PRESS RELEASE
World Bank Officials Refuse to be Held Accountable
New Delhi: The four day Independent Peoples Tribunal (IPT) on the World Bank in India concluded here today hearing numerous depositions indicting the Bank’s policy and project interventions in India. Over six hundred people from communities, social movements, research institutes, NGOs and universities attended the proceedings. The Tribunal, supported by the Jawaharlal University’s Teachers Association and Students’ Union was held in the university premises.
The IPT invited the World Bank two weeks ago and while they did agree to make a presentation responding to some of the evidence, they failed to show up despite provision of adequate space and time by the organisers. They stated on their website that they had taken this decision because they are not accountable to the Tribunal process. We must record our shock at their blatant disregard of any need to be accountable to civil society and to a Jury comprising retired justices of the Supreme and High Courts as well as leading writers, academics, religious leaders and activists.
In its preliminary findings, the IPT observed the Bank had an undue and disturbingly negative influence in shaping India’s national policies disproportionate to its contribution, financial or otherwise.
While India is the world’s largest single cumulative recipient of World Bank assistance, with lending totaling about $60 billion (Rs. 2,40,000 crores) since 1944, current annual borrowing amounts to less than 1% of the country’s GDP. The loans, however, have been used as leverage to bring about important policy changes and impose conditionalities in areas such as governance reform, health, education, electricity, water and environment- many of these with obvious political and social consequences. The loans also legitimize substantial additional funding from a diversity of bilateral and multilateral donors such as the Asian Development Bank and Department for International Development (DFID-UK). The Bank’s loans have caused extensive social and environmental harm from mass displacement in the Narmada valley to loss of livelihoods of traditional fishworkers in places such as Barwani.
It was noted that such overbearing influence on India’s policy making was in violation of the World Bank’s own Rules of Association, which mandate it to be an apolitical institution that should not interfere in political processes of any member country. Further, the IPT depositions stated that the presence of former Bank officials in senior government positions was unacceptable and involved conflicts of interest.
UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY:
Vice Chairman of the Kerala State Planning Board Professor Prabhat Patnaik in his deposition cited the example of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (NURM), which is a World Bank designed project. In the Kerala NURM project, the state government, he said, was being forced to accept a conditionality to reduce stamp duties to 5% from the earlier 15-17%. To avail a loan of about 1000 crores, Kerala would lose up to Rs.7000 crores of government revenue.
Vinay Baindur of the Bangalore based Collaborative for the Advancement of Studies in Urbanism (CASUMM) showed evidence of how the Karnataka Economic Restructuring Loan (KERL) resulted in the conversion of a state government and its economy into a corporatised entity meant to generate funds for “private sector and enterprise development”. ‘The $250 million loan resulted in far reaching changes; the closure/privatisation of the public sector, nearly two lakh permanent employees were forced to take Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) payments.
Further, the restructuring process led to a steep rise in farmer suicides; many of those who committed suicide did so because they were unable to pay the arrears in power costs that were suddenly slapped on them on account of power tariff hikes. “The withdrawal of subsidies for agriculture led to a sharp rise in the costs of cultivation”, argued Baindur in his deposition.
Jury member and scientist Meher Engineer said that he found the depositions on how the Bank forced inappropriate technology on India such as incinerators especially damning. ‘Given the well researched evidence that I have heard it is hard to imagine any role for the World Bank in the environment sector, he said. ‘The Bank is pro-rich, pro-urban and anti-environment’, he concluded.
The IPT was organized by an inclusive platform consisting of over 60 national and local groups (see list below). Activists, academicians, policy analysts and project affected communities presented evidence against the World Bank in over 26 sectors from 21-24 September. Jury members included historian Romila Thapar, writer Arundhati Roy, activist Aruna Roy, former Supreme Court Justice P B Sawant, former Finance Secretary S P Shukla, former Water Secretary Ramaswamy Iyer, scientist Meher Engineer, economist Amit Bhaduri, Thai spiritual leader Sulak Sivaraksa and Mexican economist Alejandro Nadal amongst others.
WORLD BANK AND GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MISSING IN ACTION:
But in response to the depositions the Bank posted a Q&A document on its India home page. In the document, the Bank makes the outrageous claim that, “The World Bank definitely has not recommended the privatization of water supply services in India”. It is particularly worrisome that the Bank has to repeat a series of untruths and not own responsibility for the extensive harms they have caused.
In a sign of convergence with the Bank, the Government of India also failed to send even a single representative to the event, despite personal invitations, emails and faxes being sent 2 weeks in advance to several Government officials at all ministries that borrow money from the World Bank.
PUSHING FOR ELECTRICITY PRIVATISATION:
In the 1990s, 20-30% of World Bank loans in India went to the energy sector. Orissa had the dubious distinction of being the first state to receive World Bank loans for restructuring the sector. Sreekumar N, from the Pune based Prayas Energy Group argued that based on World Bank advice, Orissa spent upto Rs.306 crores for foreign consultants, ignoring local expertise. The consultants recommended the privatisation of distribution and the American firm AES that took over distribution in the central zone behaved in a high handed manner and ultimately exited the state in 2001.
BANKS TOXIC COLONIALISM:
Nityanand Jayaraman of the Chennai based Corporate Accountability Desk in his desposition before the jury said, ‘The Bank is perpetrating toxic colonialism by funding discredited and polluting technology interventions’. As evidence he presented cases where the Bank has promoted the setting up of more than 88 Common Effluent Treatment Plants, more than 90 percent of which were shown to have failed to meet environmental norms by the Central Pollution Control Board.
JUST THE BEGINNING:
Wilfred D’ Costa, General Secretary of the Indian Social Action Forum(INSAF) one of the convening groups of the IPT said, ‘The tribunal has been useful since it has seen a convergence of social movements, unions, academicians, researchers and struggle groups from across the country. Our next steps would be to use this platform to create a broad based political struggle against neo-liberalism and work towards an India without institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank’.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Press Release : 22 September 07
Flat No.14, Supreme Enclave, Mayur Vihar-I, Delhi-110091
www.worldbanktribunal.org
PRESS RELEASE
22 September 2007
Changing Role of the World Bank
New Delhi:
Today is the second day of the Independent Peoples Tribunal on the World Bank Group in India, which got underway at New Delhi yesterday at a packed auditorium at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).
Addressing the new concerns regarding World Bank operations Dr. Prabhat Patnaik, (Deputy Chairman of Kerala Planning Commission) specified his point of view on the changing arena of operations of World Bank enforcing trade liberalisation. He further stated that this enforced trade liberalisation was perpetuating international division of labour, similar to that of the exploitative colonial form, but not exactly identical. "McNamara’s policy veils poverty alleviation and forces them to liberalise on the basis of comparative advantage and efficiency of trade," he stressed. Mr. Patnaik stated that the whole range of natural resources were privately appropriated which opened up the domain of natural resources for MNC and private appropriation. "Therefore, this is a form of ‘grabbing public and state property of accumulation through encroachment".
According to him, the World Bank operations have infiltrated both the Centre as well as the states, besides the grassroots operation of World Bank give them leverage to appropriate resources. Prof. Patnaik said that the JNNURM was a conditional package which gave a gross revenue loss of Rs. 7000-crore. “This is economic absurdity, therefore, greater state intervention and allocation on basis of social priority. This perpetuation of appropriation resulting in commodification is done with little money and major leverage".
He said that while the World Bank many have undergone a shift in emphasis, its basic thrust has not changed. "Trade liberalisation that continues to proportionate a division of labour that benefits the economic and political states nationally and globally". According to him, the World Bank is now committed to expand private control of land and natural resources. "Every where in the country we now witness the grabbing of common resources and spaces occupied by petty producers as well as the privatisation of the public sector".
Jayati Ghosh, who spoke on the issues related to the private sector, lamented that it was a matter of great concern how the World Bank was managing to be so powerful when so little of its money involved in India, less than 1% of the Indian Budget. "The bank is managing to be so powerful because it has infiltrated in Indian bureaucracy where it influences bureaucrats by organising capacity building, workshops etc. Many of our govt officials are now allowed to take a project with WB while on leave. This money, which is huge compared to Indian salaries, is tax free. Now WB is moving at the lower levels and infiltrating Zila Parishads and municipal corporations. While state governments exonerate themselves insisting on lack of funds, these zila parishads and municipal corporations are encouraged to take loans from WB and elsewhere. Thus these loans come with a number of conditionalities which finally push the agenda for privatisation", she asserted.
She added that the World Bank has increasingly been dealing with state governments who were in fiscal crisis where even a small amount of money appears to be substantial. According to her, the WB is not controlling the whole development discourse where research is essentially controlled by WB which in turn pushes its agenda. There is very little independent , objective, development research. A study by about 5-6 neo-liberal American researchers has found that WB promotes its own agenda through research and suppresses objective research. WB never put this study on its website despite its stated claims of transparency. "The essential issue today that needs to be looked into is how WB has changed and continues to change development discourse in India and elsewhere".
She also gave a critical scrutiny of the World Bank operation and stated that the enforcement of trade liberalisation should be removed. Arguments of trade liberalisation like comparative advantage cause stagnation in global division of labour and thus developed world would developed and developing world would stagnate. She refuted the comparative advantage argument on the basis of South Korean experience in setting steel plant against the World Bank recommendations. She expressed newer concerns of mis-appropriation of natural resources at grassroot level and thereby propogating privatisation. She refuse conditionality of JNNURM on the basis of commodification of natural resource. She enlightened on the following facts:
(a) World Bank being a net recipient of countries, therefore loosing its relevance as a bank
(b) World Banks infiltration into bureaucracy – “Victory over minds of people which is most significant way of World Bank operation”.
(c) World Bank engages in grassroot works on the myth of a development paradigm
(d) World Bank encourages “funny” fiscal decentralisation where Panchayat directly borrow from World Bank thereby allowing private appropriation through leverage.
(e) World Bank control over development discourse causes one sided research.
Speaking on the debt and the WB, Lidy Nacpil of Jubilee South said that our assessment on (Illegitimacy of debt) was based on critical holistic, rigorous understanding of historical procedures which convert world order into a NEO-LIBERAL regime.
Her presentation essentially talked about the illegitimacy of debt and the procedures regarding illegitimate procedures. She stated that the debt service was very large as compared to the absolute debt amount. She also stated that Indian proportion of Debt per capita debt as a percentage of GDP were lower than Philippines, Nepal, etc. She pointed out the impact of debt on hindering and diverting development expenditure. She, while presenting a critical review of debt stated that we should understand debt historical, political and economic perspective. Also illegitimacy of debt is financing damage. Illegitimacy she points out is on the basis of:
(A) Human resource
(B) Justice & fairness
(C) Accountability
(D) Sovereignty
She also pointed out that the legal structures should be modified to bring out debt illegitimacy. "Debt is power to intervene in domestic politics and says government is also a part of it," she asserted.
Mr. Viond Raina's presentation focussed on the coherence of the WB, IMF and the like bodies with the governance, structure and policy making and implementation clubbed with legislation of the nation machinatingly trapped by the above-mentioned Bretton Woods bodies. This indeed is a Machiavellian nexus with the local sense governing bodies also, which means direct imperiealism of the mindset. This hydra-headed as to penetrate into the bureaucracy who are cultivated by the WB to behave and administer conveniencing the objectives and the agenda of the WB.
V Hanumantha Rao spoke about the Andhra Pradesh, state currently in the midst of a big agitation – govt been passing out hundreds of acres of land in name of It, industry infrastructure displacing thousands – agitation due to peoples anger where the vulnerabilities of the paucity of resources in state coffers, combined with a political scenario in flux and seeking acclaim as a modern state. The WB assisted irrigation sector interventions included reduction of Ration cards by 35%, increase in power tax, water charges, entrusting the charges of water maintenance to WUAs and privatisation of the industrial sector. Democratic structures were subverted as parallel structures were created, and a Vision 2020 document drafted that contained all the recommendations and guidelines. This document though never placed before the public or peoples representatives for debate continues to drive state policies and programmes.
The second session of the day focused on the urban poor and urban development and how both are affected by policies of the World Bank. Nitin from Shahar Vikas Manch spoke about the Mumbai Urban Transport Project, funded by the World Bank, which had displaced above 19,000 families in Mumbai. Resettlement has been in distant locations, upto 30 kms away; against the promised norm of within 2 kms. The resettlement sites lack basic amenities and are simply not affordable for a large majority of the urban poor. Simpreet Singh from NAPM added to this by revealing the Rs. 350 crore scam that was uncovered in the project.
Vinay Baindur of CASUMM critiqued the JNUNRM. This urban policy subsidized the private sector growth through mechanisms like PSP and PPP. He also spoke about the strong influence of WB and IFIs in Indian urban sector reforms since 1988 which has culminated into the JNNURM.
The 4-day event is being organised by a coalition of over 60 groups in collaboration with the JNU Students Union and Teachers Association. Activists, academicians, policy analysts and project affected communities are expected to present their analysis on the World Bank in over 26 sectors to an expert jury. The tribunal will run from today till 24 September. The opening jury members at today’s panel included eminent historian Romila Thapar, Former Supreme Court Justice P B Sawant, Former Maharastra High Court Justice Suresh, Former Planning Commission member S P Shukla, Scientist Meher Engineer, Former Water Secretary Ramaswamy Iyer, Economist Amit Bhaduri and Mexican Economist Alejandro Nadal.
World Bank officials, including the Banks India Country Director Isabel Guerrero, and Government of India representatives have also been invited to the tribunal and have been given time to respond to the depositions. World Bank representatives are expected present their point of view on the closing day (24 September).
Suresh Nautiyal (09868182289)
WBG IPT Secretariat (Media)
For more information contact Harsh Dobhal (9818569021)
www.worldbanktribunal.org
PRESS RELEASE
22 September 2007
Changing Role of the World Bank
New Delhi:
Today is the second day of the Independent Peoples Tribunal on the World Bank Group in India, which got underway at New Delhi yesterday at a packed auditorium at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).
Addressing the new concerns regarding World Bank operations Dr. Prabhat Patnaik, (Deputy Chairman of Kerala Planning Commission) specified his point of view on the changing arena of operations of World Bank enforcing trade liberalisation. He further stated that this enforced trade liberalisation was perpetuating international division of labour, similar to that of the exploitative colonial form, but not exactly identical. "McNamara’s policy veils poverty alleviation and forces them to liberalise on the basis of comparative advantage and efficiency of trade," he stressed. Mr. Patnaik stated that the whole range of natural resources were privately appropriated which opened up the domain of natural resources for MNC and private appropriation. "Therefore, this is a form of ‘grabbing public and state property of accumulation through encroachment".
According to him, the World Bank operations have infiltrated both the Centre as well as the states, besides the grassroots operation of World Bank give them leverage to appropriate resources. Prof. Patnaik said that the JNNURM was a conditional package which gave a gross revenue loss of Rs. 7000-crore. “This is economic absurdity, therefore, greater state intervention and allocation on basis of social priority. This perpetuation of appropriation resulting in commodification is done with little money and major leverage".
He said that while the World Bank many have undergone a shift in emphasis, its basic thrust has not changed. "Trade liberalisation that continues to proportionate a division of labour that benefits the economic and political states nationally and globally". According to him, the World Bank is now committed to expand private control of land and natural resources. "Every where in the country we now witness the grabbing of common resources and spaces occupied by petty producers as well as the privatisation of the public sector".
Jayati Ghosh, who spoke on the issues related to the private sector, lamented that it was a matter of great concern how the World Bank was managing to be so powerful when so little of its money involved in India, less than 1% of the Indian Budget. "The bank is managing to be so powerful because it has infiltrated in Indian bureaucracy where it influences bureaucrats by organising capacity building, workshops etc. Many of our govt officials are now allowed to take a project with WB while on leave. This money, which is huge compared to Indian salaries, is tax free. Now WB is moving at the lower levels and infiltrating Zila Parishads and municipal corporations. While state governments exonerate themselves insisting on lack of funds, these zila parishads and municipal corporations are encouraged to take loans from WB and elsewhere. Thus these loans come with a number of conditionalities which finally push the agenda for privatisation", she asserted.
She added that the World Bank has increasingly been dealing with state governments who were in fiscal crisis where even a small amount of money appears to be substantial. According to her, the WB is not controlling the whole development discourse where research is essentially controlled by WB which in turn pushes its agenda. There is very little independent , objective, development research. A study by about 5-6 neo-liberal American researchers has found that WB promotes its own agenda through research and suppresses objective research. WB never put this study on its website despite its stated claims of transparency. "The essential issue today that needs to be looked into is how WB has changed and continues to change development discourse in India and elsewhere".
She also gave a critical scrutiny of the World Bank operation and stated that the enforcement of trade liberalisation should be removed. Arguments of trade liberalisation like comparative advantage cause stagnation in global division of labour and thus developed world would developed and developing world would stagnate. She refuted the comparative advantage argument on the basis of South Korean experience in setting steel plant against the World Bank recommendations. She expressed newer concerns of mis-appropriation of natural resources at grassroot level and thereby propogating privatisation. She refuse conditionality of JNNURM on the basis of commodification of natural resource. She enlightened on the following facts:
(a) World Bank being a net recipient of countries, therefore loosing its relevance as a bank
(b) World Banks infiltration into bureaucracy – “Victory over minds of people which is most significant way of World Bank operation”.
(c) World Bank engages in grassroot works on the myth of a development paradigm
(d) World Bank encourages “funny” fiscal decentralisation where Panchayat directly borrow from World Bank thereby allowing private appropriation through leverage.
(e) World Bank control over development discourse causes one sided research.
Speaking on the debt and the WB, Lidy Nacpil of Jubilee South said that our assessment on (Illegitimacy of debt) was based on critical holistic, rigorous understanding of historical procedures which convert world order into a NEO-LIBERAL regime.
Her presentation essentially talked about the illegitimacy of debt and the procedures regarding illegitimate procedures. She stated that the debt service was very large as compared to the absolute debt amount. She also stated that Indian proportion of Debt per capita debt as a percentage of GDP were lower than Philippines, Nepal, etc. She pointed out the impact of debt on hindering and diverting development expenditure. She, while presenting a critical review of debt stated that we should understand debt historical, political and economic perspective. Also illegitimacy of debt is financing damage. Illegitimacy she points out is on the basis of:
(A) Human resource
(B) Justice & fairness
(C) Accountability
(D) Sovereignty
She also pointed out that the legal structures should be modified to bring out debt illegitimacy. "Debt is power to intervene in domestic politics and says government is also a part of it," she asserted.
Mr. Viond Raina's presentation focussed on the coherence of the WB, IMF and the like bodies with the governance, structure and policy making and implementation clubbed with legislation of the nation machinatingly trapped by the above-mentioned Bretton Woods bodies. This indeed is a Machiavellian nexus with the local sense governing bodies also, which means direct imperiealism of the mindset. This hydra-headed as to penetrate into the bureaucracy who are cultivated by the WB to behave and administer conveniencing the objectives and the agenda of the WB.
V Hanumantha Rao spoke about the Andhra Pradesh, state currently in the midst of a big agitation – govt been passing out hundreds of acres of land in name of It, industry infrastructure displacing thousands – agitation due to peoples anger where the vulnerabilities of the paucity of resources in state coffers, combined with a political scenario in flux and seeking acclaim as a modern state. The WB assisted irrigation sector interventions included reduction of Ration cards by 35%, increase in power tax, water charges, entrusting the charges of water maintenance to WUAs and privatisation of the industrial sector. Democratic structures were subverted as parallel structures were created, and a Vision 2020 document drafted that contained all the recommendations and guidelines. This document though never placed before the public or peoples representatives for debate continues to drive state policies and programmes.
The second session of the day focused on the urban poor and urban development and how both are affected by policies of the World Bank. Nitin from Shahar Vikas Manch spoke about the Mumbai Urban Transport Project, funded by the World Bank, which had displaced above 19,000 families in Mumbai. Resettlement has been in distant locations, upto 30 kms away; against the promised norm of within 2 kms. The resettlement sites lack basic amenities and are simply not affordable for a large majority of the urban poor. Simpreet Singh from NAPM added to this by revealing the Rs. 350 crore scam that was uncovered in the project.
Vinay Baindur of CASUMM critiqued the JNUNRM. This urban policy subsidized the private sector growth through mechanisms like PSP and PPP. He also spoke about the strong influence of WB and IFIs in Indian urban sector reforms since 1988 which has culminated into the JNNURM.
The 4-day event is being organised by a coalition of over 60 groups in collaboration with the JNU Students Union and Teachers Association. Activists, academicians, policy analysts and project affected communities are expected to present their analysis on the World Bank in over 26 sectors to an expert jury. The tribunal will run from today till 24 September. The opening jury members at today’s panel included eminent historian Romila Thapar, Former Supreme Court Justice P B Sawant, Former Maharastra High Court Justice Suresh, Former Planning Commission member S P Shukla, Scientist Meher Engineer, Former Water Secretary Ramaswamy Iyer, Economist Amit Bhaduri and Mexican Economist Alejandro Nadal.
World Bank officials, including the Banks India Country Director Isabel Guerrero, and Government of India representatives have also been invited to the tribunal and have been given time to respond to the depositions. World Bank representatives are expected present their point of view on the closing day (24 September).
Suresh Nautiyal (09868182289)
WBG IPT Secretariat (Media)
For more information contact Harsh Dobhal (9818569021)
Independent People's Tribunal on the World Bank Group in India : Press Release 21 September
WORLD BANK GOES UNDER SCANNER AT PEOPLES TRIBUNAL
The Independent Peoples Tribunal on the World Bank Group in India got underway at New Delhi today at a packed auditorium at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). The 4 day event is being organised by a coalition of over 60 groups in collaboration with the JNU Students Union and Teachers Association. Activists, academicians, policy analysts and project affected communities are expected to present their analysis on the World Bank in over 26 sectors to an expert jury. The tribunal will run from today till 24 September. The opening jury members at today’s panel included eminent historian Romila Thapar, Former Supreme Court Justice P B Sawant, Former Maharastra High Court Justice Suresh, Former Planning Commission member S P Shukla, Scientist Meher Engineer, Former Water Secretary Ramaswamy Iyer, Economist Amit Bhaduri and Mexican Economist Alejandro Nadal.
World Bank officials, including the Banks India Country Director Isabel Guerrero, and Government of India representatives have also been invited to the tribunal and have been given time to respond to the depositions. World Bank representatives are expected present their point of view on the closing day (24 September)
Questioning the supposed Bank developmental mandate of ‘eradicating poverty’, activist Smitu Kothari of Intercultural Resources argued that the Bank in fact functioned more like a commercial bank serving corporate interests. Kothari said, ‘The Bank is the world’s largest multilateral source of equity and loan financing to private enterprises and its loans to the private sector through the International Finance Corporation (IFC) in 2006 amounted to a massive US$ 8.3 billion. ‘The Bank claims that it is an apolitical institution but even a cursory look at its Governance conditionalities such as public sector reform, creating legislation to facilitate the private sector shows that it plays a profoundly political role in the country’, he added.
Professor Arun Kumar from JNU said that due to World Bank and IMF structural adjustment conditionalities India had to undergo a complete policy overhaul after 1991. As evidence, he presented several national legislations that were overhauled after the structural adjustment programmes of the Bank; such as the RBI Act, introduction of Value Added Tax (VAT) in Andhra Pradesh and the revision of the Coal Nationalization Act. As further evidence of the influence of the Bank on domestic policy he showed how an executive summary of a World Bank document in 1990 mentioned the need for a 22% devaluation of the Indian rupee. ‘In 1991 the then Finance Minister Manmohan Singh effected exactly a 22% devaluation of the rupee.
In his deposition to the jury Supreme Court Advocate Prashant Bhushan presented evidence on how, since 1991, most of the key influential economic policy makers in India, including members of the planning commission, secretaries of the Finance Ministry and Economic Advisors to the Government have been people who have had stints at the World Bank. ‘They have moved seamlessly between the World Bank and the Government of India as if the latter were just a division of the former’, he said. Bhushan singled out the case of the current czar of economic policy Montek Singh Ahluwalia who spent the first 11 years of his career at the World Bank. Since then he has been Commerce Secretary, Finance Secretary and now Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission. ‘There are several dozen such instances and it should be of little surprise that the Bank has been able to easily impose its ideology and policies in India’, added Bhushan.
Shripad Dharamadhikari, Coordinator of Manthan Adhyayan Kendra spoke about how the Bank was looking at being a ‘politically realistic knowledge provider’ in India. This was being done through thematic and sectoral studies called AAA – Analytical and Advisory Activities – in which it is funding studies on Land, Water and Agriculture which were being used as reference documents to push its policies.
In a written deposition Professor Michael Goldman of the University of Minnesota posed the question of whose interests the Bank served. Goldman said that Northern firms continue to win a majority of the foreign procurement contracts awarded. ‘In 2003 a startlingly high 45 percent was channeled to firms in the big five countries (USA, UK, Japan, Germany and France)’, said Goldman.
Professor Anil Sadgopal traced the policy framework for education in the country and showed how the target for universalisation of elementary education was constantly shifted following the intervention of the World Bank. ‘The demarcation of certain districts in Madhya Pradesh as exclusively World Bank districts for the implementation of its DPEP programme was a gross violation of the sovereignty of the state’, he said.
The days next sessions of the tribunal will cover the Banks interventions in Water, Health and its impacts on Human Rights. Speakers who will depose on Day 2 of the tribunal include Narmada Bachao Andolan activist Medha Patkar (on Urban Development), Magsayay Awardee Arvind Kejriwal (on Delhi Water Privatisation) and Economist Jayati Ghosh (on private sector and the World Bank).
Suresh Nautiyal,
WBG IPT Secretariat (Media)
For more information contact Harsh Dobhal (9818569021)
The Independent Peoples Tribunal on the World Bank Group in India got underway at New Delhi today at a packed auditorium at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). The 4 day event is being organised by a coalition of over 60 groups in collaboration with the JNU Students Union and Teachers Association. Activists, academicians, policy analysts and project affected communities are expected to present their analysis on the World Bank in over 26 sectors to an expert jury. The tribunal will run from today till 24 September. The opening jury members at today’s panel included eminent historian Romila Thapar, Former Supreme Court Justice P B Sawant, Former Maharastra High Court Justice Suresh, Former Planning Commission member S P Shukla, Scientist Meher Engineer, Former Water Secretary Ramaswamy Iyer, Economist Amit Bhaduri and Mexican Economist Alejandro Nadal.
World Bank officials, including the Banks India Country Director Isabel Guerrero, and Government of India representatives have also been invited to the tribunal and have been given time to respond to the depositions. World Bank representatives are expected present their point of view on the closing day (24 September)
Questioning the supposed Bank developmental mandate of ‘eradicating poverty’, activist Smitu Kothari of Intercultural Resources argued that the Bank in fact functioned more like a commercial bank serving corporate interests. Kothari said, ‘The Bank is the world’s largest multilateral source of equity and loan financing to private enterprises and its loans to the private sector through the International Finance Corporation (IFC) in 2006 amounted to a massive US$ 8.3 billion. ‘The Bank claims that it is an apolitical institution but even a cursory look at its Governance conditionalities such as public sector reform, creating legislation to facilitate the private sector shows that it plays a profoundly political role in the country’, he added.
Professor Arun Kumar from JNU said that due to World Bank and IMF structural adjustment conditionalities India had to undergo a complete policy overhaul after 1991. As evidence, he presented several national legislations that were overhauled after the structural adjustment programmes of the Bank; such as the RBI Act, introduction of Value Added Tax (VAT) in Andhra Pradesh and the revision of the Coal Nationalization Act. As further evidence of the influence of the Bank on domestic policy he showed how an executive summary of a World Bank document in 1990 mentioned the need for a 22% devaluation of the Indian rupee. ‘In 1991 the then Finance Minister Manmohan Singh effected exactly a 22% devaluation of the rupee.
In his deposition to the jury Supreme Court Advocate Prashant Bhushan presented evidence on how, since 1991, most of the key influential economic policy makers in India, including members of the planning commission, secretaries of the Finance Ministry and Economic Advisors to the Government have been people who have had stints at the World Bank. ‘They have moved seamlessly between the World Bank and the Government of India as if the latter were just a division of the former’, he said. Bhushan singled out the case of the current czar of economic policy Montek Singh Ahluwalia who spent the first 11 years of his career at the World Bank. Since then he has been Commerce Secretary, Finance Secretary and now Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission. ‘There are several dozen such instances and it should be of little surprise that the Bank has been able to easily impose its ideology and policies in India’, added Bhushan.
Shripad Dharamadhikari, Coordinator of Manthan Adhyayan Kendra spoke about how the Bank was looking at being a ‘politically realistic knowledge provider’ in India. This was being done through thematic and sectoral studies called AAA – Analytical and Advisory Activities – in which it is funding studies on Land, Water and Agriculture which were being used as reference documents to push its policies.
In a written deposition Professor Michael Goldman of the University of Minnesota posed the question of whose interests the Bank served. Goldman said that Northern firms continue to win a majority of the foreign procurement contracts awarded. ‘In 2003 a startlingly high 45 percent was channeled to firms in the big five countries (USA, UK, Japan, Germany and France)’, said Goldman.
Professor Anil Sadgopal traced the policy framework for education in the country and showed how the target for universalisation of elementary education was constantly shifted following the intervention of the World Bank. ‘The demarcation of certain districts in Madhya Pradesh as exclusively World Bank districts for the implementation of its DPEP programme was a gross violation of the sovereignty of the state’, he said.
The days next sessions of the tribunal will cover the Banks interventions in Water, Health and its impacts on Human Rights. Speakers who will depose on Day 2 of the tribunal include Narmada Bachao Andolan activist Medha Patkar (on Urban Development), Magsayay Awardee Arvind Kejriwal (on Delhi Water Privatisation) and Economist Jayati Ghosh (on private sector and the World Bank).
Suresh Nautiyal,
WBG IPT Secretariat (Media)
For more information contact Harsh Dobhal (9818569021)
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Independent People's Tribunal on the World Bank in India : Press Release
PRESS RELEASE
500 academics, activists and experts on the World Bank including experts from abroad such as Alejandro Nadal, Professor, Colejio de Mexico, and Bruce Rich, Executive Director, will gather at JNU (21 – 24 September) at the “Independent People’s Tribunal on the World Bank Group in India”, and will hear experts and victims give testimonies on the role of World Bank in India.
The Jury will consist of eminent persons including Mahasweta Devi, Arundati Roy, Justice P.B. Sawant, Aruna Roy and 11 others. Attached is the programme.
Given below are preliminary notes on two of the issues which will form part of the deliberations. Note 1 is on sample contracts between the World Bank and State Governments. Note 2 is on Government Officials serving at the World Bank.
Note 1
SAMPLE WORLD BANK AGREEMENTS WITH STATE GOVERNMENTS SHOWING HOW THE WORLD BANK FORCED STATE GOVERNMENTS AS A CONDITIONALITY FOR LOANS TO AGREE TO CHANGING LAWS, PRIVATISING, REDUCING THE PUBLIC SECTOR ETC.
LOAN AGREEMENTS FOR ORISSA’S HEALTH SYSTEM
1. A condition of a loan to Orissa to make changes to its health system was that Orissa would continue to follow a policy of ‘user pays’ and more importantly, that it increase its charges. Such a measure invariably affected the poorest members of society and is in direct contrast with the World Bank’s stated aim to alleviate poverty. In this case, amongst many others, its policies hit the poorest the hardest.
“Orissa shall continue to implement a program for collecting user charges at district hospitals, such program to focus, inter alia, on: (a) strengthening collection of existing user charges and management arrangements; (b) implementing revised user charges in a phased manner within six months after completion of the renovation and extension of each hospital and adoption of staffing and technical norms at such hospital…”
LOAN AGREEMENT WITH ORISSA ON POWER
In the Orissa Power Restructuring Project of 1996 the World Bank also mandated privatization. In the loan agreement for that Project the Bank specified:
Orissa shall, with the participation of GRIDCO and OHPC [the publicly-owned Orissa power distribution companies]:
(a) offer a part of its equity in GRIDCO and OHPC for sale to the public under terms and conditions satisfactory to the Bank with the objective of divesting such equity in accordance with a program and timetable satisfactory to the Bank;
. . .
If the Government of Orissa was unable to sell the company at its asking price it was required to revise the conditions of its sale to make it more attractive for sale:
(c) where no tenders are received in response to such offer or those that are received are not deemed responsive by Orissa, revise the terms and conditions of such offer in a manner satisfactory to the Bank and take such other steps which shall, without prejudice to the interests of Orissa, GRIDCO and OHPC, be adequate, in the view of the Bank, to making such offers attractive for acceptance by the public.
LOAN AGREEMENT FOR ANDHRA PRADESH ON WATER PRIVATISATION
2. In return for a World Bank loan to Andhra Pradesh, the World Bank stated in its loan agreements that Andhra Pradesh would introduce a charge system for water. Again, it is evident that World Bank’s policies adversely affect the poor.
“Andhra Pradesh shall implement a system for water charge collection on a volumetric basis by WUAs on at least a pilot basis (i.e. covering about 40,000 ha) by March 31, 2001”.
In addition to introducing a ‘user pays’ system in which the government of Andhra Pradesh could not be held democratically accountable, the World Bank also made it a condition of the loan that Andhra Pradesh would cut jobs in the state government and reduce salaries of the state government’s employees.
“Andhra Pradesh shall take all the necessary measures, satisfactory to the Association and the Bank in order:
(c) to reduce employment in the state government (excluding primary education) by 1.9 percent each Fiscal Year beginning with FY 1998-99;
(d) to reduce the ratio of salary to GSDP from the estimated 5.3 percent in FY 1997-98 to no higher than 5.0 percent in FY 2002-03”
LOAN AGREEMENT WITH HARYANA ON POWER
The Haryana Power Sector Restructuring Project was a 1998 agreement between the World Bank and the Government of India and Government of Haryana aimed at restructuring and upgrading that Haryana power system. One of the ultimate goals of this restructuring was privatizing the distribution of power in Haryana. This is made clear by the conditions of subsequent loans for this project as outlined in the project’s appraisal document:
The Second Haryana Power Sector Restructuring Project (APL2; indicative amount of $ 150 million) would be considered when . . . The Government of Haryana has:
. . .
* achieved satisfactory progress in privatizing one of the distribution companies (East Zone) as a joint venture with private majority ownership; . . .
. . .
The Third Haryana Power Sector Restructuring Project (APL3) (indicative amount: $ 200 million) would be considered when . . . The Government of Haryana has:
* privatized at least two-thirds of the distribution system, e.g., at least about two-thirds of the electricity is distributed by private companies, licensed by the Regulatory Commission;
. . .
One or two additional loans (APL4 and APL5) (tentative total amount: $ 190 million) would be considered when:
* the distribution business has been fully privatized;
. . .
LOAN AGREEMENT WITH MAHARASHTRA ON WATER
The World Bank continues to try to dictate its own market-driven ideology to India even today. In 2006, the Government of Maharashtra and World Bank entered into an agreement for a loan to reform the Maharashtra water supply system under the Maharashtra Water Sector Improvement Project. The loan conditions as outlined in the Project Appraisal Document included that the Government of Maharashtra shall:
. . .
(vi) start implementation of bulk water supply and volumetric charging of irrigation water to WUAs as per their entitlement in six selected pilot schemes by no later than December 31, 2006.
(vii) rationalize water charges including irrigation charges to meet full O&M costs by no later than March 31, 2007.
. . .
Note 2
NOTE ON SENIOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO WHILE SERVING GOI WENT ON DEPUTATION TO THE WORLD BANK ON HUGE SALARIES AND PENSIONS AND THEREAFTER RETURNED TO GOI AND ALTERED POLICIES OF GOVERNMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WORLD BANK POLICIES
The Revolving Door of the World Bank
Suborning policy and decision makers by its pocketbook
By Prashant Bhushan
Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate and former Chief Economist of the World Bank in his frank critique of the World Bank and IMF, “Globalisation and its discontents”, notes that “The institutions are dominated not just by the wealthiest industrial countries but also by commercial and financial interests in those countries, and the policies of the institutions naturally reflect this”. This, he says, happens because the World Bank and other Multi-lateral financial institutions are controlled by the wealthy countries. For the WB/IMF, these countries are represented by their Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors. He goes on to say, “The Finance Ministers and Central Bank governors typically have close ties with the financial community; they come from financial firms, and after their period in government service, that is where they return. These individuals naturally see the world through the eyes of the financial community. The decisions of any institution naturally reflect the perspectives and interests of those who make the decisions; not surprisingly, the policies of the international financial institutions are all too often closely aligned with the commercial and financial interests of those in the advanced industrial countries.”
Though an insider with impeccable credentials and credibility like Stiglitz has laid bare this fact which was known by most people much earlier, yet it is obvious that the government of India’s policies regarding the revolving door between the government and the World Bank/IMF are totally oblivious to this. How else would one explain the fact that for much of the last 20 years, and particularly since 1991, many if not most of the top economic policy makers including members of the planning commission, secretaries of the Finance Ministry and Governors of the Reserve Bank have been staffers of the World Bank/IMF. They have moved smoothly and seamlessly between the World Bank/IMF and the government of India, as if the government of India were just a division of the World Bank/IMF.
Since the mid 80s it has become common to find World Bank staffers occupying key policy making positions in the Government of India. Starting with Montek Singh Ahluwalia, and Bimal Jalan, the vast majority of the key officials of the Finance Ministry and the Reserve Bank have moved seamlessly back and forth between the World Bank/IMF and the Government of India. They include such influential policy makers and Finance Secretaries such as Shankar Acharya, who like Montek started with the World Bank in the 70s and then again like him joined the government as Economic advisor in 1985. In 1990 he was back at the World Bank as Chief of the Public Economic Division till 1993, when he was appointed Chief Economic Advisor to the Government of India. He was thereafter appointed to the Board of SEBI, the EXIM Bank and various other policy making bodies.
We then have Rakesh Mohan who also initially worked with the World Bank (1976-80, 1983-86) and later became Economic Advisor to the Ministry of Industry, Government of India. He then served in top positions of many policy making bodies of the government including Deputy governor of the Reserve Bank, Secretary of the Department of Economic affairs etc.
We have Parthasarthy Shome who worked at the IMF for most of the time between 1983 and 2004. In between he was called in as Chairman, Advisory group on Taxation for the 9th 5 year plan, then as Chairman of the Advisory group on Tax policy, and most recently as Special advisor to the Finance Minister (2004-2007).
We also have other persons like Ashok Lahiri, who worked for many years in the IMF before being brought in to the government as Chief Economic Advisor and then sent to the ADB as Executive Director in 2007. These are only some examples of persons who started their careers with the Bank/IMF and were brought into influential policy making positions of the Government, then allowed to move back and forth between the bank and the government as if the Government of India were just a division of the Bank/IMF). Such examples could be multiplied endlessly.
This revolving door with the Bank/IMF and the filling of most economic policy making positions of the government by these Bank staffers has allowed the bank to impose its ideology and policies on India. It has not only ensured that these policy makers are schooled in the World Bank school of economics, by allowing them to move back and forth but also ensured that the Bank/IMF retains a complete stronghold on these persons wherein they step out of line only at the cost of losing their lucrative jobs/assignments with the Bank/IMF.
In fact, key officials of the Finance Ministry and other important Ministries dealing with World Bank proposals and projects have been freely allowed to negotiate and take up jobs at the World Bank while in service and immediately after retirement. Many of them are deputed by the Government of India. These deputations also work through the network of Old boys of the World Bank occupying key positions in the government of India. Apart from deputations, there are hosts of other jobs, consultancies, assignments, even travel grants and huge honoraria paid for attending meetings of the World Bank and associated agencies. Thus, R.A. Mashelkar as DG CSIR went on at least 50 trips abroad during his tenure which were paid for by the Bank or the World Intellectual Property Organisation. For most of these trips, he was paid an honorarium of around 500 British pounds a day. As a result of this, he got more as honoraria for these trips than he got as salary from the Government of India. As DG CSIR, he presided over several policy-making committees and advised the government to (for example) amend the Patents Act in line with the needs of multinational corporations of the West. He says that he honestly believes that it is in the best interest of India as well. But, when one knows that juicy junkets, honoraria and assignments depend on whether he falls in line with the Bank and similar agencies, it is easy to convince yourself of the righteousness of the course that is likely to land you with these juicy assignments.
The officials are selected eventually by the Bank and their salaries and honoraria are decided by them, depending on their level and “utility” to the Bank. However, in all cases they are several times, usually ten times or more than, the salaries they get in India. This creates an enormous incentive for the Officials to seek World Bank jobs, assignments, consultancies and even travel grants. Since it is obvious that one is more likely to get these if one toes the World Bank line, it creates an enormous incentive for Officials to fall in line. This is particularly so for “honest” officials who see these jobs and assignments as the only legitimate way of doubling or trebling their savings in a very short while.
The Foreign Contribution Regulation Act which makes it an offence for a government official to accept any material contribution from a foreign agency also exempts the World Bank and other “United Nations agencies”. This has further smoothened the path of those seeking World Bank/IMF/ADB jobs, assignments and travel grants.
This is why there is no critical evaluation of World Bank policies and projects at the government level and they are all virtually accepted uncritically and pushed through. All this has had an enormously deforming effect on policymaking, particularly economic policymaking in the Government of India. It would not be incorrect to say that it is the World Bank, which runs the Reserve Bank, the Finance Ministry and other economic policy making bodies of this country.
For further details contact: secretariat@worldbanktribunal.org
98185 69201, 98681 82289
Saturday, September 15, 2007
More Corruption Scandals
From our friends at the Bretton Woods Project:
[BWP Alert] Volcker panel releases report on Bank anti-graft
unit
The panel headed by former chairman of the US Federal Reserve Paul
Volcker, created to review the work of the World Bank's anti-corruption
unit, the Department of Institutional Integrity (or 'INT' - headed by
Wolfowitz acolyte Suzanne Rich Folsom), released its 40-page report
today:
http://www.independentpanelreview.com/report.shtml
The official report comes a few days after US NGO Government
Accountability Project (GAP) released a scathing parallel examination of
INT, finding some very dodgy practices indeed:
http://www.whistleblower.org/content/press_detail.cfm?press_id=1145
For ongoing discussion of the reports, their fallout and all the gossip
see the blog on IFIwatchnet:http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.italic.gif
insert italic tags
http://ifiwatchnet.org/?q=en/featured_blog/369
And from our friends at BIC:
WSJ: World Bank Wasted Money and Lives in Buying Wrong Medicine
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118955959601924586.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
[BWP Alert] Volcker panel releases report on Bank anti-graft
unit
The panel headed by former chairman of the US Federal Reserve Paul
Volcker, created to review the work of the World Bank's anti-corruption
unit, the Department of Institutional Integrity (or 'INT' - headed by
Wolfowitz acolyte Suzanne Rich Folsom), released its 40-page report
today:
http://www.independentpanelreview.com/report.shtml
The official report comes a few days after US NGO Government
Accountability Project (GAP) released a scathing parallel examination of
INT, finding some very dodgy practices indeed:
http://www.whistleblower.org/content/press_detail.cfm?press_id=1145
For ongoing discussion of the reports, their fallout and all the gossip
see the blog on IFIwatchnet:http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.italic.gif
insert italic tags
http://ifiwatchnet.org/?q=en/featured_blog/369
And from our friends at BIC:
WSJ: World Bank Wasted Money and Lives in Buying Wrong Medicine
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118955959601924586.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
The Cost of Too Many Consultants (ADB and World Bank)
http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=59180
The News International
By Imtiaz Gul
Pakistan is currently witnessing a galore of consultants -- both from the private sector as well as from within the government. They are able to turn around even worst situations and hence a source of strength and new vision for respective departments, so runs the argument in favour of consultants being hired at hefty emoluments.
The Pakistan Image Project had attracted about seven highly-paid consultants. All but Mahreen Khan have said adieu to the project, stating various reasons for their departure. Departmental acrimony, lack of cooperation as well as of authority were some of the factors that forced these consultants out. Most of them were young and talented but probably had landed in the wrong place.
Several other people, however, turned to be luckier, and seem to have successfully taken the October 2005 earthquake tragedy by the horn and turned it into an opportunity.
As many as 15 consultants for instance have made their way into the "Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA)" against hefty salaries. Their prime objective is to regulate the reconstruction and rehabilitation activities in the earthquake-affected areas and to ensure financial transparency.
ERRA insiders say the employment of heavily-paid consultants, most of them from within the same bureaucracy that is accused of obstructionism and inaction, have also fuelled resentment and caused bad blood among scores of other government functionaries, particularly those on deputation; they are drawing just the government salary and some deputation allowance, whereas the consultants, draw amounts at least times of their salaries -- essentially for the same kind of jobs.
This gross disparity in the salary structure also results in bickering and indifference among the people involved in the same project. According to insiders, consultants' salaries, all being drawn from the World Bank and Asian Development Bank loans, range between 6000 to 10,000 dollars in addition to usual perks and privileges. They say this has prompted a number of bureaucrats and technocrats already in the government service to find out as to whether they could also benefit from the system in the same way.
It is surprising how ERRA, PERRA (Provincial Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority) and SERRA (State Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority) can open its gates to outsiders and insiders, mostly well-connected, people and accommodate them against lucrative salaries.
One would hardly contest the premise that jobs must carry incentives to make officials work. But equally disturbing is the disparity which comes across as a blatant discrimination of the majority of the staff, including even the lower, clerical and administrative staff, who prepare the mouth-watering salary and daily allowance bills and invoices of their officers, but themselves hardly get paid decent salaries or allowances.
The way the lower staff and regular employees are hounded by the seniors and the consultants without any extra benefits also causes fissures within the system. But it also underscores the dichotomy in a system on the one hand employs some people with unusually high salaries (for the local conditions) and on the other hand heavily relies on a big disicentivised lower-rung bureaucracy. That is why the Pakistan Image Project consultants failed to create a niche for themselves within the system. To what extent can ERRA, PERRA and SERRA consultants entrench themselves and extract cooperation from their colleagues, remains a matter of speculation as of now.
Although the NGO-led work is much better, yet the pace of work under the three organizations remains slow and objectionable, resulting in protests and occasional blockades of even the Karakorom Highway The common complaint is the dithering and delaying that the nitpicking by consultants and officials causes in the course of project implementation and execution of ground works. So, it remains questionable as to whether highly paid consultants do make a difference?
The writer is an Islamabad-based correspondent of a foreign news organisation. Email: vogul1960@-yahoo.com
The News International
By Imtiaz Gul
Pakistan is currently witnessing a galore of consultants -- both from the private sector as well as from within the government. They are able to turn around even worst situations and hence a source of strength and new vision for respective departments, so runs the argument in favour of consultants being hired at hefty emoluments.
The Pakistan Image Project had attracted about seven highly-paid consultants. All but Mahreen Khan have said adieu to the project, stating various reasons for their departure. Departmental acrimony, lack of cooperation as well as of authority were some of the factors that forced these consultants out. Most of them were young and talented but probably had landed in the wrong place.
Several other people, however, turned to be luckier, and seem to have successfully taken the October 2005 earthquake tragedy by the horn and turned it into an opportunity.
As many as 15 consultants for instance have made their way into the "Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA)" against hefty salaries. Their prime objective is to regulate the reconstruction and rehabilitation activities in the earthquake-affected areas and to ensure financial transparency.
ERRA insiders say the employment of heavily-paid consultants, most of them from within the same bureaucracy that is accused of obstructionism and inaction, have also fuelled resentment and caused bad blood among scores of other government functionaries, particularly those on deputation; they are drawing just the government salary and some deputation allowance, whereas the consultants, draw amounts at least times of their salaries -- essentially for the same kind of jobs.
This gross disparity in the salary structure also results in bickering and indifference among the people involved in the same project. According to insiders, consultants' salaries, all being drawn from the World Bank and Asian Development Bank loans, range between 6000 to 10,000 dollars in addition to usual perks and privileges. They say this has prompted a number of bureaucrats and technocrats already in the government service to find out as to whether they could also benefit from the system in the same way.
It is surprising how ERRA, PERRA (Provincial Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority) and SERRA (State Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority) can open its gates to outsiders and insiders, mostly well-connected, people and accommodate them against lucrative salaries.
One would hardly contest the premise that jobs must carry incentives to make officials work. But equally disturbing is the disparity which comes across as a blatant discrimination of the majority of the staff, including even the lower, clerical and administrative staff, who prepare the mouth-watering salary and daily allowance bills and invoices of their officers, but themselves hardly get paid decent salaries or allowances.
The way the lower staff and regular employees are hounded by the seniors and the consultants without any extra benefits also causes fissures within the system. But it also underscores the dichotomy in a system on the one hand employs some people with unusually high salaries (for the local conditions) and on the other hand heavily relies on a big disicentivised lower-rung bureaucracy. That is why the Pakistan Image Project consultants failed to create a niche for themselves within the system. To what extent can ERRA, PERRA and SERRA consultants entrench themselves and extract cooperation from their colleagues, remains a matter of speculation as of now.
Although the NGO-led work is much better, yet the pace of work under the three organizations remains slow and objectionable, resulting in protests and occasional blockades of even the Karakorom Highway The common complaint is the dithering and delaying that the nitpicking by consultants and officials causes in the course of project implementation and execution of ground works. So, it remains questionable as to whether highly paid consultants do make a difference?
The writer is an Islamabad-based correspondent of a foreign news organisation. Email: vogul1960@-yahoo.com
Corporate Power and Influence in the World Bank
http://www.stwr.net/content/view/2176/37/
Corporate influence11th September 07 - Shalmali Guttal, Focus on the
Global South
Every year, the World Bank (Bank) channels US$ 18-20 billion to developing
countries in the form of loans and grants with the ostensible aim of
reducing poverty and promoting economic growth. The Bank always acts in
tandem with its sibling agency, the International Monetary Fund (Fund),
even in countries that no longer borrow from the Fund. Not all Bank
financing and support goes to governments. A significant amount goes
directly to the private sector, especially large corporations, in the form
of loans, technical assistance and mitigation of investment risks.
Backing the Rich
In existence for over 60 years, the Bank has expanded from a single
institution-the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(IBRD)--to five institutions, each dealing with a particular area of
operations. [1] These include financing and other supports for relief and
rehabilitation, physical and institutional infrastructure in sectors such
as energy, transportation, extractive industry and telecommunications,
restructuring of key sectors such as health, education, water and
agriculture to make them private sector and market friendly, private
sector development, and mitigating investment-associated risks for private
companies. Despite recent scandals, the Bank is a powerful institution. In
most of its client countries, it is virtually the only doorway to access
international trade, development finance and private investment capital.
It derives its power and policy agendas from its wealthiest shareholders
--governments that comprise the G-7 [2], who routinely use the Bank to
secure lucrative trade and investment deals in developing countries for
their respective transnational corporations (TNCs).
Corporate influence is manifested in and through the Bank in several ways.
Most obvious are the supports extended to private corporations through
three of its specialised institutions: the International Finance
Corporation (IFC), Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) and
International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
The IFC is the private sector arm of the Bank and the world's largest
multilateral source of equity and loan financing for private enterprises
in developing countries. It claims to support economic development,
employment and poverty reduction by promoting open, competitive and
efficient markets and direct support for private companies in developing
countries. The IFC has developed a range of financial tools and services
to enable private companies to manage investment risks and broaden their
access to capital and developing country markets. The Bank and IFC have
also established the "Rapid Response knowledge initiative," which
specializes in policy advice on business environment reforms and
privatization policy in developing countries. The initiative maintains a
cyber-service called "Private sector blog-a market approach to development
thinking" to promote its pro-market, pro-corporate ideology. [3].
A closer look at IFC operations show that much of its support actually
goes to large, well-funded corporations and not to small-scale, local
entrepreneurs. Through the IFC, corporations get access to large,
government-sponsored infrastructure and service delivery projects and
investment opportunities that are relatively risk free. Local communities,
on the other hand, have little voice and no benefits in these investments
as social and environmental safeguards are increasingly overridden by
corporate demands for profits.
MIGA provides some of the most important services to private corporations
by mitigating the political risks of private investment in high risk, low
income and conflict-affected countries. MIGA's forte is political or
sovereign risk, which includes governmental actions that jeopardize
corporate revenues. MIGA risk guarantees protect corporate investors
against loss resulting from government expropriation of assets and breach
of contract, war and civil disturbance including insurrection, coups
d'état, revolution, sabotage, and terrorism. MIGA prides itself as a
leader in the political risk insurance industry and collaborates with
private and public insurers to "encourage private sector insurers into
transactions they would not have otherwise undertaken."[4] MIGA's
beneficiaries are generally TNCs in sectors such as water, energy, oil and
gas, telecommunications, automobiles, agribusiness and luxury hospitality.
MIGA also provides "dispute mediation" services and in this, it is
complemented by ICSID, which serves as a private, almost secret court to
settle disputes between states and private investors. ICSID has been in
the public spotlight recently because of a US$ 50 million lawsuit brought
against the Bolivian Government by Bechtel and Aguas Del Tunari for
cancellation of a water privatisation contract in the Bolivian town of
Cochabamba. A massive, coordinated international campaign against Bechtel
forced it to accept 30 cents as its settlement. But the case directed the
world's attention to the Bank's system of closed door trade courts, the
majority of which involve protecting the rights of corporate investors in
crucial public interest sectors such as water, electricity,
telecommunications, oil, natural gas and mining.
Corporate Support Disguised as “Development”
Less blatant, though more insidious and pervasive, are the pro-corporate
policy prescriptions that accompany Bank financing for so called
"development" projects and programmes through the IBRD and International
Development Association (IDA). Especially notorious are Bank-Fund designed
economic reform packages which seek to establish small, efficient and
corporate friendly governments to rule over corporate friendly capitalist
economies. Once called Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) and then
renamed "poverty reduction strategies," these reform packages are designed
to open up the markets and economies of borrowing countries to foreign
investors through trade and investment liberalisation, privatisation of
public utilities, state marketing boards and state enterprises, and
financial deregulation. Reforms also demand that cross subsidies for the
poor, and protections for workers and domestic producers and enterprises
be eliminated, and publicly financed social programmes--including those in
health, education, water and sanitation-be drastically cut back.
Although the ostensible goal of the Bank's "development finance" is to
alleviate poverty, increase employment and raise living standards by
stimulating rapid economic growth, Bank projects and programmes deliver
far greater benefits to private corporations, contractors and consulting
firms than to the poor. The Bank's push for trade liberalisation coupled
with the removal of government supports for domestic producers and
enterprises provides foreign corporations unrestricted access to
developing country markets in crucial sectors such as agriculture,
services and industry. By insisting that borrowing countries shrink labour
and environmental regulations and establish corporate friendly taxation
and property regimes, the Bank virtually assures private investors a free
ride at the cost of local communities, workers and environments.
The Bank's almost religious belief in commercialisation and privatisation
has served corporations extremely well. Regardless of the problem or
sector (water, electricity, agricultural marketing, health, education,
etc.) the Bank demands that the government step back and the market step
in. Privatisation includes a range of measures: from unbundling (or
breaking up) operations in a public enterprise and outsourcing (or
contracting out) the unbundled operations to eventual sale of the public
enterprise either whole or in part. Included in the package are contracts
for privately provided, high-end "technical assistance" and procurement of
ancillary goods and services. Although the Bank insists that procurement
and contracting are the responsibilities of the implementing agency [5]
(usually a government department), privatised assets, and construction,
consultancy and procurement contracts generally go to large corporations,
contractors and consulting firms that are well versed with Bank rules for
bidding and procurement.
The 'symbiosis' between the Bank and corporations is well demonstrated in
the biotechnology and agrochemical industries. The Bank's agriculture
policies have been practically written by corporations such as Monsanto,
Aventis, Novartis and Dow. Even as the Bank expanded its rhetoric about
environmental sustainability in the 1990s, its projects advocated
increasing farmers' access to agrochemicals and genetically modified
seeds. During this time, the Bank also entered into business partnerships
with nearly all leading pesticide and biotechnology companies through a
staff exchange programme that involved 189 corporations, governments,
universities and international agencies. A marketing analyst from Aventis
(now Bayer CropScience) spent nearly four years in the IBRD to develop
IBRD's position on agricultural biotechnology and strategies to leverage
financing through the IFC. Novartis' (now Syngenta) head of public affairs
spent a year working on outreach strategies for the Bank's rural
development unit. Bank officials placed in Novartis and Rhone Poulenc Agro
(now part of Bayer) in the late 1990s assisted them with biotechnology
regulatory issues and rural development partnerships. The Bank thus
adjusted its agricultural strategies to satisfy leading biotechnology and
agrochemical corporations which in turn gained access to public policy
making in developing countries via Bank sponsorship.[6].
Pro-corporate thinking is deeply embedded in the Bank. Many of the Bank's
presidents and senior staff come from the corporate sector and "market
solutions" feature prominently in the Bank's strategies for addressing
virtually any challenge whether deforestation, global warming or food and
water scarcity. The Bank's development vision is a capitalist one in which
the role of government is to create an "enabling environment" for the
private (corporate) sector to flourish and for the market to sort out
crucial issues of access and distribution. In large hydro-power projects
for example, the Bank routinely assists host governments and private
contractors in project preparation and mobilising project finance: it
hires private consulting firms to work alongside government departments to
design the project and implementing arrangements, mobilises project
financing (through the IFC) and underwrites the loans (through MIGA or
other partnering risk guarantors). The costs of environmental and social
mitigation are left to government and society, and the terms of project
financing and guarantees generally favour private companies over the
larger public interest.
The Bank is proud of its support for corporations and private investors,
as expressed on the MIGA website:
"Our presence in a potential investment can literally transform a "no-go"
into a "go." We act as a potent deterrent against government actions that
may adversely affect investments. And even if disputes do arise, our
leverage with host governments frequently enables us to resolve
differences to the mutual satisfaction of all parties."[7].
For several decades now, the Bank has used development and poverty
reduction as smokescreens to further corporate interests. It has used its
position as preferred creditor and aid coordinator in developing countries
to create opportunities for private corporations, contractors and
consultants to profit from structural needs and crises in developing
countries. Clearly, dismantling corporate power over our public goods,
services and commons will also require dismantling the World Bank.
Shalmali Guttal is a senior associate with Focus on the Global South.
Corporate influence11th September 07 - Shalmali Guttal, Focus on the
Global South
Every year, the World Bank (Bank) channels US$ 18-20 billion to developing
countries in the form of loans and grants with the ostensible aim of
reducing poverty and promoting economic growth. The Bank always acts in
tandem with its sibling agency, the International Monetary Fund (Fund),
even in countries that no longer borrow from the Fund. Not all Bank
financing and support goes to governments. A significant amount goes
directly to the private sector, especially large corporations, in the form
of loans, technical assistance and mitigation of investment risks.
Backing the Rich
In existence for over 60 years, the Bank has expanded from a single
institution-the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(IBRD)--to five institutions, each dealing with a particular area of
operations. [1] These include financing and other supports for relief and
rehabilitation, physical and institutional infrastructure in sectors such
as energy, transportation, extractive industry and telecommunications,
restructuring of key sectors such as health, education, water and
agriculture to make them private sector and market friendly, private
sector development, and mitigating investment-associated risks for private
companies. Despite recent scandals, the Bank is a powerful institution. In
most of its client countries, it is virtually the only doorway to access
international trade, development finance and private investment capital.
It derives its power and policy agendas from its wealthiest shareholders
--governments that comprise the G-7 [2], who routinely use the Bank to
secure lucrative trade and investment deals in developing countries for
their respective transnational corporations (TNCs).
Corporate influence is manifested in and through the Bank in several ways.
Most obvious are the supports extended to private corporations through
three of its specialised institutions: the International Finance
Corporation (IFC), Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) and
International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
The IFC is the private sector arm of the Bank and the world's largest
multilateral source of equity and loan financing for private enterprises
in developing countries. It claims to support economic development,
employment and poverty reduction by promoting open, competitive and
efficient markets and direct support for private companies in developing
countries. The IFC has developed a range of financial tools and services
to enable private companies to manage investment risks and broaden their
access to capital and developing country markets. The Bank and IFC have
also established the "Rapid Response knowledge initiative," which
specializes in policy advice on business environment reforms and
privatization policy in developing countries. The initiative maintains a
cyber-service called "Private sector blog-a market approach to development
thinking" to promote its pro-market, pro-corporate ideology. [3].
A closer look at IFC operations show that much of its support actually
goes to large, well-funded corporations and not to small-scale, local
entrepreneurs. Through the IFC, corporations get access to large,
government-sponsored infrastructure and service delivery projects and
investment opportunities that are relatively risk free. Local communities,
on the other hand, have little voice and no benefits in these investments
as social and environmental safeguards are increasingly overridden by
corporate demands for profits.
MIGA provides some of the most important services to private corporations
by mitigating the political risks of private investment in high risk, low
income and conflict-affected countries. MIGA's forte is political or
sovereign risk, which includes governmental actions that jeopardize
corporate revenues. MIGA risk guarantees protect corporate investors
against loss resulting from government expropriation of assets and breach
of contract, war and civil disturbance including insurrection, coups
d'état, revolution, sabotage, and terrorism. MIGA prides itself as a
leader in the political risk insurance industry and collaborates with
private and public insurers to "encourage private sector insurers into
transactions they would not have otherwise undertaken."[4] MIGA's
beneficiaries are generally TNCs in sectors such as water, energy, oil and
gas, telecommunications, automobiles, agribusiness and luxury hospitality.
MIGA also provides "dispute mediation" services and in this, it is
complemented by ICSID, which serves as a private, almost secret court to
settle disputes between states and private investors. ICSID has been in
the public spotlight recently because of a US$ 50 million lawsuit brought
against the Bolivian Government by Bechtel and Aguas Del Tunari for
cancellation of a water privatisation contract in the Bolivian town of
Cochabamba. A massive, coordinated international campaign against Bechtel
forced it to accept 30 cents as its settlement. But the case directed the
world's attention to the Bank's system of closed door trade courts, the
majority of which involve protecting the rights of corporate investors in
crucial public interest sectors such as water, electricity,
telecommunications, oil, natural gas and mining.
Corporate Support Disguised as “Development”
Less blatant, though more insidious and pervasive, are the pro-corporate
policy prescriptions that accompany Bank financing for so called
"development" projects and programmes through the IBRD and International
Development Association (IDA). Especially notorious are Bank-Fund designed
economic reform packages which seek to establish small, efficient and
corporate friendly governments to rule over corporate friendly capitalist
economies. Once called Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) and then
renamed "poverty reduction strategies," these reform packages are designed
to open up the markets and economies of borrowing countries to foreign
investors through trade and investment liberalisation, privatisation of
public utilities, state marketing boards and state enterprises, and
financial deregulation. Reforms also demand that cross subsidies for the
poor, and protections for workers and domestic producers and enterprises
be eliminated, and publicly financed social programmes--including those in
health, education, water and sanitation-be drastically cut back.
Although the ostensible goal of the Bank's "development finance" is to
alleviate poverty, increase employment and raise living standards by
stimulating rapid economic growth, Bank projects and programmes deliver
far greater benefits to private corporations, contractors and consulting
firms than to the poor. The Bank's push for trade liberalisation coupled
with the removal of government supports for domestic producers and
enterprises provides foreign corporations unrestricted access to
developing country markets in crucial sectors such as agriculture,
services and industry. By insisting that borrowing countries shrink labour
and environmental regulations and establish corporate friendly taxation
and property regimes, the Bank virtually assures private investors a free
ride at the cost of local communities, workers and environments.
The Bank's almost religious belief in commercialisation and privatisation
has served corporations extremely well. Regardless of the problem or
sector (water, electricity, agricultural marketing, health, education,
etc.) the Bank demands that the government step back and the market step
in. Privatisation includes a range of measures: from unbundling (or
breaking up) operations in a public enterprise and outsourcing (or
contracting out) the unbundled operations to eventual sale of the public
enterprise either whole or in part. Included in the package are contracts
for privately provided, high-end "technical assistance" and procurement of
ancillary goods and services. Although the Bank insists that procurement
and contracting are the responsibilities of the implementing agency [5]
(usually a government department), privatised assets, and construction,
consultancy and procurement contracts generally go to large corporations,
contractors and consulting firms that are well versed with Bank rules for
bidding and procurement.
The 'symbiosis' between the Bank and corporations is well demonstrated in
the biotechnology and agrochemical industries. The Bank's agriculture
policies have been practically written by corporations such as Monsanto,
Aventis, Novartis and Dow. Even as the Bank expanded its rhetoric about
environmental sustainability in the 1990s, its projects advocated
increasing farmers' access to agrochemicals and genetically modified
seeds. During this time, the Bank also entered into business partnerships
with nearly all leading pesticide and biotechnology companies through a
staff exchange programme that involved 189 corporations, governments,
universities and international agencies. A marketing analyst from Aventis
(now Bayer CropScience) spent nearly four years in the IBRD to develop
IBRD's position on agricultural biotechnology and strategies to leverage
financing through the IFC. Novartis' (now Syngenta) head of public affairs
spent a year working on outreach strategies for the Bank's rural
development unit. Bank officials placed in Novartis and Rhone Poulenc Agro
(now part of Bayer) in the late 1990s assisted them with biotechnology
regulatory issues and rural development partnerships. The Bank thus
adjusted its agricultural strategies to satisfy leading biotechnology and
agrochemical corporations which in turn gained access to public policy
making in developing countries via Bank sponsorship.[6].
Pro-corporate thinking is deeply embedded in the Bank. Many of the Bank's
presidents and senior staff come from the corporate sector and "market
solutions" feature prominently in the Bank's strategies for addressing
virtually any challenge whether deforestation, global warming or food and
water scarcity. The Bank's development vision is a capitalist one in which
the role of government is to create an "enabling environment" for the
private (corporate) sector to flourish and for the market to sort out
crucial issues of access and distribution. In large hydro-power projects
for example, the Bank routinely assists host governments and private
contractors in project preparation and mobilising project finance: it
hires private consulting firms to work alongside government departments to
design the project and implementing arrangements, mobilises project
financing (through the IFC) and underwrites the loans (through MIGA or
other partnering risk guarantors). The costs of environmental and social
mitigation are left to government and society, and the terms of project
financing and guarantees generally favour private companies over the
larger public interest.
The Bank is proud of its support for corporations and private investors,
as expressed on the MIGA website:
"Our presence in a potential investment can literally transform a "no-go"
into a "go." We act as a potent deterrent against government actions that
may adversely affect investments. And even if disputes do arise, our
leverage with host governments frequently enables us to resolve
differences to the mutual satisfaction of all parties."[7].
For several decades now, the Bank has used development and poverty
reduction as smokescreens to further corporate interests. It has used its
position as preferred creditor and aid coordinator in developing countries
to create opportunities for private corporations, contractors and
consultants to profit from structural needs and crises in developing
countries. Clearly, dismantling corporate power over our public goods,
services and commons will also require dismantling the World Bank.
Shalmali Guttal is a senior associate with Focus on the Global South.
Monday, September 10, 2007
India's Leading Economists and Activists to Discuss Post - World Bank Development Alternatives
At the World Bank Tribunal coming up this 21-24 September at Jawaharlal Nehru University, evening sessions organized by the JNU Teachers Association in collaboration with a number of Delhi Based groups will be held to ask, "What are the alternative models for India's Development"?
While the Tribunal itself will provide a vast breadth and depth of testimony as to the painful consequences of privatization and other World Bank policies, the overall event is planned to be an open space for envisioning new or missed paths of what Amit Bhaduri calls "development with dignity".
The 4 day event will bring together activists and academics from all around the country to work together on new strategies and concrete next steps to redirect the current trajectory in India where capital is becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of the few.
Participate!
www.worldbanktribunal.org
While the Tribunal itself will provide a vast breadth and depth of testimony as to the painful consequences of privatization and other World Bank policies, the overall event is planned to be an open space for envisioning new or missed paths of what Amit Bhaduri calls "development with dignity".
The 4 day event will bring together activists and academics from all around the country to work together on new strategies and concrete next steps to redirect the current trajectory in India where capital is becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of the few.
Participate!
www.worldbanktribunal.org
Friday, September 7, 2007
India was World Bank's largest borrower in 2007
India was by far the largest borrower from two World Bank institutions, accounting for $3.75 billion, or 15 percent of their total lending as the bank group globally committed $34.3 billion in fiscal year 2007.
Q: Where did the money borrowed from the World Bank by Indian Goverment go?
http://www.indiaenews.com/america/20070906/68862.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The World Bank's programme in India focuses on providing basic services such as access to clean water and education, improving infrastructure for rural areas, and employment. The increase also reflects $700 million in lending to the health sector to India which was carried over from the previous year,according to a World Bank release.
The World Bank Group extended loans, credits, grants, equity investments, and guarantees totalling nearly $6.9 billion to South Asia in fiscal year 2007, an increase of $2.3 billion over the previous year.
The increase demonstrated the institution's continuing role in fighting poverty as South Asian countries look for ways to tackle their social challenges even while most of their economies grew aggressively, it said.
Contributing to this increase was: $1.6 billion from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), $4.03 billion from the International Development Association (IDA), $1.18 billion from the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and $76 million from the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Investment Agency (MIGA).
'South Asia is home to the largest number of people in the world living below one dollar a day, so the agenda for poverty alleviation in the region remains very large,' said Praful Patel, World Bank Vice President for South Asia.
'The lending numbers from the IDA and IBRD in Fiscal Year 2007 are in line with the scaling up strategy we developed for the region three years ago.'
'There's a huge demand for IDA resources in South Asia and there's a huge prospect for making a real impact on the ground to reduce poverty,' said Patel. 'These types of programmes would not be possible without IDA funding. IDA leverages government programmes, enabling them to innovate and scale up.'
Many of the Bank's projects in the last fiscal year supported existing programmes that are delivering results. Looking ahead, the Bank will focus on cross-cutting reforms such as governance and fiscal management, and continue addressing deficiencies in the region's investment climate, such as weak infrastructure, red tape, and corruption.
It will also deepen its engagement in states where poverty is increasingly concentrated, such as Orissa and Bihar in India and Sindh in Pakistan.
IFC's investment commitments in the South Asia region reached $1.07 billion for 30 projects in FY07, and it mobilised an additional $102 million through syndications.
Three quarters of the $2.6 billion of the disbursed and outstanding regional portfolio is in India, with Bangladesh at $147 million, the second largest.
Private sector projects worth $3 billion were supported as a result of IFC's assistance to the Indian corporate sector. IFC doubled its committed portfolio in India in the infrastructure sector, to $600 million. Investments ranged from natural gas to wind power and from port services to a fund for developing public-private projects in infrastructure sector.
'The South Asia Region has been acknowledged as a leader in impact Evaluations - to better understand what works and what doesn't work, so governments and the Bank can decide what should be scaled up and what should be scaled down,' said Shanta Devarajan, World Bank Chief Economist for South Asia.
This year also saw earlier Bank analytical work having policy impact. Estimates of teacher absenteeism in India, for example, have contributed to a shift in the focus of India's major primary education programme towards improved education quality, the Bank said.
In response to the Bank's Doing Business report, the Indian government set up a Committee of Secretaries in November 2006. This Committee has directed that action is taken to reduce the time and cost of doing business in the country.
Q: Where did the money borrowed from the World Bank by Indian Goverment go?
http://www.indiaenews.com/america/20070906/68862.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The World Bank's programme in India focuses on providing basic services such as access to clean water and education, improving infrastructure for rural areas, and employment. The increase also reflects $700 million in lending to the health sector to India which was carried over from the previous year,according to a World Bank release.
The World Bank Group extended loans, credits, grants, equity investments, and guarantees totalling nearly $6.9 billion to South Asia in fiscal year 2007, an increase of $2.3 billion over the previous year.
The increase demonstrated the institution's continuing role in fighting poverty as South Asian countries look for ways to tackle their social challenges even while most of their economies grew aggressively, it said.
Contributing to this increase was: $1.6 billion from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), $4.03 billion from the International Development Association (IDA), $1.18 billion from the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and $76 million from the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Investment Agency (MIGA).
'South Asia is home to the largest number of people in the world living below one dollar a day, so the agenda for poverty alleviation in the region remains very large,' said Praful Patel, World Bank Vice President for South Asia.
'The lending numbers from the IDA and IBRD in Fiscal Year 2007 are in line with the scaling up strategy we developed for the region three years ago.'
'There's a huge demand for IDA resources in South Asia and there's a huge prospect for making a real impact on the ground to reduce poverty,' said Patel. 'These types of programmes would not be possible without IDA funding. IDA leverages government programmes, enabling them to innovate and scale up.'
Many of the Bank's projects in the last fiscal year supported existing programmes that are delivering results. Looking ahead, the Bank will focus on cross-cutting reforms such as governance and fiscal management, and continue addressing deficiencies in the region's investment climate, such as weak infrastructure, red tape, and corruption.
It will also deepen its engagement in states where poverty is increasingly concentrated, such as Orissa and Bihar in India and Sindh in Pakistan.
IFC's investment commitments in the South Asia region reached $1.07 billion for 30 projects in FY07, and it mobilised an additional $102 million through syndications.
Three quarters of the $2.6 billion of the disbursed and outstanding regional portfolio is in India, with Bangladesh at $147 million, the second largest.
Private sector projects worth $3 billion were supported as a result of IFC's assistance to the Indian corporate sector. IFC doubled its committed portfolio in India in the infrastructure sector, to $600 million. Investments ranged from natural gas to wind power and from port services to a fund for developing public-private projects in infrastructure sector.
'The South Asia Region has been acknowledged as a leader in impact Evaluations - to better understand what works and what doesn't work, so governments and the Bank can decide what should be scaled up and what should be scaled down,' said Shanta Devarajan, World Bank Chief Economist for South Asia.
This year also saw earlier Bank analytical work having policy impact. Estimates of teacher absenteeism in India, for example, have contributed to a shift in the focus of India's major primary education programme towards improved education quality, the Bank said.
In response to the Bank's Doing Business report, the Indian government set up a Committee of Secretaries in November 2006. This Committee has directed that action is taken to reduce the time and cost of doing business in the country.
World Bank Hides Incriminating Corruption Report
A 16 page report clearly links the World Bank to a corruption scandal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Bank Hides Incriminating Corruption Report
Months after its president was forced out for getting his girlfriend promotions and hefty pay raises, officials at the scandal-plagued World Bank are working to kill a scathing report on the rampant fraud in a major bank-supported health care project in India.
After a thorough investigation, the World Bank’s Department of Institutional Integrity found that an Indian pharmaceutical program called Reproductive and Child Health Project has for years been rife with corruption that has led to the loss of billions of dollars.
A 16-page report reveals that the systematic fraud and corruption includes bribery of government officials and procurement support agencies, falsification of performance certificates and coercion of companies.
This includes costly but sub-standard drugs that exceeded World Bank budgets as well as other equipment that didn’t meet international standards.
Investigators say that multiple witnesses admitted bribing government officials and ministers in order to secure the bank-funded contracts and that there is plenty of evidence to merit sanctions against specific individuals and companies. This risks the future of similar programs intended to help the poor.
In fact, the 185-nation World Bank strives to reduce poverty worldwide by assisting developing countries but instead it has been infested with corrupt officials who have failed miserably to complete the institution’s mission.
When President George W. Bush appointed Paul Wolfowitz as World Bank president in 2006, both men vowed to clean house and fervently pursue anti-corruption policies. Wolfowitz had been a high-ranking official in three different Republican administrations and was the nation’s Deputy Defense Secretary before taking the World Bank post.
But after a rather short tenure Wolfowitz resigned because he was exposed for abusing his authority to get his girlfriend promotions and huge pay increases at the institution. Wolfowitz admitted that he personally directed the World Bank’s head of human resources to offer his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, a pay increase that drew attention because it was more than double allowed under staff rules.
Read the 16 page report :
http://www.corruptionchronicles.com/2007/09/world_bank_hides_incriminating.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Bank Hides Incriminating Corruption Report
Months after its president was forced out for getting his girlfriend promotions and hefty pay raises, officials at the scandal-plagued World Bank are working to kill a scathing report on the rampant fraud in a major bank-supported health care project in India.
After a thorough investigation, the World Bank’s Department of Institutional Integrity found that an Indian pharmaceutical program called Reproductive and Child Health Project has for years been rife with corruption that has led to the loss of billions of dollars.
A 16-page report reveals that the systematic fraud and corruption includes bribery of government officials and procurement support agencies, falsification of performance certificates and coercion of companies.
This includes costly but sub-standard drugs that exceeded World Bank budgets as well as other equipment that didn’t meet international standards.
Investigators say that multiple witnesses admitted bribing government officials and ministers in order to secure the bank-funded contracts and that there is plenty of evidence to merit sanctions against specific individuals and companies. This risks the future of similar programs intended to help the poor.
In fact, the 185-nation World Bank strives to reduce poverty worldwide by assisting developing countries but instead it has been infested with corrupt officials who have failed miserably to complete the institution’s mission.
When President George W. Bush appointed Paul Wolfowitz as World Bank president in 2006, both men vowed to clean house and fervently pursue anti-corruption policies. Wolfowitz had been a high-ranking official in three different Republican administrations and was the nation’s Deputy Defense Secretary before taking the World Bank post.
But after a rather short tenure Wolfowitz resigned because he was exposed for abusing his authority to get his girlfriend promotions and huge pay increases at the institution. Wolfowitz admitted that he personally directed the World Bank’s head of human resources to offer his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, a pay increase that drew attention because it was more than double allowed under staff rules.
Read the 16 page report :
http://www.corruptionchronicles.com/2007/09/world_bank_hides_incriminating.html
Thursday, September 6, 2007
LATEST WORLD BANK BIOSAFETY PROPOSAL HEAVILY CRITICISED.
LATEST WORLD BANK BIOSAFETY PROPOSAL FOR WEST AFRICA HEAVILY CRITICISED.
http://www.grain.org/m/?id=142
The World Bank has revised and resubmitted its new version of the West African biosafety project to the United Nation's Global Environment Facility after deep concerns were raised by civil society groups and governments with the initial proposal.
In response, COPAGEN, the Coalition for the Protection of African Genetic Heritage which is based across West Africa in Burkina Faso, Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea Bissau, Guinea Conakry, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Togo, has reacted angrily to this proposal. The proposal appears to have little support from the grassroots and has blatantly made it difficult for most to participate; participation has been selective and the main language has been English, despite nearly all countries involved having French as their official language. The new proposal is also only available as an enormous file, making it difficult for many people in West Africa to access.
The German government council member of GEF (Global Environment Facility) has also heavily criticised this latest proposal.
For more information on this and links to documents visit http://www.grain.org/m/?id=142
http://www.grain.org/m/?id=142
The World Bank has revised and resubmitted its new version of the West African biosafety project to the United Nation's Global Environment Facility after deep concerns were raised by civil society groups and governments with the initial proposal.
In response, COPAGEN, the Coalition for the Protection of African Genetic Heritage which is based across West Africa in Burkina Faso, Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea Bissau, Guinea Conakry, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Togo, has reacted angrily to this proposal. The proposal appears to have little support from the grassroots and has blatantly made it difficult for most to participate; participation has been selective and the main language has been English, despite nearly all countries involved having French as their official language. The new proposal is also only available as an enormous file, making it difficult for many people in West Africa to access.
The German government council member of GEF (Global Environment Facility) has also heavily criticised this latest proposal.
For more information on this and links to documents visit http://www.grain.org/m/?id=142
World Bank Wonders: Who Needs the World Bank Anyway?
Amidst a global movement to rid debtor countries from the outside influence of the World bank and its cronies in Washington, the Bank itself wonders how to improve its lending portfolio. With many new competitors in the investor pool, the new World Bank President is strategizing on the future of the Bank and looking into new lending instruments and operational tactics.
Formerly Vice Chairman, International, of Goldman Sachs Group, and a Managing Director and Chairman of Goldman Sach’s Board of International Advisors, this comes as no surprise.
See the International Herald Tribune 28 August:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/28/business/zoellick.php
Given the power the Bank has over debtor countries institutional and policy frameworks, new "products" designed on Wall Street and sold by the Washington controlled Bank is exactly what Southern borrowers don't need.
Hundreds from India will challenge the entire notion of World Bank and Private Capital interference in the nation's policy framework at the World Bank Tribunal this September at JNU, New Delhi.
Find out how to participate at www.worldbanktribunal.org
Formerly Vice Chairman, International, of Goldman Sachs Group, and a Managing Director and Chairman of Goldman Sach’s Board of International Advisors, this comes as no surprise.
See the International Herald Tribune 28 August:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/28/business/zoellick.php
Given the power the Bank has over debtor countries institutional and policy frameworks, new "products" designed on Wall Street and sold by the Washington controlled Bank is exactly what Southern borrowers don't need.
Hundreds from India will challenge the entire notion of World Bank and Private Capital interference in the nation's policy framework at the World Bank Tribunal this September at JNU, New Delhi.
Find out how to participate at www.worldbanktribunal.org
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Over a Hundred Will Speak Out at the World Bank Tribunal in India: Programme Announced
Over a hundred people from across the country will present testimony at the Independent People's Tribunal on the World Bank in India this month. From 21-24 September intellectuals, grassroots activists, and those simply willing to come forward to speak about the impact of World Bank projects and policies on their communities will convene at Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Those listening from the Jury are:
* Professor Amit Bhaduri
* Meher Engineer
* Ramaswamy Iyer
* Prabash Joshi
* Abid Hassan Minto
* Alejandro Nadal
* Aruna Roy
* Arundhati Roy
* Justice P.B. Sawant
* S.P. Shukla
* Sulak Sivaraksa
* Justice Suresh
* Eric Toussaint
* Justice Usha
Download the full schedule at:
www.worldbanktribunal.org/WBT_Program Schedule_v1.pdf
Registration is Open!
www.worldbanktribunal.org/WBT_Registration.doc
Full Tribunal details are available at:
www.worldbanktribunal.org
To sign up for the mailing list visit:
https://lists.riseup.net/www/subscribe/worldbanktribunal
For all other inquiries please contact secretariat@worldbanktribunal.org
Those listening from the Jury are:
* Professor Amit Bhaduri
* Meher Engineer
* Ramaswamy Iyer
* Prabash Joshi
* Abid Hassan Minto
* Alejandro Nadal
* Aruna Roy
* Arundhati Roy
* Justice P.B. Sawant
* S.P. Shukla
* Sulak Sivaraksa
* Justice Suresh
* Eric Toussaint
* Justice Usha
Download the full schedule at:
www.worldbanktribunal.org/WBT_Program Schedule_v1.pdf
Registration is Open!
www.worldbanktribunal.org/WBT_Registration.doc
Full Tribunal details are available at:
www.worldbanktribunal.org
To sign up for the mailing list visit:
https://lists.riseup.net/www/subscribe/worldbanktribunal
For all other inquiries please contact secretariat@worldbanktribunal.org
Monday, September 3, 2007
World Bank framing long-term strategy
Q: Is there any way to access the following World Bank draft strategy ? - Vinay Baindur
Read the following article published in Hindu :
Date:02/09/2007
URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2007/09/02/stories/2007090260530800.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Bank framing long-term strategy
Ashok Dasgupta
NEW DELHI: With globalisation changing the contours of economic decision-making across the world, the World Bank is reorienting its strategy to see how best it can serve the needs of various countries in the years to come.
Armed with a draft framework of the long-term strategy, the Bank's Global Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President Francois Bourguignon is on a whirlwind global tour to get a feedback on the ongoing exercise to see how best the Bank can stay relevant to the needs of various developing countries in the next 10-20 years.
In an exclusive interview with The Hindu on Saturday, Mr. Bourguignon, who is here on a two-day visit for deliberations with think-tanks and apex chambers on the issue, said: "I have been coming to India for quite some time, b ut this specific visit is within the framework of the world tour I am making to get a feedback on an exercise, which we are conducting in the Bank to try and figure out what could be the elements on which we could rely on to design a long-term strategy for the World Bank in the next 10-20 years."
As the new President is concerned with the long-term directions of the World Bank, "we thought it was important to lay down an analytical groundwork for this kind of strategic decisions. So we have written a kind of draft and I am travelling around the world to get a feedback from various countries," he said.
While the exercise has been some kind of a learning experience for the Bank, at the same time, "it is a kind of review of what has been done in the past and the lessons that we can draw from that experience and it is also drawing on that experience to figure out what we should do in the future. What do we think would be the needs in the future for World Bank help or intervention and, at the same time, what is the way in which the Bank should help intervene in countries in the future," he said.
For some time already, the Bank has modified the way in which it does business and relates with its partner countries. Elaborating on the change, Mr Bourguignon said: "I would say that the old days of structural adjustment policies are now gone. From this, we learnt that certainly, we cannot be too rigid on the kind of policies we recommend, that the policies must depend on individual circumstances of a country and, may be, in the circumstances which are time dependent," and we learnt that it was essential for the policies to be owned or to be decided by our partner countries rather than imposed by the World Bank."
Read the following article published in Hindu :
Date:02/09/2007
URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2007/09/02/stories/2007090260530800.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Bank framing long-term strategy
Ashok Dasgupta
NEW DELHI: With globalisation changing the contours of economic decision-making across the world, the World Bank is reorienting its strategy to see how best it can serve the needs of various countries in the years to come.
Armed with a draft framework of the long-term strategy, the Bank's Global Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President Francois Bourguignon is on a whirlwind global tour to get a feedback on the ongoing exercise to see how best the Bank can stay relevant to the needs of various developing countries in the next 10-20 years.
In an exclusive interview with The Hindu on Saturday, Mr. Bourguignon, who is here on a two-day visit for deliberations with think-tanks and apex chambers on the issue, said: "I have been coming to India for quite some time, b ut this specific visit is within the framework of the world tour I am making to get a feedback on an exercise, which we are conducting in the Bank to try and figure out what could be the elements on which we could rely on to design a long-term strategy for the World Bank in the next 10-20 years."
As the new President is concerned with the long-term directions of the World Bank, "we thought it was important to lay down an analytical groundwork for this kind of strategic decisions. So we have written a kind of draft and I am travelling around the world to get a feedback from various countries," he said.
While the exercise has been some kind of a learning experience for the Bank, at the same time, "it is a kind of review of what has been done in the past and the lessons that we can draw from that experience and it is also drawing on that experience to figure out what we should do in the future. What do we think would be the needs in the future for World Bank help or intervention and, at the same time, what is the way in which the Bank should help intervene in countries in the future," he said.
For some time already, the Bank has modified the way in which it does business and relates with its partner countries. Elaborating on the change, Mr Bourguignon said: "I would say that the old days of structural adjustment policies are now gone. From this, we learnt that certainly, we cannot be too rigid on the kind of policies we recommend, that the policies must depend on individual circumstances of a country and, may be, in the circumstances which are time dependent," and we learnt that it was essential for the policies to be owned or to be decided by our partner countries rather than imposed by the World Bank."
Saturday, September 1, 2007
October 2007: Action Against World Bank & IMF
Disrupt the IMF and the World Bank meetings: Washington DC, October 19-21, 2007
For more information:www.octoberrebellion.org
The misery, marginalization, and impoverishment forced on millions bythe International Monetary Fund and World Bank is unacceptable andrenders them illegitimate.The IMF and World Bank are controlled by rich imperialist countries incorrupt complicity with national elites all over the world. They claimto lead the fight against poverty, but their role as global loansharks; their cruel imposition of privatization, cuts to socialservices, and free trade policies; their funding for environmentallydisastrous projects; their secrecy and undemocratic decision makingprocesses, make them an enemy of the people worldwide.Today, these two institutions are on the defensive. Venezuela,Bolivia, and Ecuador are in open revolt against the IMF and WorldBank. South African shantytown dwellers are fighting waterprivatization; Korean workers are striking against "free trade"agreements; and thousands of people successfully blockaded the G8meeting in Germany earlier this year.In the U.S., in the heart of empire, millions are struggling againstthe oppressive system of capitalism for dignity, autonomy andsolidarity. Tens of thousands gathered for the first ever UnitedStates Social Forum; millions of immigrants have marched for theirrights; and in Washington DC, in the belly of the beast, residents areorganizing against the policies of gentrification and displacement.This year social movements from all over the world gathered at theWorld Social Forum in Nairobi, Kenya to devise the next stage in theassault against the World Bank and IMF. In solidarity with our alliesin the Global South, and recognizing the toll corporate capitalismtakes on our own lives, Washington DC-based activists and our alliesare calling for actions at the IMF/World Bank headquarters inWashington DC, during the upcoming annual meetings, October 19-21.Our demands are simple:§ Cancel all impoverished country debt to the World Bank and IMF,using the institutions' own resources.§ End neoliberal structural adjustment policies, which prioritizeprofit for the few over the lives of the many.§ End the social and environmental devastation caused by oil, gas,mining and big dam projects.It's time to strike another blow against Global Capitalism.Tear Down the World Bank and IMF. Raise up the resistance.Join us in Washington DC on October 19-21, 2007.The World Bank and IMF are wreaking havoc on our communities.*Immigration"Free trade" agreements and IMF and World Bank policies have resultedin extreme poverty and marginalization, forcing millions from Mexico,Haiti, and elsewhere in Central America, Asia, and Africa, to fleetheir countries, risking their lives at sea, only to be treated ascriminals, detained and deported once in the U.S.*Effects at HomeThe same ideology that fuels the IMF and World Bank destroyscommunities here in the United States. The privatization of water andelectricity services, the closures of public housing, thetransformation of homeless shelters into luxury condos, the transitionof public schools to Charter schools, and shutdowns of publichospitals show the increased strangle-hold corporate capitalism hasover our lives.*Global WarmingThe World Bank exacerbates global warming through existing polices,such as funding fossil fuel extraction and deforestation, whilepromoting false solutions such as carbon trading.*Post-Conflict Re-DestructionWars waged by the U.S. and its allies open countries to economictakeover. The IMF eliminated Iraq's fuel subsidies, driving up pricesof food and other necessities. The World Bank privatized Afghanistan'shealthcare, and is helping mining companies rob Congo's resources. TheU.S-backed UN MINUSTAH forces are brutally occupying Haiti, repressingpeople's resistance against privatization of state-owned flour mills,electricity utilities, telecommunication, public schools, and otheressentials. U.S. military intervention and free trade policies havethe same goals – ensuring corporations' access to resources, cheaplabor, and markets.
Endorsers:50 Years Is Enough www.50years.org
DC Alliance for Immigrant Justice (pending)
Fondasyon Mapou www.fondasyonmapou.org
202-370-6407Friends of the Congo www.friendsofthecongo.org
Front Farabundo Marti for the National Liberation of El Salvador(Washington DC committee) www.fmln.org.sv
Haitian Priorities Project www.hpp4haiti.comMobilization for Global Justice www.globalizethis.org
mgj@riseup.net 202-898-5953
For more information:www.octoberrebellion.org
The misery, marginalization, and impoverishment forced on millions bythe International Monetary Fund and World Bank is unacceptable andrenders them illegitimate.The IMF and World Bank are controlled by rich imperialist countries incorrupt complicity with national elites all over the world. They claimto lead the fight against poverty, but their role as global loansharks; their cruel imposition of privatization, cuts to socialservices, and free trade policies; their funding for environmentallydisastrous projects; their secrecy and undemocratic decision makingprocesses, make them an enemy of the people worldwide.Today, these two institutions are on the defensive. Venezuela,Bolivia, and Ecuador are in open revolt against the IMF and WorldBank. South African shantytown dwellers are fighting waterprivatization; Korean workers are striking against "free trade"agreements; and thousands of people successfully blockaded the G8meeting in Germany earlier this year.In the U.S., in the heart of empire, millions are struggling againstthe oppressive system of capitalism for dignity, autonomy andsolidarity. Tens of thousands gathered for the first ever UnitedStates Social Forum; millions of immigrants have marched for theirrights; and in Washington DC, in the belly of the beast, residents areorganizing against the policies of gentrification and displacement.This year social movements from all over the world gathered at theWorld Social Forum in Nairobi, Kenya to devise the next stage in theassault against the World Bank and IMF. In solidarity with our alliesin the Global South, and recognizing the toll corporate capitalismtakes on our own lives, Washington DC-based activists and our alliesare calling for actions at the IMF/World Bank headquarters inWashington DC, during the upcoming annual meetings, October 19-21.Our demands are simple:§ Cancel all impoverished country debt to the World Bank and IMF,using the institutions' own resources.§ End neoliberal structural adjustment policies, which prioritizeprofit for the few over the lives of the many.§ End the social and environmental devastation caused by oil, gas,mining and big dam projects.It's time to strike another blow against Global Capitalism.Tear Down the World Bank and IMF. Raise up the resistance.Join us in Washington DC on October 19-21, 2007.The World Bank and IMF are wreaking havoc on our communities.*Immigration"Free trade" agreements and IMF and World Bank policies have resultedin extreme poverty and marginalization, forcing millions from Mexico,Haiti, and elsewhere in Central America, Asia, and Africa, to fleetheir countries, risking their lives at sea, only to be treated ascriminals, detained and deported once in the U.S.*Effects at HomeThe same ideology that fuels the IMF and World Bank destroyscommunities here in the United States. The privatization of water andelectricity services, the closures of public housing, thetransformation of homeless shelters into luxury condos, the transitionof public schools to Charter schools, and shutdowns of publichospitals show the increased strangle-hold corporate capitalism hasover our lives.*Global WarmingThe World Bank exacerbates global warming through existing polices,such as funding fossil fuel extraction and deforestation, whilepromoting false solutions such as carbon trading.*Post-Conflict Re-DestructionWars waged by the U.S. and its allies open countries to economictakeover. The IMF eliminated Iraq's fuel subsidies, driving up pricesof food and other necessities. The World Bank privatized Afghanistan'shealthcare, and is helping mining companies rob Congo's resources. TheU.S-backed UN MINUSTAH forces are brutally occupying Haiti, repressingpeople's resistance against privatization of state-owned flour mills,electricity utilities, telecommunication, public schools, and otheressentials. U.S. military intervention and free trade policies havethe same goals – ensuring corporations' access to resources, cheaplabor, and markets.
Endorsers:50 Years Is Enough www.50years.org
DC Alliance for Immigrant Justice (pending)
Fondasyon Mapou www.fondasyonmapou.org
202-370-6407Friends of the Congo www.friendsofthecongo.org
Front Farabundo Marti for the National Liberation of El Salvador(Washington DC committee) www.fmln.org.sv
Haitian Priorities Project www.hpp4haiti.comMobilization for Global Justice www.globalizethis.org
mgj@riseup.net 202-898-5953
Mayors call for autonomy for better implementation
JNNURM had a role for WSP-SA in doing the Lucknow CDP according to the Mayors after nearly two years there are now progress on projects. - Vinay Baindur
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayors call for autonomy for better implementation
Express News Service
Lucknow, August 24: Demanding more autonomy for the civic bodies and implementation of the 74th Amendment of the Constitution in the state, Mayors from across the state met on Friday.
They discussed the problems that were being faced by the municipal corporations and later forwarded a memorandum to Chief Minister Mayawati in this regard through the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development, Govindan Nayar.
The Mayors threatened to resign from their offices if their demands were not fulfilled.
Lucknow Mayor Dinesh Sharma said, though the Constitution has provisions for the autonomy of the civic bodies, the state government has shown little interest in this direction.
Sharma said: "The Panchayati Raj system and the de-centralisation of powers are the basic guidelines of our Constitution. But instead of giving more powers to the municipal corporations, Nagarpalikas or Panchayats, they are made handicapped. We want the 74th Amendment of Constitution implemented, that says about greater role of municipalities in local development, Mayor should have more powers on the 18 points defined by the amendment that includes urban projects, land use, industrial development, environment, transport, traffic, fire services and others."
He added: "Ambitious schemes like JNNURM have been launched in the state, still the progress is slow due to the lack of coordination with the municipal corporation. Any project under the JNNURM could not kick off even after two years of its launch. The government asked to remove beckons and security from the Mayors."
"The post of deputy mayor was scrapped. Why are similar steps not being against the MLAs or bureaucrats? We want the government to involve us in the policy-making pertaining to the cities. The suggestions of Mayors and corporators must be incorporated in the city projects," he said.
Supriya Aron, Mayor of Bareily, said, the Mayors had no real powers. "Public representatives are blamed for ineffectiveness of the municipal bodies. People have a lot of expectations from us, but we can't do everything. We can only recommend or suggest the Municipal Commissioner about the issues. Many times, we are unaware of the plans that are being implemented in the city," she said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayors call for autonomy for better implementation
Express News Service
Lucknow, August 24: Demanding more autonomy for the civic bodies and implementation of the 74th Amendment of the Constitution in the state, Mayors from across the state met on Friday.
They discussed the problems that were being faced by the municipal corporations and later forwarded a memorandum to Chief Minister Mayawati in this regard through the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development, Govindan Nayar.
The Mayors threatened to resign from their offices if their demands were not fulfilled.
Lucknow Mayor Dinesh Sharma said, though the Constitution has provisions for the autonomy of the civic bodies, the state government has shown little interest in this direction.
Sharma said: "The Panchayati Raj system and the de-centralisation of powers are the basic guidelines of our Constitution. But instead of giving more powers to the municipal corporations, Nagarpalikas or Panchayats, they are made handicapped. We want the 74th Amendment of Constitution implemented, that says about greater role of municipalities in local development, Mayor should have more powers on the 18 points defined by the amendment that includes urban projects, land use, industrial development, environment, transport, traffic, fire services and others."
He added: "Ambitious schemes like JNNURM have been launched in the state, still the progress is slow due to the lack of coordination with the municipal corporation. Any project under the JNNURM could not kick off even after two years of its launch. The government asked to remove beckons and security from the Mayors."
"The post of deputy mayor was scrapped. Why are similar steps not being against the MLAs or bureaucrats? We want the government to involve us in the policy-making pertaining to the cities. The suggestions of Mayors and corporators must be incorporated in the city projects," he said.
Supriya Aron, Mayor of Bareily, said, the Mayors had no real powers. "Public representatives are blamed for ineffectiveness of the municipal bodies. People have a lot of expectations from us, but we can't do everything. We can only recommend or suggest the Municipal Commissioner about the issues. Many times, we are unaware of the plans that are being implemented in the city," she said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)