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.

(Click here to view full paper [Acrobat format])

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