Nota de la moderación: continuación del correo reenviado por Daniel
Pimienta con información de Cornelio Hopmann sobre el tema del asunto.
>Dear GKD Members,
>
>I would think it's extremely useful to precisely define that about which
>we are going to exchange opinions.
>
>To clarify some citations:
>
>"Since FY97, the Bank has spent some US$220 million for corporate,
>network, and Regional knowledge-sharing activities and more than US$60
>million for its three main global knowledge initiatives, the Development
>Gateway, the Global Development Learning Network (GDLN), and the Global
>Development Network (GDN)." (p XIII, Executive Resume, Sharing Knowledge,
>OED evaluation)
>
>"The Bank has provided a total of US$15.5 million for the start-up of
>the Development Gateway, of which US$7 million was spent before its
>transfer to the Development Gateway Foundation in 2001. Following that
>transfer, the Bank, as a member of the board of the foundation, agreed to
>provide an additional US$5 million over the next three years through its
>Development Grants Facility. Also, in FY01-FY02, the Bank provided some
>US$3.5 million in grants through infoDev for the Country Gateway program"
>(ibid, P 26).
>
>The first point to clarify is hence whether the topic is "Knowledge
>Management" by the WB or the Development Gateway project, which
>represents a tiny fraction of money spent (and efforts involved). (By
>the way 220 M in 7 years converts into about 32 M per year. A ridiculous
>amount if compared with the scale of WB operations. I dare to suspect that
>they spend more in travel-expenses yearly than in
>Knowledge-Management, but that would be a complete different
>discussion).
>
>I do have my observations with respect to Information-Management by WB and
>may subsume these into a simple statement: Please do apply to yourself
>what you ask others, namely governments, to comply:
>transparency and accountability, which -as a relevant WB paper states-
>includes personal(!) responsibility for decisions and their consequences,
>and requires full access to all relevant documentation.
>
>However: the Development Gateway project is not (!) related with these
>issues of project-auditing. Hence it's incorrect -and by the way
>therefore unfair- to pick the DG if you intend to criticize WB
>Knowledge-Management.
>
>Now let's have a closer look on details:
>DG contains currently four components: Knowledge/Topics, DgMarketplace,
>AiDA, and Country Gateway.
>
>Again 2 citations:
>
>"The Development Gateway's current activities are financed by the
>Development Gateway Foundation through funds provided by the
>Foundation's founding partners.21 Annual costs total approximately
>US$6M, including management, administration, technology and services.
>While funds are provided by the Development Gateway Foundation, the
>World Bank provides all staff and services related to the operation of
>the Development Gateway through a services agreement. The services
>agreement for fiscal year 2002 reflected the full costs of operating the
>Development Gateway, totaling $6M. The Country Gateway program team is
>funded as part of this $6M, but Country Gateways themselves access funding
>from a grant program, infoDev, and from the Gateway Foundation directly
>(this is discussed in more detail in the sections on the Country Gateways
>and Governance)." (p 16, Startup of the Development Gateway, OED evaluation).
>
>" Allocations to the dgMarket and AiDA are expected to remain relatively
>constant, while the budget for Knowledge/Topics has been expanded to
>accommodate an increasing number of development topics and focus pages.23
>The budget for the Country Gateway Coordination Team is projected to
>increase, reflecting the anticipated addition of 10-20 Country Gateways
>over the next fiscal year. There is currently no budget for the addition
>of new services. The Knowledge/Topics service continues to be the largest
>cost center for the Development Gateway. It is also the service most
>challenged to define its utility relative to its
>beneficiaries and differentiate itself from comparator services." (ibid,
>p17)
>
>Both OED and Breton Woods project agree (!!) that DgMarketplace and AiDA
>are useful activities, that may correspond to something like a BM
>supported portal. And both (!!) agree that the other components are
>"critical" or worthy for discussion of their cost of opportunity.
>
>It's precisely at this point, where I start to wonder about honesty or
>motives of those "progressives" who raise critiques. Why? Who ever had a
>closer look to the content of the content pages of DG should have noted
>that about 80% of the content is not (!!) WB-knowledge or knowledge
>produced by WB affiliates. Why then that micro-tiny fraction of the whole
>effort of WB Knowledge-Management, that contains the least WB-knowledge,
>draws the major part of attention? And why is it attacked on false grounds?
>
>It claims also my attention that the emerging network of 58 locally
>owned Country-gateways -by the way the Latin America Network of ccDG is
>operating already as a true horizontal network among 18 nodes and the
>people involved see <http://www.developmentgateway.org/lac> - is not
>worthwhile to be stressed or even less so, praised.
>
>Please note -see earlier email in the context of ICT for MSME- that I did
>my observations about the OED apreciation of the network of ccDGs and
>about the lack of support and understanding of the true potential of
>this network by DGF itself -even if it were with the very limited
>perspective of improving WB effiency and effectiveness.
>
>However I do prefer our emerging network of locally owned, autonomous
>Country Gateways 100 times over being a local NGO subsidized by some of
>those Mega-NGO or bilateral ODA agencies from the North. ... and without
>DGF this emerging network simply would not exist. (It appears
>contradictionary, but -- put aside time-consuming accounting & reporting
>procedures -- most ccDG are more independent from WB decisions in what
>they do, how they do it and with whom, as they -I'm afraid by experience
>in other development areas- would be if the money for them would be
>managed by some of these Mega-NGO from the North not to talk about
>ODA-agencies).
>
>So: if the thrust of the raised critique is that the critics would like to
>manage and channel themselves the money currently spent on the Development
>Gateway Project and it's network of ccDG ... then I do prefer to stay
>where I am (and if only, because in precentage of whole spending, I
>suspect that I receive more with fewer conditions here then I would obtain
>anywhere else).
>
>Cordialmente (with apologies for the length)
>Cornelio niDG coordinator <www.enicaragua.org.ni>
>
>PS: just a sidebar - many countries in general go for WB (or similar)
>credits, because they are in general less (!!) conditional than any other
>source of funds. Bilateral agencies (including European Union) normally
>impose a purchase-share of at least 50% for goods & services from the
>orginator-country, not to talk about "softer" interest & payment conditions.
Este archivo fue generado por hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Jan 4 10:02:49 2005 AST