New documents and anti-corruption claim cast doubts on new foundation.
The World Bank has made much of the fact that its Development Gateway internet project will be ‘independent’. Because of the sensitive nature of the issues it will cover, and its claims to represent all views – including those of civil society groups – the Bank has repeatedly said it is establishing a Foundation to run the Gateway and will not be running it in-house. This was first announced last July to civil society organisations discussing a possible committee to help steer the creation of the Gateway (these talks eventually broke down), and then restated to the official e-consultation last November. The World Bank President on 11th November stated that the Bank would create: “a new structure in which the Gateway will be financed and controlled in a public-private partnership outside the World Bank and with a separate and totally independent Editorial Board with broad representation from all sections of the development community.”
It has been known for some time that the only certain way to get onto the Gateway Foundation’s board was to contribute 5 million dollars. But leaked Bank documents prepared for today’s Board meeting demonstrate that the Gateway Foundation is “merely an appendix of the World Bank”. These are the words used in an anti-corruption claim filed yesterday by two prominent Uruguayan civil society members. The claim, filed to the Bank’s Fraud and Corruption Hotline, alleges “serious irregularities” in the way the Gateway Foundation has been established.
It points out that the World Bank will provide up to three directors to the Foundation, and that the Foundation will contract back to the Bank the running of the internet portal, its main output. As the Foundation will be situated in the Bank, was entirely designed by the Bank and the Bank has made the key outside appointments, the claimants argue that “donors and perhaps even the American authorities that granted it legal status as a non-profit organization, may have been deceived in their good faith to accept a non-existing independence.” The Bank’s documents recognise that conflicts of interest exist, but proposes two very insufficient measures to deal with them. It will: “establish a timetable to phase out the management contracts”, and “in the course of the first year will locate the Foundation Secretariat outside of Bank premises.” Nothing about competitive tendering for the services or proper separation of functions.
The claim was filed by Roberto Bissio, coordinator of Social Watch and Latin American secretary of Third World Network and Dr Carlos Abin, Executive Director of the Instituto del Tercer Mundo. They are both closely involved with a number of internet initiatives, and have clearly stated during consultations that the Gateway appears to represent unwarranted competition with existing country- and topic- focussed portals which are genuinely independent.
They, as others involved in such existing initiatives, will be probably be outraged by some of the claims in the Gateway team’s June 2001 report to the Bank’s Board. The Gateway Business Plan (28 June 2001) mentions other initiatives and organisations in the field, such as the DOT Force, ECOSOC‘s ICT Taskforce, IICD, Bellanet, Benton Foundation, Eldis and Oneworld. Then it goes on to claim that: “The Foundation adds the following unique and complementary elements in the fight to bridge the digital divide:
1) Independence. As a non-profit organization with broad stakeholder representation, the Foundation will maintain its independence and act as an honest broker in the development community.
2) Global reach with local roots.
3) Catalytic approach.
4) Inclusiveness.”
It is hard to see that the Gateway is really richer in these qualities than the other schemes mentioned. Or that it represents “the next logical step in the efforts of the private and public donor community to organize and coordinate” on ICT for development issues.
It seems then that the Bank is not content with keeping control of the initial site design, staffing and appointment of outside editors for the site. It wants to maintain a tight grip of its day to day management. One person working with the Gateway commented to the Bretton Woods Project yesterday: “the Foundation is a nice idea, but it does seem like a front for Bank employees to keep their Bank jobs with all the traditional trappings.” It seems ironic that a site which will cover topics including good governance and corruption is built on such shaky foundations. Once this is more widely known, the Gateway will have an even harder time drumming up civil society engagement in the scheme.
Links
Anti-corruption claim (Word ’95 download)
Alex Wilks
Bretton Woods Project, UK
19th July 2001
