Europe must enforce oil sector transparency The oil and gas industry can bring great wealth to the countries in which it operates. But the revenues it brings are vulnerable to corruption. The benefits can remain with the ruling elite rather than the majority of the population. Citizens often have no way of finding out how much their governments are paid by energy companies for access to natural resources. Without knowing how much money is coming in and where it is coming from, they have no chance of holding their governments to account. Transparency is the best way to overcome the "resource curse" faced by too many of the world's people. But voluntary disclosure by energy companies is no longer sufficient. When I was chief executive of BP, I was one of the people who helped to establish the voluntary Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative, which has shone light on how energy companies operate. But the EITI cannot help when countries or companies are unwilling to sign up. It is now time for Europe to mandate that energy companies disclose the details of payments they make to foreign governments. Over the past few weeks the European Council has been negotiating a law obliging oil, gas, mining and forestry companies to be more transparent in their overseas dealings. This law could transform the lives of millions of people in some of the world's poorest countries. But it will only work if it requires companies to disclose all the important details of their payments. Crucially, disclosure will only improve accountability if it is done on a project-by-project basis so that observers can track precisely what happens to payments. In the US, the Dodd-Frank Act requires just that form of disclosure. However, some are campaigning to weaken the proposal. They want payments to be reported according to the level of government they go to, not the projects they come from. This would break the essential link between information about local resources, local payments and local spending. Communities living near projects would be unable to determine how much wealth is generated nearby and where it ends up. It would also make it difficult to compare payments made by US and European companies. This inconsistency could undermine the creation of a global standard for reporting, which is under discussion at G20 level. These opponents have two main objections to project-by-project reporting, which must be addressed by lawmakers in Europe. First, opponents argue that project-by-project reporting would damage competitiveness. However, in my experience, it is rare for a company to lose business by being too transparent. In fact, opacity can create political risk by allowing rumour to predominate over facts and by allowing contracts to become entangled with the personal interests of officials. Significantly, the EU directive would not force disclosure during negotiations before contracts are signed: that is the most sensitive period for dealings between a company and a host government. Second, opponents argue that the administrative costs of disclosure are too great. In my view, the additional cost for big companies, which already spend many millions of dollars on compliance, would be negligible. In some cases it would require changing a few lines of accounting code. Small and medium-sized enterprises, which would face proportionally more significant costs, would be exempt. As a key party in the Council negotiations, the UK must stand firm. The coalition government should stick to the statement made by David Cameron in Lagos last year, where he called on Europe to introduce "legally binding measures to require oil, gas and mining companies to publish key financial information for each project and country they work on." At the same time, other European leaders should show their mettle, and resist attempts to water down the legislation. As a driving force behind the EITI, and a champion of good governance, Germany in particular should support this law. The sums involved are vast. Africa's income from extractive industries, for example, is six times greater than its income from aid. This is a tremendous opportunity to enact legislation that could improve the lives of millions of people. It would be a great shame to waste it. Lord Browne is a former chief executive of BP