This research employed both quantitative and qualitative research methods. The quantitative analysis relied on data collected on complaints and IFI projects to investigate relationships between complaint issues, project sectors, countries, level of international CSO support, and several other variables, as well as the rate of complaints expressed as a proportion of total project volume. The complaint data includes all public information available on complaints filed to IAMs. Project data includes all development projects financed by IFIs with accountability offices, as of the date its IAM was established (e.g., project data for the World Bank includes any project financed by the Bank since 1994, the year that the Inspection Panel began operating).

The qualitative research centered on semi-structured interviews with CSOs and individuals involved in filing or supporting complaints in the MENA, as well as interviews with representatives of IAMs who managed complaints in the MENA. Themes raised in each of the interviews were grouped and categorized to identify commonalities and trends. We spoke with nine groups involved in the filing or supporting of complaints in the MENA, across five countries, and representatives of four IAMs. Direct quotes from those interviews are italicized in the analysis below. This report draws upon the themes and topics raised in qualitative interviews, as well as trends observed in quantitative research.

Interviewee Attribution Organization Type Country
Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights EIPR Local CSO Egypt
Yemen Observatory for Human Rights YOHR Local CSO Yemen
Center for Development in the Region of Tensift CDRT Local CSO Morocco
EcoPeace Middle East EcoPeaceME Regional CSO Palestine / Israel
Anonymous Group 5 Local CSO Lebanon
Anonymous Group 6 Regional CSO Egypt
Anonymous Group 7 Individual Morocco
Anonymous Group 8 Local CSO Palestine
Anonymous Group 9 International CSO United States
Back to Main Page