Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON, Apr 27 2005 (IPS) — A new forum launched by the World Bank to find common ground with its non-governmental critics appears to have highlighted rifts among the civil society organizations (CSOs).

Advocacy groups fell out over whether to take part in last week’s meetings with the world’s leading source of development loans for low-income and former Soviet countries. Some groups ultimately boycotted the sessions.

”Some CSOs see this particular event as whitewashing” designed to spruce up the bank’s image, said Alnoor Ebrahim, an associate professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and co-author of the main report presented by civil society groups at the meetings. ”Whether it’s true or not is not, (it’s) the crucial issue because the perception still remains.”

Groups boycotting the World Bank-Civil Society Global Policy Forum issued a statement saying signs that the exercise was no more than a public relations gimmick included the absence from the invitation list of critical groups that had taken part in previous such bank-sponsored exchanges.

”The absence from the invitation list of virtually all of the people involved in the World Bank’s previous significant engagements with international civil society should concern those considering attending,” said a statement from boycotters including U.S.-based Development GAP and 50 Years Is Enough Network, Thailand-based Focus on the Global South, British-based Bretton Woods Project and Christian Aid, Brazil’s Rede Brasil, and India’s Delhi Forum, among others.

”What the meeting does offer is the chance for the World Bank to escape accountability for its previous failings,” they added.

Stephen Commins, senior civil society specialist at the bank, rejected the notion that the bank was seeking only to polish its image.

”The forum is not a whitewash because that presumes that there’s a monolithic view from civil society organizations on whether or not the bank has changed,” Commins said.

On the contrary, Commins said, some groups that had signed on to the boycott nevertheless had attended other bank events and workshops the previous week. These included the Bretton Woods Project, which tracks the bank and its sister agency, the International Monetary Fund, and Christian Aid, an international development charity.

”I saw a number of those individuals at various workshops so they clearly believe that form of dialogue with the bank is important to them,” he said.

Commins said the forum had largely accomplished its goal. The bank, in a statement, described this as promoting policy dialogue on ”fostering a greater level of understanding and collaboration between the bank and civil society organizations.”

Participants said the talks had lacked substance.

”Not a lot was achieved in concrete terms,” said Steve Herz, who co-authored the discussion paper on World Bank and civil society engagement. He described the proceedings as ”a lot of talking, few if any action items or specific commitments.”

For that very reason, however, he wondered whether fractious debate over whether to participate had been overblown.

”The critics put too much emphasis on this particular meeting,” said Herz. ”I’ve never been quite clear what distinguishes this meeting from the myriad other engagements between the World Bank and CSOs that also end up being open ended conversations that don’t produce much in the way of immediate tangible outcomes. It didn’t seem to be worth the fuss.”

The bank had called the Apr. 20-22 forum and paid covered all participant expenses. The talks 200-odd participants included representatives of international CSO umbrella Civicus, British Overseas NGOs for Development (BOND), Global Movement for Children, Bangladesh NGO Federation, InterAction, and Transparency International, among others.

The lender made 20 billion dollars in new loans last year for nearly 250 projects in developing nations. It exercises considerable influence over economic policymaking in borrowing countries and its decisions affect millions of people around the world.

Over the past decade, CSOs have intensified criticism of the agency, saying it is too secretive about many of its decisions despite their huge impact on people’s lives.

Forum boycotters said they stayed away from the talks because the bank had not improved to their satisfaction on openness and participation. The publicly funded lender had undertaken other major participatory exercises with civil society over the past decade, only to walk away from their recommendations in the end, the groups said.