Hugo Chavez announced his idea for a Banco del Sur, or Bank of the South, as part of his crusade against the institutions of international capital he calls "tools of Washington." With seven founding member-states - Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Ecuador
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In July, 2004, the IMF and World Bank commemorated the 60th anniversary of their founding at Bretton Woods, NH to provide a financial framework of assistance for the postwar world after the expected defeat of Germany and Japan. With breathtaking hypocrisy, an October, 2004 Development Committee Communique stated: "As we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Bretton Woods Institutions....we recommit ourselves to supporting efforts by developing countries to pursue sustainable growth, sound macroeconomic policies, debt sustainability, open trade, job creation, poverty reduction and good governance." Phew.
In fact, for 63 hellish years, both these institutions achieved mirror opposite results on everything the above comment states. From inception, their mission was to integrate developing nations into the Global North-dominated world economy and use debt repayment as the way to transfer wealth from poor countries to powerful bankers in rich ones.
The scheme is called debt slavery because new loans are needed to service old ones, indebtedness rises, and borrowing terms stipulate harsh one-way "structural adjustment" provisions that include:
-- privatizations of state enterprises;
-- government deregulation;
-- deep cuts in social spending;
-- wage freezes or cuts;
-- unrestricted free market access for foreign corporations;
-- corporate-friendly tax cuts;
-- crackdowns on trade unionists; and
-- savage repression for non-believers under a system incompatible with social democracy.
Everywhere the scheme is the same: huge public wealth transfers to elitist private hands, exploding public debt, an ever-widening disparity between the super-rich and desperate poor, and an aggressive nationalism to justify huge spending on security for aggressive surveillance, mass incarceration plus repression and torture for social control.
Read the alternatives and future prospects of the Bank, click here.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Saturday, October 27, 2007
NGOs ask ADB to postpone consultations on safeguard policy draft
Forty-two non-governmental organizations have written to the Asian Development Bank's (ADB) Environment Division requesting that the ADB to delay the start of consultations on its Safeguard Policy Update (SPU) process.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a letter to the Asian Development Bank's Environment Division, non-governmental organizations raised substantial concerns about recent developments with the Safeguard Policy Update (SPU) process, calling into question the possibility of genuine participation by civil society organizations. It reminds the ADB to honour its previous commitments about the process of these consultations.
NGO Forum on ADB Safeguards Consultations Postponement Letter , click here
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a letter to the Asian Development Bank's Environment Division, non-governmental organizations raised substantial concerns about recent developments with the Safeguard Policy Update (SPU) process, calling into question the possibility of genuine participation by civil society organizations. It reminds the ADB to honour its previous commitments about the process of these consultations.
The NGO letter raises concerns around the dates of the ADB's regional consultations, citing conflicts with the United Nations Climate Change Convention meetings; its inability thus far to provide translations of the draft Safeguard Policy Statement; and a general lack of information about the design and format of the proposed consultations. The letter calls for:
- a rescheduling of the Southeast Asia, East Asia, Central Asia and Mekong regional consultations;
- translation of the draft SPS into key national langauges, and translations made available at least 30 days ahead of the respective consultation;
- circulation of the full participants lists for all consultations; and
- more information on the structure and format of the consultations.
NGO Forum on ADB Safeguards Consultations Postponement Letter , click here
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Former World Bank employee blames the Bank for damaging the Planet
My former employers, the World Bank, are damaging the planet and punishing the poor: Robert Goodland
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How to aid destruction
I worked as environmental adviser for the World Bank Group, headquartered in Washington, for 23 years. I joined because I believed the bank wanted to improve the lot of the poor and conserve the environment. Before going to Washington I did an environmental study for the government of Tucurui, the first big dam in Amazonia. A vast part of the forest was flooded, so I saw at first hand the huge environmental and social cost of misguided development projects.
The bank knew how impassioned I was but hired me none the less. I thought I would work with colleagues to prevent blunders in the future. Indeed, we achieved a lot. Perhaps our greatest feat was having the bank adopt a suite of social and environmental policies to be applied to all projects.
The bank also adopted policies for reducing poverty directly, instead of relying on "trickle-down" economics. In 2000 I was thrilled when James Wolfensohn, then president of the bank, led it to pursue the UN's Millennium Development Goals. Assessing risks and impacts, we failed to stop the bank funding ExxonMobil's oil pipeline in Chad and Cameroon, but managed to prevent it supporting China's Three Gorges dam.
Progress faltered in the late 90s. Most social and environmental policies were gutted, and those that remain are no longer being rigorously followed. During the Wolfowitz presidency, policy work on the two key challenges of population and climate change was crippled. While governments around the world are regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, the bank is not yet doing anything like this. The bank has encouraged India to resume investing in coal and nuclear energy. Social and environmental policies have been handed over to developing countries to implement - or not, as the case may be. The bank's private sector affiliate, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), is backing oil palm plantations in Indonesia and cutting protective mangrove forests. Among the worst is financing for monoculture soya plantations in Amazonia, even though soya is suicide for Brazil's rich agricultural lands.
To read in detail,click here
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How to aid destruction
I worked as environmental adviser for the World Bank Group, headquartered in Washington, for 23 years. I joined because I believed the bank wanted to improve the lot of the poor and conserve the environment. Before going to Washington I did an environmental study for the government of Tucurui, the first big dam in Amazonia. A vast part of the forest was flooded, so I saw at first hand the huge environmental and social cost of misguided development projects.
The bank knew how impassioned I was but hired me none the less. I thought I would work with colleagues to prevent blunders in the future. Indeed, we achieved a lot. Perhaps our greatest feat was having the bank adopt a suite of social and environmental policies to be applied to all projects.
The bank also adopted policies for reducing poverty directly, instead of relying on "trickle-down" economics. In 2000 I was thrilled when James Wolfensohn, then president of the bank, led it to pursue the UN's Millennium Development Goals. Assessing risks and impacts, we failed to stop the bank funding ExxonMobil's oil pipeline in Chad and Cameroon, but managed to prevent it supporting China's Three Gorges dam.
Progress faltered in the late 90s. Most social and environmental policies were gutted, and those that remain are no longer being rigorously followed. During the Wolfowitz presidency, policy work on the two key challenges of population and climate change was crippled. While governments around the world are regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, the bank is not yet doing anything like this. The bank has encouraged India to resume investing in coal and nuclear energy. Social and environmental policies have been handed over to developing countries to implement - or not, as the case may be. The bank's private sector affiliate, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), is backing oil palm plantations in Indonesia and cutting protective mangrove forests. Among the worst is financing for monoculture soya plantations in Amazonia, even though soya is suicide for Brazil's rich agricultural lands.
To read in detail,click here
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Public Hearing on The World Bank in Hague
The Hague, 21 October, 2007
DECLARATION
Upon request from the World Bank Campaign Europe, a Public Hearing was
convened on October 15 in the Hague, The Netherlands under the auspices
of the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal to provide a forum to assess the
performance of the World Bank in the last 15 years.
The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT) in continuity with the Russell
Tribunal supported by the Lelio Basso Foundation, has the stated goal of
giving public profile and a juridical qualification to violations of
fundamental rights that do not find a proper redress at the
institutional level. It bases its actions on the Universal Declaration
of Peoples’ Rights of Algiers, 1976.
The PPT held specific sessions in Berlin in 1988 and Madrid in 1994 to
assess World Bank and International Monetary Fund activities and roles
against their impact on peoples’ rights. Other sessions have also taken
place that are relevant to the specific area of work and analysis of the
later Hearing, addressing the challenges posed by the globalized economy
to peoples’ rights and self-determination.
The latest session held in Vienna in May 2006 within the Enlazando
Alternativas 2 process, dealt with the responsibilities of European
Transnational Companies (TNCs) in Latin America. It analysed cases of
the privatisation of public utilities and the extraction of natural
resources. It pointed out the “complicity of European governments that
support their TNCs“ and the role of international institutions such as
the World Bank, the WTO (the World Trade Organisation) and the
International Monetary Fund. The last of a series of hearings held by
the PPT Chapter in Colombia, focusing on the oil sector, acknowledged
the relevance of the concept of ecological debt when dealing with the
responsibilities of European TNCs.
At the end of September 2007, an Independent People’s Tribunal on the
World Bank took place in India. Finally, a few days before the The Hague
Hearing, another PPT session was held in Managua, Nicaragua, on the
Spanish Company Union Fenosa.
The later hearing in The Hague was an important opportunity to continue
developing new approaches to the current area of activity, by deepening
the analysis of the World Bank’s role in various countries of the Global
South.
Read the detail declaration and next steps, click here
DECLARATION
Upon request from the World Bank Campaign Europe, a Public Hearing was
convened on October 15 in the Hague, The Netherlands under the auspices
of the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal to provide a forum to assess the
performance of the World Bank in the last 15 years.
The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT) in continuity with the Russell
Tribunal supported by the Lelio Basso Foundation, has the stated goal of
giving public profile and a juridical qualification to violations of
fundamental rights that do not find a proper redress at the
institutional level. It bases its actions on the Universal Declaration
of Peoples’ Rights of Algiers, 1976.
The PPT held specific sessions in Berlin in 1988 and Madrid in 1994 to
assess World Bank and International Monetary Fund activities and roles
against their impact on peoples’ rights. Other sessions have also taken
place that are relevant to the specific area of work and analysis of the
later Hearing, addressing the challenges posed by the globalized economy
to peoples’ rights and self-determination.
The latest session held in Vienna in May 2006 within the Enlazando
Alternativas 2 process, dealt with the responsibilities of European
Transnational Companies (TNCs) in Latin America. It analysed cases of
the privatisation of public utilities and the extraction of natural
resources. It pointed out the “complicity of European governments that
support their TNCs“ and the role of international institutions such as
the World Bank, the WTO (the World Trade Organisation) and the
International Monetary Fund. The last of a series of hearings held by
the PPT Chapter in Colombia, focusing on the oil sector, acknowledged
the relevance of the concept of ecological debt when dealing with the
responsibilities of European TNCs.
At the end of September 2007, an Independent People’s Tribunal on the
World Bank took place in India. Finally, a few days before the The Hague
Hearing, another PPT session was held in Managua, Nicaragua, on the
Spanish Company Union Fenosa.
The later hearing in The Hague was an important opportunity to continue
developing new approaches to the current area of activity, by deepening
the analysis of the World Bank’s role in various countries of the Global
South.
Read the detail declaration and next steps, click here
Monday, October 22, 2007
World Banks response to the depositions presented at the Tribunal in New Delhi
In response to some of the depositions at the Independent Peoples Tribunal (IPT) on the World Bank( 21-24 September) at JNU in New Delhi), the World Bank has uploaded a document on their website.
Its an interesting read. It includes answers such as 'The World Bank definitely has not recommended the privatization of water supply services in India'.
To read in detail, click here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Does the Bank promote the privatization of basic services like water supply, electricity, healthcare and schooling?
The World Bank believes that there is no single approach that can improve basic services as varied as water, power, health, and education. However for these services to improve, especially for the poor, we do believe that greater accountability of service providers – whether public or private - is a key element.
•Electricity: The World Bank believes that it is neither desirable nor possible to have a single solution for improving the delivery of electricity services. Countries will need to leverage skills, financial resources and techniques which are available in the public and private sectors, and indeed in communities themselves, to meet the growing demand for electricity services. As is already happening, optimal delivery of electricity services will need to be tailored to the existing circumstances and will require a suitable, and evolving, form of public, private and community partnership.
•Urban Water Supply: The World Bank definitely has not recommended the privatization of water supply services in India. In fact, the reality on the ground is that provision of drinking water supply services in India has undergone a de-facto privatization. Urban residents make their own private provision for water by digging tubewells, adding storage tanks and infrastructure for pumping and purifying water in their homes, as well as buying bottled drinking water and water from tanker trucks. Residents are paying a high price to augment unreliable, inefficient and unsafe water as it is currently supplied, and it is the poor who suffer most from the current state of affairs.
•As it does for other urban services, the World Bank recommends that water supply utilities be run in a professional manner, are financially sustainable, and ensure affordable supply for those who cannot pay. It recognizes that the public sector must retain primary responsibility for ensuring reliable, affordable and safe water supply to India's citizens. For this reason, the World Bank recommends that the government retains ownership of water supply infrastructure and regulates water resources. The government has a long history of contracting with private sector firms to design and construct water systems and to provide goods and services. Hence, direct engagement by the government of the private sector to help improve efficiency, reliability and quality of water supply services would be much more effective and affordable than the de facto privatization that is now the norm in Indian cities.
Its an interesting read. It includes answers such as 'The World Bank definitely has not recommended the privatization of water supply services in India'.
To read in detail, click here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Does the Bank promote the privatization of basic services like water supply, electricity, healthcare and schooling?
The World Bank believes that there is no single approach that can improve basic services as varied as water, power, health, and education. However for these services to improve, especially for the poor, we do believe that greater accountability of service providers – whether public or private - is a key element.
•Electricity: The World Bank believes that it is neither desirable nor possible to have a single solution for improving the delivery of electricity services. Countries will need to leverage skills, financial resources and techniques which are available in the public and private sectors, and indeed in communities themselves, to meet the growing demand for electricity services. As is already happening, optimal delivery of electricity services will need to be tailored to the existing circumstances and will require a suitable, and evolving, form of public, private and community partnership.
•Urban Water Supply: The World Bank definitely has not recommended the privatization of water supply services in India. In fact, the reality on the ground is that provision of drinking water supply services in India has undergone a de-facto privatization. Urban residents make their own private provision for water by digging tubewells, adding storage tanks and infrastructure for pumping and purifying water in their homes, as well as buying bottled drinking water and water from tanker trucks. Residents are paying a high price to augment unreliable, inefficient and unsafe water as it is currently supplied, and it is the poor who suffer most from the current state of affairs.
•As it does for other urban services, the World Bank recommends that water supply utilities be run in a professional manner, are financially sustainable, and ensure affordable supply for those who cannot pay. It recognizes that the public sector must retain primary responsibility for ensuring reliable, affordable and safe water supply to India's citizens. For this reason, the World Bank recommends that the government retains ownership of water supply infrastructure and regulates water resources. The government has a long history of contracting with private sector firms to design and construct water systems and to provide goods and services. Hence, direct engagement by the government of the private sector to help improve efficiency, reliability and quality of water supply services would be much more effective and affordable than the de facto privatization that is now the norm in Indian cities.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Hundreds say World Bank needs an oil change
Global coalition calls for an end to ‘oil aid’
The End Oil Aid statement and list of endorsements are available at: www.endoilaid.org/globalcall.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 200 organisations from 56 countries are calling on the World Bank and other international financial institutions to end subsidies to the oil industry. In a statement released today, the groups refer to ‘oil aid’ as one of the most glaring barriers to fighting climate change and addressing energy access in developing countries.
In 2007, the private-sector lending arm of the World Bank provided more than $645 million to oil and gas companies. This is an increase of at least 40 per cent from 2006. “The World Bank’s approach to climate change and energy is inconsistent and contradictory,” said Jennifer Kalafut of NGO Oil Change International. “Despite commitments to cut global greenhouse gas emissions, it continues to increase support for oil extraction projects around the world.”
In 2006, the World Bank increased its energy sector commitments from $2.8 billion to $4.4 billion. Oil, gas and power sector commitments account for 77 per cent of the total energy sector programme while ‘new renewables’ account for only 5 per cent.“The oil industry includes some of the most profitable companies in the world,” said Petr Hlobil of the CEE Bankwatch Network based in the Czech Republic . “Why is the World Bank using development assistance earmarked for poverty reduction to subsidise oil, when investment is desperately needed in renewable energy sources?”
The Bank’s support to the oil sector is also highly inequitable. While the majority of its oil projects are designed for export to wealthy countries, 1.6 billion people, including 500 million in sub-Saharan Africa , still lack access to electricity. “By funding these oil projects the World Bank is undermining its own goals of fighting energy poverty and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is also perpetuating problems of conflict and human rights violations often associated with extractive projects, as in the case of the Chad-Cameroon pipeline,” said Korinna Horta from Environmental Defense, a U.S-based NGO.
The hundreds of groups and affected communities that have signed this statement are demanding that the World Bank and other public financial institutions stop financing oil projects. They assert that development assistance should be tackling the issue of energy poverty and building clean energy pathways rather than subsidising big oil.
The End Oil Aid statement and list of endorsements are available at: www.endoilaid.org/globalcall.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 200 organisations from 56 countries are calling on the World Bank and other international financial institutions to end subsidies to the oil industry. In a statement released today, the groups refer to ‘oil aid’ as one of the most glaring barriers to fighting climate change and addressing energy access in developing countries.
In 2007, the private-sector lending arm of the World Bank provided more than $645 million to oil and gas companies. This is an increase of at least 40 per cent from 2006. “The World Bank’s approach to climate change and energy is inconsistent and contradictory,” said Jennifer Kalafut of NGO Oil Change International. “Despite commitments to cut global greenhouse gas emissions, it continues to increase support for oil extraction projects around the world.”
In 2006, the World Bank increased its energy sector commitments from $2.8 billion to $4.4 billion. Oil, gas and power sector commitments account for 77 per cent of the total energy sector programme while ‘new renewables’ account for only 5 per cent.“The oil industry includes some of the most profitable companies in the world,” said Petr Hlobil of the CEE Bankwatch Network based in the Czech Republic . “Why is the World Bank using development assistance earmarked for poverty reduction to subsidise oil, when investment is desperately needed in renewable energy sources?”
The Bank’s support to the oil sector is also highly inequitable. While the majority of its oil projects are designed for export to wealthy countries, 1.6 billion people, including 500 million in sub-Saharan Africa , still lack access to electricity. “By funding these oil projects the World Bank is undermining its own goals of fighting energy poverty and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is also perpetuating problems of conflict and human rights violations often associated with extractive projects, as in the case of the Chad-Cameroon pipeline,” said Korinna Horta from Environmental Defense, a U.S-based NGO.
The hundreds of groups and affected communities that have signed this statement are demanding that the World Bank and other public financial institutions stop financing oil projects. They assert that development assistance should be tackling the issue of energy poverty and building clean energy pathways rather than subsidising big oil.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Faulty HIV Test Kits Funded by World Bank in India
Dr. Kunal Saha, a former consultant to the Department of Institutional Integrity (INT) at the Bank and now a client of the Government Accountability Project (GAP), has produced data showing the Second National HIV/AIDS Control Project in India has purchased and distributed bogus test kits. Dr. Saha has found that the kits, distributed by Monozyme, Ltd., show "false negative" results: HIV-infected blood samples appear to be 'clean' and suitable for transfusion.
A recognized expert in the field of HIV/AIDS research with two decades of clinical and research experience, Dr. Saha serves as an associate professor at Colombus Children's Hospital in Ohio.
Complaints about the kits first surfaced as long ago as 2004, but the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) in India did nothing. In 2006, when the alarm spread to the press in India in Europe, NACO admitted that there had been a problem with some Monozyme kits, but argued that it had been confined to the state of West Bengal and the kits had been withdrawn.
But Dr. Saha found Monozyme kits in use for testing blood in the state of Chhattisgarh in April, 2007. When he spoke to the press, however, in July, 2007, the Bank distanced itself from his information, saying "The ongoing review has not substantiated any fraud involved with the kits to date.” NACO seconded the conclusion and sought Bank support: "The World Bank has not complained to NACO at all about defective HIV-kits being used in India."
After Saha presented his findings to the INT team and a senior public health official for the Bank on South East Asia in August in Washington, D.C., the lead investigator wrote him to say, "We recognize the need to follow up quickly on the issues you have raised and to that end would like to use your information in discussions with people outside the Bank." Then, nothing.
Yesterday, the story changed. In response to a Washington Post reporter's questions about the kits, the same health official who heard Saha's August presentation said that the Bank had no specific evidence that HIV had been transmitted in India because of faulty diagnostic tests.
This simply muddies the water. Dr. Saha is not making this specific charge. He can't. In order to know whether there has been transmission, the Bank, together with NACO, must identify the hospitals that used these kits and the donors whose blood was tested. They must then retest the blood and find the false negatives. Finally they must determine which of these people subsequently donated blood and track it to the patients who recieved HIV positive transfusions.
This has not been done, but Saha has presented data that show that it should be. In the meantime, the kits may still be in use.
A recognized expert in the field of HIV/AIDS research with two decades of clinical and research experience, Dr. Saha serves as an associate professor at Colombus Children's Hospital in Ohio.
Complaints about the kits first surfaced as long ago as 2004, but the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) in India did nothing. In 2006, when the alarm spread to the press in India in Europe, NACO admitted that there had been a problem with some Monozyme kits, but argued that it had been confined to the state of West Bengal and the kits had been withdrawn.
But Dr. Saha found Monozyme kits in use for testing blood in the state of Chhattisgarh in April, 2007. When he spoke to the press, however, in July, 2007, the Bank distanced itself from his information, saying "The ongoing review has not substantiated any fraud involved with the kits to date.” NACO seconded the conclusion and sought Bank support: "The World Bank has not complained to NACO at all about defective HIV-kits being used in India."
After Saha presented his findings to the INT team and a senior public health official for the Bank on South East Asia in August in Washington, D.C., the lead investigator wrote him to say, "We recognize the need to follow up quickly on the issues you have raised and to that end would like to use your information in discussions with people outside the Bank." Then, nothing.
Yesterday, the story changed. In response to a Washington Post reporter's questions about the kits, the same health official who heard Saha's August presentation said that the Bank had no specific evidence that HIV had been transmitted in India because of faulty diagnostic tests.
This simply muddies the water. Dr. Saha is not making this specific charge. He can't. In order to know whether there has been transmission, the Bank, together with NACO, must identify the hospitals that used these kits and the donors whose blood was tested. They must then retest the blood and find the false negatives. Finally they must determine which of these people subsequently donated blood and track it to the patients who recieved HIV positive transfusions.
This has not been done, but Saha has presented data that show that it should be. In the meantime, the kits may still be in use.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
‘Privatisation puts too much wealth in too few hands’ - Isabel Guerrero
The World Bank’s new Country Head Isabel Guerrero admits failures and flags the need for changes in a candid conversation with SANKARSHAN THAKUR
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main34.asp?filename=Bu131007PRIVATISATION.asp
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEHELKA: Tell us, Ms Guerrero, why does the World Bank continue to be such a bad word in India?
Guerrero: I understand why you ask that but I really don’t know, I am trying to understand that, I want to. I have been having lots of conversations, meeting people outside the Bank, from civil society, from the NGO sector, in order to get a sense. We have also done some perception surveys — as you come in, it is a great time to define your agenda, and a lot of that could be based on perceptions outside; those guide me at least in understandinghow effective we can be.
So what do these findings tell you?
Some of the sense that I get is that there is some misinformation. The Bank has advanced a lot in the last 10 years, although it still has a long way to go
What kind of misinformation?
Well, we had sessions in which we were told that we are lending huge amounts of money, that we are a big part of India’s debt, that we were very expensive, that we run governments (laughs) — things like that.
Lots of people do think the World Bank hugely influences government.
As a perception that is probably true but I think most of that is popular perception, not the reality. People don’t realise that we are a very small part of each programme. To give you a sense, in the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, we are only 10 percent of the total funds. Then, on the costs, we are supposed to be very expensive. But to give you an example from last year, the lending was $3.8 billion. Of that 1.8 billion was from the IBRD (the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development), which offers more commercial terms. So, on average, the cost of the loans was 2.25 percent, which is very low compared to other sources of funding. India also has a very very low percentage of debt. India is a very large country, we are really small in India.
There are issues about your opposition to subsidies, privatisation issues. People get very agitated about them. There was a tribunal held recently at JNU at which many of these allegations were brought forward. I know you have stock answers on these, but can we go a little deeper…
On subsidies, there were three clear areas in our poverty report. One had to do with empowerment, another with subsidies to the poor and the last to do with the droughts. On subsidies, we think they are a very good thing, they should be available to the poor in a transparent way. Subsidies to the rich in a country that has so many poor? I do not think that is a good thing. Give them to the poor. If you don’t it will go against social cohesion.
Water? Privatisation?
That is big, and world-wide. When your children and my children are grown up, the wars are going to be about water. At least in Latin America and I am sure in India too, water has a huge religious meaning. It is mother, it is soul, source of fertility, life. The meaning of water in the collective conscience is very important and therefore one has to be very careful in getting into it. It’s a lightning-rod issue, you touch it and phew!! The Delhi Jal Board issue was, I think, not well-handled from the Bank‘s side. I had a similar situation in Bolivia and in both cases the same thing happened. The Bank was accused of having pushed the privatisation of water, and in both cases it had not happened. In Bolivia we had reports alerting the government not to privatise water —you do it and tariffs are going to go up 400 percent —and it happened. Yet we were not heard. We made mistakes with the Delhi Jal Board, but it was impossible to be heard that we were not pushing for privatisation. So, we have learnt a lot from this, we have.
Read more on the following link :http://www.tehelka.com/story_main34.asp?filename=Bu131007PRIVATISATION.asp
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main34.asp?filename=Bu131007PRIVATISATION.asp
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEHELKA: Tell us, Ms Guerrero, why does the World Bank continue to be such a bad word in India?
Guerrero: I understand why you ask that but I really don’t know, I am trying to understand that, I want to. I have been having lots of conversations, meeting people outside the Bank, from civil society, from the NGO sector, in order to get a sense. We have also done some perception surveys — as you come in, it is a great time to define your agenda, and a lot of that could be based on perceptions outside; those guide me at least in understandinghow effective we can be.
So what do these findings tell you?
Some of the sense that I get is that there is some misinformation. The Bank has advanced a lot in the last 10 years, although it still has a long way to go
What kind of misinformation?
Well, we had sessions in which we were told that we are lending huge amounts of money, that we are a big part of India’s debt, that we were very expensive, that we run governments (laughs) — things like that.
Lots of people do think the World Bank hugely influences government.
As a perception that is probably true but I think most of that is popular perception, not the reality. People don’t realise that we are a very small part of each programme. To give you a sense, in the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, we are only 10 percent of the total funds. Then, on the costs, we are supposed to be very expensive. But to give you an example from last year, the lending was $3.8 billion. Of that 1.8 billion was from the IBRD (the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development), which offers more commercial terms. So, on average, the cost of the loans was 2.25 percent, which is very low compared to other sources of funding. India also has a very very low percentage of debt. India is a very large country, we are really small in India.
There are issues about your opposition to subsidies, privatisation issues. People get very agitated about them. There was a tribunal held recently at JNU at which many of these allegations were brought forward. I know you have stock answers on these, but can we go a little deeper…
On subsidies, there were three clear areas in our poverty report. One had to do with empowerment, another with subsidies to the poor and the last to do with the droughts. On subsidies, we think they are a very good thing, they should be available to the poor in a transparent way. Subsidies to the rich in a country that has so many poor? I do not think that is a good thing. Give them to the poor. If you don’t it will go against social cohesion.
Water? Privatisation?
That is big, and world-wide. When your children and my children are grown up, the wars are going to be about water. At least in Latin America and I am sure in India too, water has a huge religious meaning. It is mother, it is soul, source of fertility, life. The meaning of water in the collective conscience is very important and therefore one has to be very careful in getting into it. It’s a lightning-rod issue, you touch it and phew!! The Delhi Jal Board issue was, I think, not well-handled from the Bank‘s side. I had a similar situation in Bolivia and in both cases the same thing happened. The Bank was accused of having pushed the privatisation of water, and in both cases it had not happened. In Bolivia we had reports alerting the government not to privatise water —you do it and tariffs are going to go up 400 percent —and it happened. Yet we were not heard. We made mistakes with the Delhi Jal Board, but it was impossible to be heard that we were not pushing for privatisation. So, we have learnt a lot from this, we have.
Read more on the following link :http://www.tehelka.com/story_main34.asp?filename=Bu131007PRIVATISATION.asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)