Step 1: Detailed Assessment of Areas of Perceived Weakness
Broken down by category, this 10-15 page document will take the standard analysis of the legal framework (under the 17 categories) and explain:
1. Why is the regulation/legislation perceived as a regulatory risk for investors?
2. Whether this risk is very low to critical and the reasons for the rating given.
Step 2: Improving Regulatory Risk – Clarity and Terminology
The analysis provides recommendations for simple changes to language, terms to be clarified and suggestions for incorporating international standards etc. to offer clarity to investors to improve the regulatory risk posed.
Step 3: Improving Regulatory Risk – Balancing Country Benefits vs. Investment Attractiveness
A more intensive analytical exercise, with the aim of analysing the regulations from the view of what the government wishes to achieve and how investors perceive the risk created by such regulations. MineHutte acknowledges a State’s objective of securing benefit from its mineral resources, but also notes regulatory risk is deemed higher when these objectives are translated into legislation that appears burdensome, un-clear and transfers more risk to the investor.
Analysis provided here undertakes engagements with government officials & stakeholders to understand the objectives of the State and how this is likely to be received by potential investors. The final output provides a review of how the State succeeds or fails in achieving its objective through the regulations/legislation and offers, where possible, better alternative framing of regulations to achieve the same objectives.