 |
Canadian perspectives on global justice Brought to you by the Social Justice Committee |
|
|
|
| ||||
|
Website hosting by: |
Mexican
farmers speak out about land rights, trade deals and the harsh impacts of
globalization
The
well being of Mexican farmers, and of the rural communities in which they live, Eliseo
Gomez Hernandez is a member of the Center of Economic and Political Research for
Community Action, in Chiapas, Mexico. This organization gathers and disseminates
information to other organizations and communities. Its purpose is not so much
to offer solutions, but rather to give people the tools they need to help
themselves design their own solutions. Eliseo, a trained agricultural
technician, also tends to his own parcel of coffee and gives advice to other
coffee growers. Fidel
Perez Visquez is a farmer from the southern Oaxaca region. He has gotten
together with his fellow farmers in the hope that as a group they will be better
able to deal with some of the problems they face. For this reason his group has
joined UCIZONI, an organization that helps indigenous farmers and their
communities organize to create alternate development plans for their future. In an
interview with volunteers of the Social Justice Committee, Eliseo and Fidel told
stories that illustrate the conditions of life in rural southern Mexico. To
describe the daily life of a campesino, Eliseo told us about his routine as a
boy: The day
of a campesino starts very early in the morning, the woman gets up around two or
three in the morning to prepare the food. As the eldest son, I would get up
early to help my mother. My job was to grind the corn for her to make the
tortillas. My father would get up about five or six, and we would all have
breakfast. When my chores with my mother were done, my father would call
"let's go," and I would follow him to the field, and help him with
whatever work was needed. Depending
on the time in the agricultural cycle, we would prepare the parcel, weed the
field, plant, or harvest. We'd go very early to the field, and because there was
still dew from the night your clothes would get wet. I was a small boy at the
time, around eight, and I would get soaked. You had
to start working right away to keep yourself warm until the sun came out. Around
noon, when the sun was directly above us and we had a tremendous hunger and
thirst, my mother would bring us some food. Sometimes, in the early afternoons,
my uncles came to help. At other times we went to help them. In my case, I
didn't always go with my father because normally I went to school. So I worked
with him on the weekends, or if I needed to work I would miss a day or two of
school. That's
pretty much the daily routine of a campesino. My father taught us how to work
well, and in a way I didn't suffer much in comparison to other campesinos that I
have seen today. I had the opportunity to do some studies, and have dedicated
myself to work and live with the people. I have come to see people in extremely
difficult situations; in conditions much worse than when I grew up. And this is
the actuality. Once I
was working with cafetaleros - small coffee producers - visiting various
farmers and looking at their fields. We spent the day walking in the parcels,
and when we came back in the evening we found ourselves in a very delicate
situation. One man, the representative of the group, invited us to eat at his
house. We all went to his house delighted, expecting that his wife had prepared
food. But she told her husband that there was absolutely nothing to prepare. And
what's worse, the kids hadn't eaten. You
can't imagine the man's face. His wife had charged him to find food the day
before, and he had totally forgotten, because of our visit. This shocked me. I
couldn't believe that there were families that had absolutely nothing to eat. We
told the man not to worry, that we would go to the shop and see what we could
buy there. We tried to invite him to come eat with us, but you can't imagine the
shame he felt. I found out that he didn't have his own land to grow maize. He
usually worked on other people's fields in exchange for maize and beans, and
that's how he maintained his family. But unfortunately those were days without
work so they didn't have food. This is
the extreme situation in the communities, a situation with extreme problems of
nutrition and access to the smallest income. There are many like this family,
and it's continuously increasing. These
situations stem from the process of globalization. And in many communities there
is an increase in the population that causes a saturation of the land. But
mainly it's a problem of unequal land distribution. This is, in a way, is what
has led to the Zapatista uprising. These people that are living in extreme
conditions and have absolutely nothing are the ones that chose to take up arms. When I
was a kid, things were much better. We spent a lot of time playing in the fields
and eating all the time. If there were ripe plantains we would just eat them
right off the trees. Things were different, we worked hard but at least we
always had food. The
situation has changed. Even my father has changed his behaviour. [Abandoning
his traditional corn field, with its companion planting of beans, squash, and
other vegetables] he switched to the
monoculture of corn. This happened when I went to study. When I came back I
realized that he wasn't farming in the same way. He explained that it was less
hard work for him. Yes, the work isn't killing you, but there isn't anything to
eat. Remember we had a lot of things to eat? I asked him to change, and to grow
everything organically. It was a lot of work but now he grows everything. That's
what we do, we try to get people out of this path, help them find their own
solutions. Fidel
comes from a different region and, being an orphan from an early age, didn't
have the same experience as Eliseo. Though
I didn't have the same opportunity of working and learning from my father, my
way of working is basically similar. We suffer, and we struggle as campesinos
because we don't have any resources. I realized that the campesino has a lot of
problems and doesn't have any support, so I tried to organize my fellow
campesinos. Our
village is calm, but the situation we live in, the problems we have come from
the outside. I found myself needing to find out about their origin. I saw that
people in other communities were organizing and knew how to face various
details. We realized that if we were organized we could resolve parts of our
problems. So I joined the UCIZONI network as a farmer, because that's what they
are about, they support and defend the campesinos and indigenous people. But I
ran into problems with people, not so much farmers like me and people of the
same language, but with outsiders who arrived in the village, especially the
drug dealers. They come to the village and say "I'll give you food, give
you support. And at the same time I'll give you this product and I'll buy it and
finance you." We saw
that there was some danger there, but my organizing the people was not against
the drug dealers, but against our lack of resources. Even so, I had problem with
these people. They thought I was organizing people against them, that we would
denounce them. There
are other issues to deal with, but in the midst of it they had me shot. That
wasn't trivial, it was an attempt on my life, but here I am, telling you the
story. So I will continue, because I know I am not trying to harm anyone, only
to help and work on behalf of my people. My
people saw that I was very active, the organization (UCIZONI) saw that I was
very active, and it's a good experience, and it's an opportunity to learn more.
Because the people don't know what's happening. All they see is that the prices
of the goods in the countryside change so that what they produce is decreasing
in the market while the prices of the goods from the city are increasing. They
don't know why. So that was the idea, finding out why. And it's their own
government that is working against them. But now
that's the life of the campesino, to work and to struggle for himself. The
decline in living standards of rural communities is apparent in the recent
increase in migrant workers. People (helped by the Mexican government, or their
local governments) are leaving their villages to go find work in the US and
Canada. We asked Eliseo and Fidel what their thoughts on this phenomenon are. The
migration has increased in the last five years, in Chiapas. It's a very recent
and growing phenomenon. Many people leave. For example, I have eight cousins
that are working in the United States - but temporarily, they want to come back.
In a way, their families accept it because they are trying to gain some money
and save up and come back to make their lives. This is how they see it. What
they don't see, but we who do a bit more of investigation do, see is that these
migrations cause a series of problems. One is that the family structure breaks
down because those how leave abandon everything to their wives and children. In that
sense there is a decrease in the quality of life for the women with their
family. In many cases, the woman has a heavy role in supporting her husband. She
has to get up very early and has few hours of sleep, but at when the man leaves,
she doubles or triples her activities. She now has to cultivate the corn and
beans, maintain the house, maintain the health of the kids, and all that without
resources. For us this situation is dramatic. It's not only the woman that is
affected, but the children as well. They start getting sick more, having
problems in school, health problems, nutrition problems, etc. These are direct
impacts on the families of those who migrate. In a
certain way those who leave to find work don't suffer as much as the families.
Because the man has the characteristic of being stronger than the woman, and now
he is alone, working, and has some control over his economical resources and so
he can attend to his health and nutrition etc. But he is harming his family, and
this is what the population doesn't want to understand. They are in this dynamic
that says he has to leave to make money and later send money to the women. But
there are cases in which they are so macho that they leave to make money, but
don't send any to their wives. I'm
telling you this because I have a cousin close to where I live who left, so I
saw what happened. His wife was a strong lady, and after six or eight months of
being alone she had diminished, shrunk. I asked her why. A mountain of problems:
economical, health, you can't imagine. It's a horrible thing. I see this and I
can't accept it. Neither can my wife, she doesn't understand how people can act
that way. At best
it's an option for increasing income, not by much, but at least to solve a
minimum of the problems the families have. I feel
this is more a political issue. There is a responsibility of the government.
There has to be a redistribution of resources in our country, because all the
natural riches cannot be concentrated in the hands of the most powerful. This
has lead to many deep social problems. I believe the government of Mexico, along
with those of the United States and Canada, has to seek alternatives. It's their
responsibility. Migration to other countries to find jobs is not a solution. I
believe they have to deal with the origins of the problem and find ways of
generating self-employment opportunities. Fidel
was of the same opinion as Eliseo, though he also saw negative effects on the
people who migrate; not just on their families. I could
only add something similar to what my friend has said, but perhaps a bit sadder.
Really, the woman is the one who stays with all the work. But I have seen, and
with my own eyes, that the ones who leave have lost their families. I know one
who didn't return, another his wife wasn't home anymore. Those are some of the
worst consequences of migration. It's the sad reality of migration that you lose
your family. They leave to supposedly ameliorate their life, but it’s not a
solution, there really aren't any benefits, they lose everything. These are
consequences that no one wants to suffer, but the situation is so grave that
they have to leave. The government has a responsibility there. Yet
Eliseo and Fidel feel that people are starting to realize that it's not the best
solution, and that the negative affects are tremendous. Many people don't want
to leave, but feel they don't have any other option. Eliseo told us that the
father of his cousin had plans to migrate to the United States as well, but in
the end decided not to leave. Finally,
Eliseo wanted to stress the degrading health conditions, especially in
indigenous communities where there are no health services. I am
not only talking about Chiapas, I am talking about all regions especially in
indigenous communities, as much in the South as in the North. In many
communities, families have problems with the illnesses of children. The lack of
resources forces the peasants to keep working instead of caring for their
children. In the
rainy seasons the kids run around without shoes or proper cloths and are exposed
to all sorts of sicknesses. They have a lot of problems with stomach or
intestinal infections and respiratory complications. A simple illness, because
they have no means of treating it, will become a cause of death. I am
telling you this because I saw a baby die. I spent a week in one community where
there was a baby that had a really bad cough. It had an intestinal infection and
diarrhoea that weakened it so much that it caught a respiratory infection as
well. The baby eventually died in his mother's arms. He was a baby of probably
six months. What struck me was the indifference of the father. The baby was so
bad, but I realized that he never paid attention to his son, and left his wife
with all the pressure of taking care of him. The mother was doing what she
could, but was obviously aware that she could not save her child. The
feeling of helplessness was horrible, because I didn't have the money to tell
them, "Let's go see the doctor". This situation is common in many
communities, where there aren't any health services or enough resources to get
there.
Our situations may be different, but our struggle is the same. This was the
conclusion reached by Mexican visitors Fidel Pérez Vasquez, Domingo Jiménez
Jiménez, and Eliseo Gómez Hernández after a two-week tour of southern Québec
sponsored by the Social Justice Committee.
The farms visited belong to members of the Union paysanne. They included a small
enterprise specializing in medicinal herbs, a large milk producer (a member of
an organic cheese cooperative), organic vegetable growers, and maple syrup and
meat producers. A visit to a small mixed farm made plain to the visitors the
contradictions faced by small farmers in Québec. The owner explained to them
that, in accordance with organic practice he kept his pigs in outdoor
shelters but that it was in fact against the law in Québec to keep pigs outside
a barn.
From Union paysanne officials, the visitors heard how, following a deliberate
policy decision, the number of Québec farm had been reduced from over 134,000
in the 1950s to 32,000 in 2002. They learned of the Union paysanne’s struggle
to reverse this trend by mobilizing support for small family farms and local
organic producers, revitalizing rural communities, and opposing large-scale
agro-industrial enterprises such as “mega” pig farms.
For their part, the visitors described the threats confronting Mexican peasant
farmers. They emphasized that it is impossible for campesinos farming in
mountainous areas, with little or no government support, to compete on equal
terms with United States agro-businesses. They aren’t seeking to compete
internationally, but to revive their local markets and recover their traditional
farming practices. Their convictions as to the importance of organic farming are
at least in part the bitter fruit of firsthand experience of pesticide poisoning
in their local communities.
In addition to their respective struggles to preserve rural communities and
peasant agriculture, the visitors and their Québec hosts are confronted by
specific challenges, such as the demand by Mexican campesino organization for
renegotiation of the agricultural chapter of the NAFTA (a demand that has been
endorsed by the Canadian National Farmers Union) and the need to combat the
increasing use, in both Mexico and Canada, of genetically-modified plant
organisms.
This article is from an interview with Fidel Pérez Vásquez and Eliseo Gómez
Hernández, conducted and edited by Aurélie Gervais and Salomón Zapata-Berrío.
Her Excellency María Teresa García
Segovia Ambassador for Mexico 45 O'Connor Street, suite 1500 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1A4 Your Excellency: On behalf of the Social Justice Committee, I am writing to express my serious concern with regard to the very alarming situation in the Montes Azules Integral Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas. The statements of high
government officials, particularly those of Secretary Lichtinger and of Lic.
Campillo García of PROFEPA, appear to indicate that the federal government is
planning and preparing a security forces operation to evict the communities that
have settled within the Reserve. Our immediate and urgent cause of concern is
the likelihood that this intrinsically violent measure would lead to injuries
and bloodshed. In addition, as we believe that Commissioner Luis Alvarez has
already stated, such a step would certainly represent a major step backwards in
the faltering peace process in Chiapas. Furthermore, in the
existing situation in which there has been no proper consultation process let
alone agreement with the affected indigenous peoples, the removal of the
communities would be in contradiction to Mexico's international obligations
under ILO Covenant 169. It would cause serious violations of the social and
economic rights of these indigenous campesinos, who would lose their homes,
farms, and livelihoods. We would like to ask you to convey to the Mexican government our urgent request that they under no circumstances attempt a forcible removal of the indigenous communities who have settled in and around the Montes Azules Integral Biosphere Reserve. We would also like to ask
the Mexican government to give full consideration to the very positive proposal
that it be the indigenous communities themselves who take over complete
responsibility for the management and conservation of the forests of Montes
Azules. (In this connection we would respectfully call to your attention the
fact that the manner in which the Reserves has been administered has never
respected the existing provisions for community participation that are part of
the General Law of Equilibrium and Environmental Protection.) Finally, we would request
you to remind the Mexican government of the continued need for the San Andres
Accords on Indigenous Rights and Culture to be incorporated into the Mexican
Constitution and into national law on the basis of the COCOPA proposal. In our
humble opinion, full compliance with the San Andres Accords is an indispensable
precondition for the resolution of social conflicts in Chiapas. At this Easter-time, we
would like to send you our good wishes, and once more to express our hope that
the Mexican government will choose the path that leads to a true peace in
Chiapas, a path that is built on respect for the totality of human rights and on
the espousal of a form of environmental protection that is based on the needs of
local communities and the well-being of the Mexican people - rather than on the
interests of potential investors and foreign researchers. Sincerely, Karen Rothschild Programme Coordinator
Where
the “Heavily Indebted Poor Country” Initiative for debt cancellation is
failing
by Derek MacCuish The HIPC Initiative debt relief program is not
achieving its main objective: a permanent exit from the burden of debt. The
international community=s main debt relief effort has serious problems in too
many important aspects: ▪ Debt relief payments by countries that
have completed the program, and by countries with programs underway, continue to
be a substantial drain on their economies, stunting efforts at productive
development. ▪ The program is slow, producing only six
graduates of more than forty candidates since it was launched in 1996. ▪ It is laden with conditions, primarily
generic economic reform programs that have failed to produce economic growth
results while failing to shield the most vulnerable people in the countries
affected. No exit for indebted, impoverished countries The continued drop in commodity market prices and
the global economic downturn, combined with over-optimistic IMF projections of
economic growth, have contributed to a worsening outlook for indebted countries.
This holds true also for those that have received debt relief, to the extent
that their promised Aexit@ from the debt crisis is not materializing. Delays in implementing the HIPC Initiative
program means that most eligible countries still have a substantial drain on
their budget. This crowds out spending in more productive areas and discourages
investment, while encouraging high-cost short term borrowing. The delays mean a reduced probability of
achieving the exit originally targeted. As the Acut off@ date for the debts that
are eligible for treatment recedes into the past, new borrowing drives
countries= indebtedness to higher levels. The role of the World Bank, as the main creditor
to impoverished countries, is substantial in both older debts and new lending.
The Bank has refused to consider the full cancellation that is the common
position in wealthy countries. It is also engaged in actively promoting new
borrowing throughout the Third World, without adequate oversight or
accountability to the people who will inherit the debts created. Delays and conditions Every country seeking debt relief must comply
with an IMF-directed program of economic restructuring. This usually includes
cuts to spending, the sale of state enterprises to private owners, and layoffs
in the public service. Honduras is stalled in the HIPC Initiative in
large part because the financial institutions judge that the government is
paying teachers too much. Senegal=s delays relate to public spending and the
slow process of privatizing its peanut production. Guyana is delayed because of
public spending and the slow process of privatizing sugar production. Of the twenty countries eligible for relief, up
to half are substantially off-track with their adjustment programs and thus are
not making progress to the ACompletion Point@ and full treatment.* Resources The World Bank and IMF argue that they do not
have the resources necessary to write off the debts of the poorest countries
without imperilling their operations and credit rating. The argument is summed
up in the September 2002 edition IMF magazine IMF Survey: “Total debt cancellation would imperil the
funds that multilateral creditors would have for future lending and would come
at the expense of resources available to other developing countries, some of
which are equally poor but have less external debt. Over 80 percent of the
world's poor live in countries that are not HIPCs. For the IMF, total debt
cancellation would exhaust the resources that finance the Reduction and Growth
Facility (PRGF) and the HIPC Initiative, and the IMF would have to stop
providing concessional support to its poorest members.” Reluctance to consider full cancellation of
multilateral debt is due more to political and ideological factors than
economic. This sometimes results in positions that are apparently illogical, as
in one argument presented in the paragraph above, that debt cancellation would
mean less funding for debt relief. There is a reluctance to consider full resources
of the institutions, especially of the World Bank, the largest single creditor
to impoverished countries. A glance at the finances of the Bank is sufficient to
indicate that the argument of resource constraints should be questioned. From the World
Bank Annual Report 2001: Income
from loans: US$ 8,143
million Total
income: $10,015
million Net income
after expenses: $1,489
million Net income
does not include an amount set aside in loan loss provisions $676 million Accumulated
provision for loan losses $3,959 million The Bank does not use loan loss provisions to
write off impoverished countries’ debt. That is done through the HIPC Trust
Fund, to which the Bank transferred $250 million. The failure to provide the exit from the burden
of debt that was the stated objective of the HIPC Initiative is due to
inadequate slow delivery to eligible countries. This in turn is due in large
part to delays associated with required economic reform programs that most
observers would agree are difficult to implement, and that many agree are
inappropriate given local contexts. The reluctance of the World Bank to provide
relief on a level with what is provided by bilateral creditors is a contributing
factor to both delays and depth of relief. Full use of World Bank resources
would assist in accelerating the program and allow greater prospects of
achieving the exit that is desired. What has HIPC debt relief meant? The Uganda
example. Uganda was the first country to complete the HIPC
Initiative, and subsequently received treatment via the Aenhanced@ program which
provides deeper relief. The country continues to struggle with high levels of
debt, with yearly payments to average a projected $US87 million for the next ten
years. Payments will then increase steadily after 2010 as current loans become
due. Even with full treatment, Uganda paid US$45
million to wealthy countries and multilateral creditors like the World Bank in
2000/2001. An IMF/ World Bank assessment in August 2002 considers that AUganda=s
debt sustainability situation is expected to deteriorate further over the near
term.@ The World Bank now provides statistical
information that makes it easier to see what these payments are for. Uganda is
scheduled to make payments to the World Bank totalling US$17.97 million, for
example, in the first four months of 2003. (It is unclear how much of that
amount will actually be paid by Uganda; some of it will be covered under debt
reduction programs but the amounts aren’t publicly available.) A close look at one of these payments gives a
sense of what the loans originally were for, and why they should have been
cancelled years ago: Payment
due World Bank 15 February 2003. Principal
US$2.91 million Charges
$1.46 million Total
$4.37 million Of this payment, over half - $1.53 million - is
for a 1982 structural adjustment loan by the World Bank. (Over $276 thousand of
the payment on this loan is for charges. As the table indicates, one third of
the payments due are in charges.) There was no lasting benefit of this loan for the
people of Uganda. The structural adjustment program Afell apart in 1985 as a
result of the spending pressures brought on by the civil war and the limited
commitment of the political leadership. By 1986 few signs of this adjustment
program remained,@ according to a report by the World Bank Operations Evaluation
Department. The loan was made to the Obote regime, whose
security forces had one of the world's worst human rights records, laying waste
to a substantial section of the country. (Obote ruled until July 1985, when he
was replaced by a military government.) Fortunately for the people of Uganda, the current
government is democratically elected, large loan contracts now have to be
approved by Parliament and a poverty reduction program is well underway. They
deserve 100% cancellation of debts by the international financial institutions. * The
“Completion Point” is the final stage in the HIPC Initiative process,
awarded by the World Bank and IMF to countries that have complied with economic
restructuring programs. At this point, debt relief sufficient to make the
country=s debt burden Asustainable@ (as judged by the IMF and World Bank) is
provided.
Dialogue with the IMF
The Social
Justice Committee has been involved in trying to press for greater access to
information, and an opening of dialogue with the IMF. We do this as part of the
push for greater transparency, accountability and cooperation with the
institution, and the long term objective of empowerment of people affected by
IMF programs. Although we are
often welcomed to meetings and find them helpful in many aspects, the process
has not always been easy, as the letters below indicate. We are now pushing for
improvements at the IMF on how to improve its engagement with civil society. 18 December 2002
From: Derek MacCuish, Social Justice Committee
To: External Relations Department, IMF
On behalf of the Halifax Initiative
Coalition of NGOs in Canada, I was in Washington from 4-7 December to
engage in discussions with Bank and Fund staff on specific aspects of HIPC
conditionality. As an unexpected result of that effort at engagement,
I regret that there were repeated problems with the IMF External
Relations Department sufficient to bring to your attention. I'll try to
summarize the main aspects here, and make suggestions for where improvements
might be found. ·
Reluctance to provide information. My initial contact with External
Relations was to request name/contact information. This was refused.
External Relations staff moved to organize NGO briefings instead, ostensibly on
my behalf but without my knowledge and despite the absence of a request for
assistance in this direction from me. I found (through a third party) that they
were then inviting other participants but, even when asked repeatedly and
directly, they refused to tell me who. · Failure
to set up requested meetings. I agreed that External Relations
would take the lead in setting meetings with the HIPC Unit, the Senegal Mission
Chief, and the Honduras Mission Chief. The HIPC Unit meeting was refused,
and the Senegal meeting was lost despite the Mission Chief's informal agreement
to meet. In both cases, I was referred to External Relations, since there
seems to be a policy that staff are to refer interview requests to that
department. All meetings that I was able to request directly, without
the involvement of External Relations, went ahead (except when it was
impossible, with staff out of the country for example). · Failure
to honour the terms of the request. Although External Relations
became involved in the Honduras meeting after it had been agreed by staff,
at the meeting itself they presented an agenda for discussion that I had not
seen, and which was substantially different from the purpose of the meeting I
had requested. Rather than a working meeting on the specifics of Honduras'
programs (fiscal policy, financial sector reform) and debt relief given the
expiry of the Interim Period last summer, External Relations set up a broad
spectrum "briefing" for NGOs that was not very helpful for my purpose. · Lack of
understanding that organizations outside the Washington area do not have
the same level of access as the DC groups. Restricted by time and funding
constraints, we need to make the best of a visit to the institutions.
Inviting DC groups to a meeting I requested, and changing the agenda without
consultation, reflects a lack of respect for the needs of visitors from
outside the beltway. ·
Intrusion beyond the scope of the department. A representative of IMF
External Relations, inappropriately I thought, attended a meeting at
the World Bank, with HIPC Unit staff. I did not extend an invitation
to attend, and assume the World Bank people did not either, so this was an
initiative of IMF External Relations. ·
Restricting access to particular NGO representatives. To assist in these
meetings and with ongoing liaising with the IFIs I contracted a local
consultant, Ms. Karen Joyner, who has reported that External Relations is
reluctant to recognize her credentials despite her years of campaign experience
for various organizations, mainly in Europe. If it is to encourage constructive
dialogue with NGOs, the External Relations Department will have to regard its
role as something more generous than information management. The department will be more helpful
if it accepts its role as one of providing assistance to us in our efforts to
provide informed input in policy dialogues. This would entail prompt
response to requests for information, and open disclosure of actions taken
relevant to a request. External Relations could make more honest
efforts to secure meetings that are requested, and refrain from interference in
the content of meetings. The department should restrict its involvement
so that it does not extend beyond the IMF itself. It would be good to see recognition
that access to information is not just a prerogative of select NGOs, and that
organizations outside the Washington area may have requirements beyond those of
groups with regular, easy access to people of the institution. I'd welcome any response or suggestions
you might have. Sincerely, Derek MacCuish, The Social Justice Committee,
Montreal INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, WASHINGTON. D.C.
ZO431
December 20, 2002
Dear Mr. MacCuish:
Thank you for your note regarding your experience
with the IMF’s External Relations Department ("EXR") earlier this
month. It seems like you were deeply dissatisfied and I am glad that you brought
your concerns to my attention. I have discussed this with my staff and they
share your view that improvements to the way our two organizations engage are
needed if we are to continue our dialogue in the future. Rather than responding
to each point in your note, I believe it would be more useful to first clarify
apparent misunderstandings about Fund outreach, then I will reiterate EXR's role
within the IMF, and suggest some ways we can work together to make our dialogue
more productive. First, I would like to underscore the enormous
efforts the IMF makes to initiate and maintain an open and vigorous dialogue
with all interested parties, including NGOs, academics, research institutes,
labor unions, faith-based organizations, business associations, think tanks,
charitable foundations, and parliaments. EXR is obligated to facilitate
interaction for all on an equitable basis, and we take this obligation very
seriously. When representatives from any of these groups seek information about
the IMF, it is EXR’s responsibility to determine the best way to fulfill the
request (meetings, briefings website referral, letter, telephone call). The
needs of both sides are taken into consideration in every case. Given the range of groups with which we engage,
the volume of requests for information and meetings is large at times. For this
reason, country teams and issue specialists within the Fund have charged EXR
with the responsibility for coordinating requests. Over time we have developed
outreach strategies that are designed to supply the requestor with the necessary
information and to use everyone's time efficiently. Consolidating meetings on
similar subjects is one such strategy, and has become standard practice. It
enables us to conduct more outreach and it is an appropriate way to ensure equal
access to all interested parties. To be sure, EXR's role in outreach expands well
beyond planning meetings and responding to requests for information. One of our
most important goals is to engage with all interested parties and transform
discussions into informed policy debate. However at times, we receive requests
for information that does not exist, or requests for meetings that are
uninformed, premature or untimely given the status of the issue at hand. In
these cases, EXR's role is to work with the requestor and suggest satisfactory
alternatives. To call this obfuscation or interference is inaccurate, it is
management. I am delighted that at you wish to continue your
dialogue with the DAF, and have a few suggestions concerning procedure that I
believe you will find to be valuable. These policies apply equally to NGOs and
all other groups and individuals that liaise with the Fund, and are designed to
facilitate productive interaction. - Direct all requests for meetings and
information to EXR. - Submit meeting requests in writing (email is
fine). The request should include basic information such as: Description of the
requestor (and the organization he represents), a clear and detailed statement
of purpose of the meeting (this will help EXR identify the appropriate Fund
staff to include) and whether other individuals or organizations will attend. - Submit meeting requests with as much lead time
as possible, particularly if your organization is not based in Washington. - Supply a proposed meeting agenda. - Provide reports, briefing papers and background
materials in advance of the meeting. - Make the most of existing information. If
scheduling a meeting is not possible, consult the IMF website, plan conference
calls, or write. Email is particularly useful for organizations and individuals
based outside Washington. Finally. let me emphasize that the IMF takes
outreach very seriously. The input provided by civil society and others improves
the quality of our work and enhances our understanding of important issues and
the countries in which we are working. However, if we suspect that a group or
individual does not wish to engage honestly or constructively with us, we must
accept that and respond accordingly. Fortunately such situations are rare. I hope this information is useful. Sincerely yours Thomas C Dawson, Director, External Relations
Department, IMF 8 January 2003
Dear Mr. Dawson,
Thank you for your letter of December 20.
Your indication that you and your staff share the view that improvements in how the
IMF and civil society organizations engage are needed, and your openness to
continued dialogue, are welcome. To that end, it would be helpful for you
and your staff to consider the extent to which the problems I encountered are
typical of common, identifiable flaws that too often crop up in dialogue
between policy makers and civil society organizations. To assist in this,
I am including here some points from a paper I wrote, "Participatory
processes in international financial policy - engaging civil society in the
policy process." These points are drawn from publications on
World Bank experience with CSO engagement. (The full paper is available on
the internet at http://www.s-j-c.net/Participation.pdf.) Common flaws in participatory procedures
include (but are not limited to): Expectations: - Insufficient transparency on part of
institution(s) as to their expectations and parameters of process; - Insufficient attention to investigating CSOs'
expectations and reconciling these with expectations of institution(s); - Lack of clarity over who is accountable for the
process and its outputs. Representation: - Participation is usually by invitation, and
invitation by criteria which are not transparent nor devised on the basis of
close knowledge of civil society in country; - Those elements of the population which are
hardest to reach - the poorest, furthest from the capital city etc. - are rarely
represented. The quality of CSO input into a participatory
process depends on several factors, including: - access to relevant information - contact with key actors; In your letter, you provide a set of procedures
that you say applies to NGOs and others that liaise with the Fund. This is
the first I've heard of these procedures, and colleagues I've polled are
also unaware of them. Is this a new or recent set of procedures, or
something that is being developed? If so, it would be helpful if your
department would extend an invitation to relevant parties to help develop a
set of guidelines that would be effective in contributing to your goals of
enhancing IMF outreach and productive dialogue, and be mutually
respected. Finally, in your closing paragraph you write
about your response should you "suspect that a group or individual
that does not wish to engage honestly or constructively." I will
try to assume you mean no insult to me or my organization, or to infer
dishonesty on our part, but remain puzzled as to why you would choose to close
your message on that note. I hope you find this information helpful and a
contribution to improved relations. Sincerely, Derek MacCuish, The Social Justice Committee,
Montreal, Canada |
