How the World Bank ico opts NGOs
WE CANNOT help being sceptical when the World Bank tells us that it is henceforth going to encourage and practice participatory decisionmaking. The move to have an Inspection Panel is the latest gimmick of the World Bank's (WB), resourceful public relations system.
Apart from the fact that such gestures are about 50 years too late, we remain unconvinced that the WB really means what it says. This is not just conjecture on our part, but a conclusion based on the WB'S conduct in Sri Lanka over the past few years.
Sometime in the mid-'80s, Sri Lankan economist Gamani Corea, who served as secretary general of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development for 10 years, observed that all the countries of the so-called Third World, have only one finance minister - the World Bank/International Monetary Fund combine. These Bretton Woods institutions have become the de facto policyrnakers in developing countries. No matter what the wB's highly pampered staff members say, the bank remains an institution hellbent on pursuing its own agenda.
The Bank t6day is projecting its image as a big investor and promoter of environmental reforms. Yet, many of the environmental crises that it now tries to solve have been aggravated by its own programmes and actions over the past few decades.
The WB'S attempts to involve NGOS in its projects have often ended in disaster. In 1990, it was working on an envionmental action plan for Sri Lanka as part of an Asiawide exercise to help national governments manage their environments better. The WB called a meeting of some local environmentalists and a handful of NGos. This small group, to which we had been invited, was asked to endorse the Environment Action Plan (EA) on behalf of Sri Lankan NGOS. While some NGOS seemed agreeable, we protested, saying that the group was not sufficiently representative. The entire document was only in English, which meant that 90 per cent of Sri Lankans and Most NGOS could not fully comprehend it. Moreover, the documents had been prepared by a handful of consultants, and it was clear that the WB was seeking NGO endorsement to give the EA a "participatory" appearance.
We also questioned the Bank's appointment of a Sri Lankan NGo as representative of the entire country's environmental community. This NGO had only about 80 individual members at the time, and it certainly did not have a mandate to represent the entire NGO sector in the WB's decisionmaking processes. With grave concern, we pressed for greater trans- parency and accountability.
The WB is trying to cultivate a breed of agreeable and Ictame" NGOS, whose leaders are offered frequent junkets to Washington and other cities. In return for foreign travel and occasional consultancies, these avaricious NGOS are Willing to act as a "rubber stamp" of people's participation in WB-funded or implemented projects. We'in the NGOs are ashamed to acknowledge that this co-opting Of NGOS is now becoming institutionalised, with not qnly the Bank and other major donors, but also the Government trying to do the same.
Similar mishandling and co-opting Of NGOS is being done in the Metropolitan E,@vironmental Improvement Programmes (MEIP), a pan-Asian technical and financial assistance programme which the WB is implementing with United Nations Development Proj@ct funding.
A couple of years ago, we came across a document describing cooperation between the wB and NGOs. The document mentioned a WB NGO committee, and listed a Sri Lankan representative on that committee. In desperation, we appealed to this NGo representative to bring to the attention of the WB the non -participatory nature of the WB-funded environmental projects in Sri Lanka. To our amazement, this NGO representative (who should have known better) was not even aware of the National Environmental Action Plan implementation.
The above examples would no doubt strike a chord with other genuine NGOs elsewhere in the South. Over the years, we have seen so much deception perpetrated by the WB that we can no longer have any faith in any programme even remotely concerned with the WB. It has no credibility, no scruples and has not demonstrated a genuine commitment to true participatory processes. Working with a handful of elite NGO workers is anything but participatory.
We in the NGO movement have to be extremely cautious about the WB'S overtures to the NGOs. They come laced with lucrative offers to individuals and organisations willing to dance to their tune. Unfortunately, some among the NGOS can - not resist this temptation.
---Nalin Ladduwahetty is an environmental lawyer in Sri Lanka.