World
Bank World Development Report
Online
Discussion of Draft Report 2000
ISSUES: Transparency,
informing the dialogue, providing feedback
GOALS: Opening up and
informing the World Bank/World Bank Review process via an online e-conference
and electronic exchange of moderated comments on the released draft of the World
Development Report on Poverty
PARTICIPATING STAKEHOLDERS: NGOs, researchers, intergovernmental
organisations, governments, etc. (open forum)
TIME FRAME: 6 week open
process in 2000
MSP CONTACT DETAILS; URL: Bretton Woods Project c/o Action Aid,
Hamlyn House, Macdonald Road, London N19 5PG, UK. Phone: 020 7561 7546 ;
web-site: www.brettonwoodsproject.org
Classification:
Type:
Informing
Level:
International
Procedural Aspects:
Designing the MSP
Via
an email exchange with 30 people deciding the pros and cons of trying the idea
of an electronic exchange of comments and feedback on 1st draft of
World Development Report on Poverty 2000/01.This process started the summer
before the release of draft WB report on the World Bank web site. They solicited
views on the idea and negotiated with the World bank’s lead person - the
Report’s author, Ravi Kanbur. This advance preparation took out the risks.
Identifying the issues to be addressed in an MSP
Idea
of on-line conference put forward by Bretton Woods Project and the New Policy
Institute. A formal steering group appointed. They communicated via conference
calls, email, etc. to plan and review documentation, and to communicate with the
World Bank/World Bank Review.
NGO
comment: The World Bank Development Reports are written and marketed giving the
impression that they convey broadly held views and contain objective research.
But many civil society organisations feel that they are selective and biased. In
recent years, WB teams drafting reports have consulted NGOs on draft versions
– but groups have often commented their responses have not been dealt with
adequately. There is a need to make this process more credible.
Identifying relevant stakeholders
An
issue was how to recruit people to take part in the online conference who
don’t know how the World Bank wheels work. Tackled this through fliers,
mentions in relevant newsletters, fax alerts, electronically.
Identifying MSP participants
As
above, and recruiting potential people through Steering Groups’ contacts etc.
Effort put into trying to get away from the ‘usual suspects’ and purely a EU
/ Northern emphasis. This meant a substantial amount of preparatory work. A very
time consuming process – three and half months fulltime input.
Setting the goals of an MSP
It
was not a negotiating process but it did have a charge to look at the final
draft version of the World Development Report. There was informal input from the
World Bank (report’s author) as to what the WB were thinking but this was not
constant feedback. However even this level of contact had helped until the whole
process became mired in the sudden departure of the Report’s author in late
May 2000, following attempts by the WB and government officials to make him
change his text before final version was published (September 2000).
Setting the agenda
The
on-line conference was an attempt to open the World Bank process. Debate planned
the summer before the Report’s release. Some benefits did arise – for
example, participants were more in touch with each other outside the dialogue.
Some even held meetings so they could prepare fully – the impetus for meeting
and feeding back comments into the on-line conference was that feeling of being
part of a global dialogue. Cameroon is an example of where meetings were held
for this purpose. There were micro-spin-offs too in terms of better developed
relationships and credibility.
Setting the time-table
Set
up to coincide with World Bank process.
Preparatory process
1500
people participated, either representing themselves as individuals, or talking
on behalf of an institution, plus academic involvement. All contributions valid
– not a pre-negotiating body.
Communication process
Electronic
exchange of views and comments. Bretton Woods Project and New Policy Institute
received a favourable response to their initiative.
Power
gaps: Inevitable as the World Bank is still not an MSP. Processes are opaque. It
was always known that the power gaps would be there but better to try to open up
the dialogue to some degree. It did bring some pressure to bear on the Bank.
Bretton
Woods Project did attempt some evaluation in the 5th week of the
process. Issues included comments that there was some heavy handed moderation
underway (i.e. people wanted their point put across even if it was not directly
relevant to the process). As a result of this another group was going to start
an entirely open online debate but this never happened and they conceded that
the original process was fine. The idea of moderation (with topics set in
advance at the start of each new week and a quick context setting piece) was to
prevent participants from being overloaded (the quickest way to reduce wide
participation) and to keep them focused.
Decision-making process: procedures of agreement
No
overall agreement. This project was about opening up perspectives. The project
aimed only to bring different viewpoints into dialogue – it was not trying to
reach a consensus.
Implementation process
Too
difficult to agree a meaningful level of consensus after only 6 weeks exchange
of views.
Closing the MSP
A
time limited process – 6 weeks. 21 February – 31st March 2000.
Structural Aspects:
Structures / institutions of the MSP
Steering
Group
Facilitation
A
moderating team, all based in London. Their role included maintaining list of
conference participants, answer queries, filter incoming messages, and provide
advice to people whose message was not appropriate.
A
conference protocol was established as a guide to how the process worked ie.
short messages, no self promotion etc. Anyone wishing to submit a longer piece
which did not fit rules for the e-conference, could send their message to the
moderators, for passing on to World Bank author.
Bretton
Woods Project and New Policy Institute took it in turns.
Documentation
Bretton
Woods Project did the summaries etc. Translated into French and Spanish as soon
as they could (paid for this service).
Relating to not-participating stakeholders
An
open process except if people did have access to the technology. The main
language of the conference was English. Submissions were accepted in French and
Spanish but not translated. The weekly and final summaries reflected all
submissions and were available in the 3 languages.
Relating to the general public
Web-based
only. Closed as time limited.
Linkage into official decision-making process
The
MSP was linked to the WB as an intergovernmental body. Endless ramifications
will exist for a long time as the inputs from the WB report are fed into aid
packages etc.
NGO
Comment: The end-game is not very transparent but the on-line conference did
open this up a little. But the real outcomes will always be made in
"smoky-filled rooms in Washington". There was 2-3 year campaign to get
the World Bank to release a draft of the WDR so this move is to be welcomed. But
pressure must continue on the WB as this is not enough.
Funding
MacArthur
Foundation via Cornell University: £ 20,000. Funders had no direct contact or
impact on the project.
[ information gathered as of 16 February 2001 ]
