Transparency Initiative (EITI)

28 Methodology
FIGURE 2: RESPONDENTS BY AFFILIATION
(n=107)
FIGURE 3: AFFILIATION OF RESPONDENTS BY
REGION (n=107)
8.4%
16.8% 10.3% 10.3%
4.7%
0.9%
3.7%
3.7%
11.2%
7.5%
38.3%
14.0%
32.7
35.5%
1.9%
National EITI coordinator
∙
National EITI coordinator
Government
of implementing
country
Supporting government
National CSO
International CSO
Extractive company
∙
Researcher/academia/journalist
Other
Global
∙
Afrika
Asia
Europe
∙
Latin America
North America
Most of the respondents started their involvement with the
EITI in the years 2009 to 2011 and between 2013 and 2015.
Almost a third (32.1%) of the respondents are members of
a national EITI multi-stakeholder group, while a relatively
small number (5.7%) are members of the EITI International
Board. The respondents related their answers mainly to
either the global level (38.3 %) or to implementation in
African countries (35.5 %). Within Africa there was some
bias towards Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo and
Mozambique. In total, respondents logged in for 14 African
countries. Eight respondents came for the perspective of
Asia (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Philippines),
12 from Europe (Germany, Norway and Ukraine), four from
Latin America and four from the USA. Outside of Africa,
notable country responses came from Peru (4) and
Ukraine (9).
It was expressed by civil society members of the Sounding
Board that although the results are illuminating it is important
to note the following limitations of this methodological
approach: one cannot be sure it is fully representative
given the correlation between those who will feel comfortable
speaking about the EITI on an online survey versus
those who will not, e.g. because of fear of government monitoring
or retaliation.