This site uses cookies to provide you with a more responsive and personalised service. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. Please read our cookie notice for more information on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them.
The full functionality of our site is not supported on your browser version. Please upgrade your browser to at least Internet Explorer 9, or try using another browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.

Extractive activities — Comment letter analysis

Date recorded:

Comment letter analysis

The Board considered the comments received on the Discussion Paper Extractive Activities published earlier this year. This was an educational session only, no decisions were made.

Most of the commentators were supportive of the Board's decision to initiate a research project on extractive activities but raised serious concerns about some of the detailed proposals. The staff will use the feedback received in further deliberations. The feedback will shape potential project agenda decision in the future.

The Board will also consider these comments on the decision on its post 2011 agenda. The post 2011 agenda will be subject of separate request for views that will be published later this year.

The two options of the scope of any potential project are either specific project on extractive activities (either comprehensive or separate for mining and for oil and gas) or a broader project that would treat extractive activities consistently with activities in other industries (e.g. research and development in high tech industries) in a form of a comprehensive intangible assets standard (either in form of new IFRS or an amendment to IAS 38). The Board members initially did show little appetite for a comprehensive intangible assets project.

The Board will also consider whether to undertake any future standard-setting activity in a single step or divide the process into stages. Several Board members argued for a separate decision on disclosures, especially the PWYP proposals (Pay What You Pay). Some Board members noted that the PWYP proposal seem to be outside of scope of financial reporting. They argued that the Board should reach decision on this issue sooner rather than later. The Board members seem to be receptive to this idea.