The following case studies are examples of good practices that were observed and detailed in, Protecting the Cornerstone: Assessing the Governance of Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative Multi-Stakeholder Groups, published in February 2015.
This case study describes different good practice approaches to achieving geographic representation in MSG membership observed in the Philippines, Guatemala, DRC, and Nigeria. This case is in the Report in Box 8, on page 58.
Good Practices for Approaches to Geographic Representation in MSGs (from “Box 8: Approaches to Geographic Representation”)
Targeted geographic representation by CSOs: The Philippines, Guatemala, and the DRC
The civil society constituency in the Philippines has taken it upon themselves to ensure that within their five member positions, there are representatives from each of the three island regions in the Philippines. This ensures there is representation from the regions where extractive industries are active. Similarly, the civil society selection in Guatemala is based on regions (one voting member represents the north, another the west, and other regional representatives are elected to attend meetings). In the DRC in 2014, when a new CSO representative was to be appointed, civil society agreed the representative should be from an extractive area (other representatives were not) and confined the selection process to Katanga.
Geographic representation in the MSG: Nigeria
The allocation of MSG member positions in the Nigeria EITI Act (2007) and the Board Charter (2012) requires one MSG member to be appointed from each of the six geopolitical zones of Nigeria. This is a good practice, however a further improvement would emphasize including greater representation from extractive regions: in practice only one of the six zones – the South-South geo-political zone – is disproportionately impacted by extractive activity.