being asked, but we're not really getting beyond answerability in terms of getting a response from government. And I don't think this is unusual for a lot of this kind of work. And so I think a kind of central focus of our work moving forward is how do we get from being able to do the analysis to getting answerability from government on some of these questions. So takeaways, limited success, I think there's outcomes that we've seen in terms of building people's capacity and confidence to use data. We've identified the importance of really strong relationships between our northern coalitions and our southern coalitions. That's going to be quite a central part of our future work. We've demonstrated that we're watching, that we're scrutinising this data. But lots of questions about what do we do next, how do we actually get answerability from government? What if the government refuses to engage? Demonstrates again, like in lots of other sectors, that accountability is very difficult and actually that kind of information availability to accountability is hard to follow. We experienced significant challenges in forging the kind of relationships and mutual priorities between different data extractors. So at the start of the programme, I think there was a real focus on using particular sources of data. But actually in reality a lot of the southern coalitions were interested in using other forms of data, other sources of data. Some questions about data ownership, language issues, and like a lot of this kind of work more broadly, it's early days and I think it's going to take a lot of time to learn and adapt and push on from here. Just a quick plug, one of the things we've done recently and this will be published either this week or next week is some kind of quick how-to-guides in terms of how to use UK companies data. That's published in English, French and Spanish. And with that, I will hand over to Joyce to talk about it.