العربية Español Français Pусский Asian Languages
BIC | Bank Information Center Photo Photo
Update

2006 IMF/World Bank Annual Meetings: Taking stock

Highlights from International People's Forum and official World Bank meetings.

Details on the International People's Forum and the official meetings, a boycott timeline, and links to additional resources.

On this page: The International People's Forum vs the IMF/World Bank | IMF/World Bank official events | The threat of peaceful assembly and free speech | Civil society calls for boycott of official meetings | The boycott: a timeline| Find out more!

The 2006 IMF/World Bank Annual Meetings concluded in Singapore last week, amidst much skepticism about the status - and future - of the World Bank’s engagement with civil society. The official meetings were by no means the only venue for conversations and debates about the nature and role of the international financial institutions. Most notably, an alternative civil society forum titled the International People’s Forum vs the IMF/World Bank was held on the Indonesian island of Batam, about 30 minutes from Singapore. Following are highlights from both events, as well as information on Singapore’s crackdown on civil society representatives attending the meetings.

Watch the BIC website for analysis of key papers and statements made at the Annual Meetings in the coming weeks.

The International People's Forum vs the IMF/World Bank

Over 700 individuals representing over 100 organizations and 25 countries participated in the International People’s Forum (IPF) on the Indonesian island of Batam from September 15-17. Envisioned as an alternative space where participants could freely engage in constructive discussion of the IFIs, the event was a rousing success. “The IPF…has successfully demonstrated to the world that many diverse civil society organizations and social movements can meet in peace and unity, and have meaningful, in-depth and informed discussions on the policies and practices of the IFIs,” the conveners declared in a final press statement on September 17.

The forum brought together a diverse group of civil society professionals, activists and concerned citizens to discuss a number of key issues and concerns related to the IFIs, including IFI transparency, debt, private banks, controversial sectors, and corruption. In addition to several large plenary sessions, many of the sessions were interactive skill shares. The participants also had time to share music, laughter and visions for their work at opening, closing and cultural events. 

Meeting notes and photos will soon be available on the IPF website. Please send photos you’re willing to share to:

IMF/World Bank Official Events

Civil Society Dialogues

Meeting notes should soon be posted on the World Bank website.

IMFC communiqué highlights

  • On IMF governance reform: While the communiqué had to await "adoption of the resolution", the following day the IMF's board of governors approved the governance reform resolution which included an ad-hoc increase for four countries and a commitment to increase basic votes and adjust the quota formula within two years. See Bretton Woods Project press release. The IMFC called on the managing director to provide a status report at the spring meetings 14 April 2007 in Washington.
  • On crisis financing: The IMFC called for further work on the design of a new instrument (a replacement to the Contingency Credit Line) and a concrete proposal by the time of the spring meetings.
  • On other issues: The IMFC expects reports on division of responsibilities between the World Bank and IMF, and sources of IMF income. They urged "further efforts to accelerate growth to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals". Creditors and borrowers were urged to use the IMF-World Bank debt sustainability framework in their lending and borrowing decisions.

Source: Bretton Woods Project 

Development Committee communiqué highlights

  • On 'good governance': This was the big battleground of this year's annual meetings. The communiqué questioned the value of the Bank's good governance indicators (the Country Policy and Institutional Assessments, see Bretton Woods Project article on the CPIA), calling on the Bank "to further develop and use disaggregated and actionable indicators". The board took control of the agenda back from president Wolfowitz, stressing "the importance of Board oversight of the strategy as it is further developed". Hilary Benn, UK development secretary, was seen to play a key role, withholding £50 million from the UK contribution to the Bank, pending evidence of further progress in reducing conditionality. This was seen by most observers as a snub to president Wolfowitz over concerns that his anti-corruption agenda would amount to significantly increased conditionality, or a cutting-off of aid to the poorest countries where corruption is a serious problem.
  • On middle income countries: The committee welcomed the Bank's paper on its activities in middle-income countries. This included "more flexible country partnership strategies", increasing lending to sub-national governments, and reducing the cost of doing business with the Bank by "streamlining internal Bank procedures". The committee called on the Bank to develop financing instruments which mix concessional donor support with Bank financing.
  • On clean energy: After heated debate, wherein some countries such as Korea described the Bank as not up to the task of providing financing to combat climate change, the Bank was asked to work in closer coordination with the Global Environment Facility in its continuing work on financing options to support investment in clean energy.
  • On education: The Bank was urged to strengthen its work on measurement of learning outcomes, which came in response to an IEG report which found that the Bank was failing to improve learning in its education programmes (see Bretton Woods Project article on the IEG report). A progress report is to be provided to the board on this point, though no deadline was specified. A call was made for "predictable and long-term funding" for the Education for All-Fast Track Initiative.

Source: Bretton Woods Project 

some civil society Reports released during the meetings

Source: Some of these summaries were prepared by Eurodad and the World Bank.

The threat of peaceful assembly and free speech

In spite of months of preparation, relationship building and information sharing with local and national authorities, the IPF organizers faced formidable external obstacles in executing the event. After a failed attempt to ban the gathering altogether, local authorities – reportedly influenced by powerful interests in Singapore – did succeed in forcing the cancellation of several outdoor events. Threats of cancellation and disruption of the event furthermore dissuaded at least 100 individuals from attending.

While the red carpet was quite literally laid out for World Bank delegates in Singapore’s Changi airport, many civil society representatives attempting to enter the country to attend either the Annual Meetings or the IPF received quite a different reception.

To date, over 55 individuals from 17 countries have reported being banned, interrogated or deported upon arrival in Singapore. In one of the most egregious cases, two individuals reported being held almost 36 hours without access to a phone or their embassy.

Civil society calls for boycott of official meetings

In response to the Singapore government’s crackdown on freedom of speech and assembly, and the World Bank’s failure to adequately condemn or prevent this assault on participation and free speech, on September 14 over 160 civil society organizations around the globe called for a boycott of the meetings. 

“Our boycott is a response to egregious hypocrisy,” said Ana Maria Nemenzo, President of the Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines, and one of those informed in advance that she would not be allowed into Singapore despite receiving accreditation to the meetings.  “While World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz prepares to launch his new good governance and anti-corruption initiative, he fails to promote those very principles for his own institution as it meets in Singapore.” 

The boycott: a timeline

  • early September: Approximately 20 individuals receive emails from the World Bank and IMF informing them that although they had received accreditation from the Bank to attend the meetings, the Singapore government would prevent their entering the country.  The correspondence stated that “The Singaporean authorities have objected to [your] attendance…at the Annual Meetings ‘based on security and law and order considerations.’”
  • September 6: Indonesia’s Riau Islands Police announce that they will not allow the International People’s Forum to take place in Batam, claiming that the gathering will cause “economic disadvantages” to the island. Should groups attempt to hold the event anyway "…We will disperse them. If we're unable to do it ourselves, we'll do it together with the (local) NGOs," Riau Islands Police chief Brig. Gen. Sutarman reportedly tells the Batam Post.
  • September 6: World Bank and IMF External Relations heads Kevin Kellems and Masood Ahmed send letter to Singapore Executive Directors Herwidayatmo and Phang declaring that “Blocking entry of any of these [banned] individuals into the country or into the Annual Meetings venue would undermine engagement with civil society.” They cite the Memorandum of Understanding between the institutions and the Singapore Government, which states that the meetings host is required to “assure expeditious entry procedures…for any observers and other persons included in the categories of participants…”
  • September 7: World Bank and IMF issue a statement urging the Government of Singapore to allow all accredited civil society representatives to attend the meetings “in the interest of good governance, transparency and accountability.” The institutions’ statements remain little more than requests.
  • September 12: After an intervention from the National Police, the Riau Islands Police announce that they will allow the forum to take place.
  • September 14: Over 700 IPF participants begin arriving in Batam. In spite of the obstacles faced, over the next three days valuable meetings, skillshares and ceremonies are successfully held.
  • September 15: Less than 20 representatives from “local NGOs” protest the IPF outside of the forum venue. When interrogated by the venue’s security team, five protestors admit to being hired by Singaporean businesspeople to protest the event. 
  • September 15: At the Town Hall Meeting, Paul Wolfowitz states that he shares the distress of civil society representatives mistreated by the Singapore government, and finds it “unacceptable”. In response to a question about what the Bank is doing about the situation, Wolfowitz claims that he is “doing a lot” at the official levels, and through strong public statements. Although he claims to be open to other suggestions, he rebuffs a request to postpone the meetings and move them to another location. 
  • September 15: After extensive press about Singapore’s squashing of civil society participation in the meetings, the Singapore 2006 Organizing Committee announces that it will allow 22 of the 27 banned individuals to enter the country to attend the Annual Meetings. The decision was “based on input provided by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank”. 
  • September 16: International People’s Forum Conveners declare that the Singapore government’s decision is “too little, too late,” and that the boycott will continue.
  • September 18: The Development Committee and IMFC both thank the authorities and people of Singapore “for their excellent hospitality”.

Find out more!

Select press releases

Check out the blogs that covered the events

Websites providing summaries of the events


Digg!

See also

World Bank (IBRD & IDA) Accountability IFI Governance

Print this pageEmail this page


Regions

Africa Asia Europe/Central Asia Latin America Middle East and North Africa

Stay Informed!

Sign up for our e-newsletters.

Sign up

Last updated 21 August 2008
© 2008 Bank Information Center

Website content may be freely reproduced as long as BIC is credited as the source.

Site by CaudillWeb