http://funredes.org/mistica

MISTICA: Even more on WB gateway - WB reactions

From: Ivan Kulis ([email protected])
Date: Tue Oct 24 2000 - 15:12:02 AST

Sorry again for the cross-posting (it might seem we are copying GKD
discussions here) *but* this mail is quite interesting because of 2 aspects:
a) it shows WB reaction to critiques
b) one of the reasons for this mail was recent IDRC-sponsored meeting of LA
NGOs in Canada in September

Have a nice reading,

Ivan

>Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 11:47:20 -0400
>From: John Garrison <[email protected]>
>Subject: [GKD] Re: Global Development Gateway
>
>I am following this rich exchange of views, and as a relatively new
>member of the Gateway team, I would like to join the discussion.
>Specifically I would like to comment on the email sent by Scott
>Robinson on 10/10 since I am one of the two "Bank chaps"
>(the other is Soren Gigler) to whom he referred to as having
>hosted a consultation meeting with some 20 leading ICT Civil Society
>Organizations (CSOs) from Latin America at the International
>Development Research Center (IDRC) on 9/29 in Ottawa, Canada.
>
>I am pleased to continue the discussion on the Gateway that we had at
>IDRC. As Scott points out, the overall tone of the Ottawa meeting was
>largely critical, which did indeed surprise us. Not because we aren't
>aware of the level of criticism that exists about the Bank in general,
>especially following the demonstrations in Seattle and Prague, but
>because much of the critique was based on a seeming lack of basic
>information on the objectives, nature, and first steps taken by the
>Gateway. Our colleagues who were at the Bank's annual meetings
>at Prague -- who have met with many CSOs from around the world --
>also had a similar reaction to ours. Despite many consultation
>meetings we have held with CSOs (particularly from Latin America,
>Europe, and North America) over the past several months (see the
>Gateway page for a list of the meetings held to date
>http://www.worldbank.org/gateway/consultations.htm), we are
>apparently not getting our message out well enough yet.
>
>For this reason, I would like to comment on some of the points raised
>by Scott in his message, particularly those related to the Gateway's
vis-�-vis
>the World Bank.
>
>The Gateway and its Role within the World Bank
>
>Having worked for five years as the civil society specialist with the
>Brazil Program, based in the Brasilia Office, I am acutely aware of the
>many problems and challenges the Bank faces as it attempts to redirect
>its priorities to fighting poverty. The World Bank is indeed a Bank, but
>it is also a global development agency that is attempting to bridge
>the gap between the macro and micro levels, North and South, and
>the development vs. conservation dilemmas throughout the world.
>As Bank President, Mr. Wolfensohn stated recently at Prague in
>a meeting with some of the 400 accredited CSOs, while the Bank
>certainly will make mistakes in its efforts to prioritize its social
>agenda and reach out to civil society, important strides have been
>made in the last five years in achieving these goals. Not only has
>the Bank and its government counterparts made important
>advances in terms of instituting polices and increasing funding in
>such areas as environment, social safeguards, education,
>gender, and post-conflict development, but it is also attempting to
>address the challenges in the macroeconomic sphere. These include
>more open processes to discuss and adopt the Bank's country
>assistance strategies/CAS (more open processes in 80 countries),
>promote integrated and locally-owned development country plans
>through the Comprehensive Development Framework/CDF (being
>field tested in 13 countries), and the debt reduction initiative through
>the Highly Indedted Poor Countries/HIPC initiative (which has so far
>reduced the debt in 10 countries with 20 countries in the process,
>for a total debt relief of $ 30 billion dollars expected). More detailed
>information on these programs and others are available from the
>Bank's home page (http://www.worldbank.org/).
>
>Brazil Experience
>
>A useful example of the advances achieved and challenges remaining in
>furthering the Bank's poverty agenda can be found in Brazil, where we
>have worked hard to bridge the gap between government, civil society,
>and the Bank. In the information disclosure area, the Bank has established
>a Public Information Center at its Brasilia Office and recently launched a
>web page in Portuguese (http://www.bancomundial.org.br/) with
>comprehensive information on the Bank's project portfolio, policies, and
>studies. In the policy area, the Bank for the first time held a consultative
>CAS process in which the country strategy was presented and discussed
>with leading trade unions (metalworkers, rural workers, teachers), social
>movements (indigenous, rubber-tapers), church, NGOs (developmental,
>environmental, gender, afro-Brazilian), and donor agencies.
>Now we are in a process of discussing the Bank's macroeconomic and
>sector adjustment strategies with these same CSOs.
>
>In the operational area, an increasing number of loans in the areas
>of the environment, HIV/AIDS, rural poverty, and education are
>promoting active participation of CSO representatives in their design
>and management as well as consultants to assist with training,
>monitoring, and evaluation. An estimated US$130 million a year
>(or 15% of the Bank's active loan portfolio in Brazil) goes directly
>to civil society through "demand-driven" small-grants funds. This
>is not to say that project implementation problems and tensions with
>CSOs don't continue to exist, particularly regarding macroeconomic
>policies, but unprecedented advances in these tripartite relations
>are being made. For a more detailed and frank analysis of this
>process in Brazil you can download the study "From Confrontation
>to Collaboration: Government, Civil Society, World Bank Relations" at:
><http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/d3f59aa3a570f67a852567cf0
>0695688/c34f8a558e6e70568525690b00768bcf?OpenDocument>
>
>Within this context, the Gateway team sees the Gateway as an
>important part of the Bank's reform agenda. It will allow greater
>numbers of CSOs throughout the world to access information on
>Bank loans, policies, and studies. It will promote needed debate
>over such difficult issues as debt relief, social impact of structural
>adjustment, and involuntary resettlement policies. It will also,
>potentially, serve as an unique platform for CSOs to access and
>interact with government agencies and the private sector throughout
>the world -- channels of communication that are now not easy to
>develop. This is an important comparative advantage that the
>Gateway can offer civil society -- this convening, facilitator role --
>since it has a direct relationship with governments and
>access to the private sector. Participants at the Ottawa meeting
>asked what the Gateway had to do with poverty or why the Bank
>was getting involved in the Internet. Our response was that the
>Gateway will be an invaluable tool to further the Bank's reform
>and poverty alleviation agendas. Further, we responded that the
>links between Internet connectivity and social development are clear
>(the former can facilitate the latter) and that there would be a lot
>more questioning of the Bank if it were remiss in not taking
>advantage of the opportunities afforded by the Internet to further
>its attacking poverty agenda.
>
>Gateway as Competitor or Enabler of CSO's own IT efforts
>Several participants at the meeting at IDRC expressed the concern
>that the Gateway would represent unfair competition or even undermine
>existing civil society Internet portals and networks. This is an
>understandable concern, and one that we have heard from many.
>We must be thoughtful and careful about this as we move forward, but I
>know that we intend the Gateway to bring about the opposite effect -- to
>strengthen and build on existing civil society initiatives. The note from
>Mike Potashnik (Oct 18) discusses this further, but in terms of funding,
>for instance, the Gateway will not compete for resources or users with
>existing civil society ICT initiatives. Rather, it is designed to complement
>and strengthen the latter by providing them with visibility, financial
>resources, and technical assistance. In terms of conflicting funding
>sources, the projected US$60 million Gateway budget (half of which
>will be spent at the country level) will come from funding sources such as
>governments and multilateral institutions that are generally not tapped by
>CSOs. Moreover, rather than siphoning money from CSO IT initiatives, the
>Gateway is expected to leverage additional resources to the grassroots
>Internet community.
>
>The Country Gateway grants recently launched by InfoDev (a World Bank
>program geared to promote Internet connectivity initiatives) is a good
>example of this. This grant program will provide seed funding of up to
>US$75,000 to local organizations from either the governmental, civil society,
>or the private sector to develop an organizational structure and business
>plan for Country Gateways which will be the building blocks of the Global
>Gateway (please see http://www.infodev.org/gateway/). Finally, in the
>information area, rather than concentrating or limiting information flow
>from the civil society sector, the Gateway will serve as a global platform
>to project existing CSO web pages and networks to a much wider audience.
>
>John Garrison

Este archivo fue generado por hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 28 2001 - 01:01:27 AST