Briefly, over two days in a quite structured set of presentations and exchange three "delegations" explored both common ground, about how they saw development challenges for Africa, and differences of perceptions on what is happening and the impact particularly of IMF and World Bank policies. The exchanges began with a quite sharp edge; it was apparent throughout that stubbornly negative images of structural adjustment policies particularly but also IMF and World Bank promoted development strategies more generally were accepted almost as revealed truth in these faith settings. Among the religious leaders present, few appeared to know the Bretton Woods institutions at all well, and some hefty misunderstandings complicated the exchange. The rather dismal perception of most of the religious leaders present about what is happening at community level in terms of poverty was worrying - many seemed to take for granted that the situation is getting worse, not better.
The tone of the dialogue changed significantly over the two days, and the concluding notes stressed the importance of mutual knowledge, regular and constructive exchange, and cooperation. There was a clear affirmation of important common ground in terms of objectives and "good will", though the meetings only began to address the different perceptions about the policy agenda. Despite heavy agendas linked to the Accra High Level Forum that came right after the WCC/IMF/WB Dialogue, the Ghana Country Offices of the Bank and Fund engaged actively, constructively.
The question "what next"? was left hanging. Concrete plans on next steps at the global (WCC, IMF and World Bank) level await greater clarity on the WCC's impending leadership change. At the Ghana level, specific and promising plans were hatched during the meeting for future collaboration and far more regular contact among the different parties. Particularly promising were exchanges about concrete follow-up on social accountability and regular exchange about practical issues of common concern.
Background
Teams from the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Council of Churches met in Accra on August 28-29, 2008 for a dialogue centered on poverty and focused on Africa, generally, and Ghana, more specifically. The agenda was far-ranging, focused to a degree on the High Level Aid Harmonization meetings that took place in Accra in September, 2008. Themes also built on earlier discussions (see Development and Faith: Where Mind, Heart and Soul Work Together) that addressed governance; relationships among faith institutions, governments, and the IFIs; trade policies, especially affecting smallholder agriculture; the MDGs; and lessons to guide future dialogues with faith leaders and organizations. All participants, in a final round of comments, attested to the importance of the engagement and a need for similar dialogue to continue. One Bishop noted when a bishop tells you he has learned something new that means that many others will continue learning?
About twenty-five church leaders, most from Ghana and others from Anglophone Africa, participated, including the Anglican and Methodist Bishops of Gambia and Ghana. The IMF team included Bassirou Sarr, Arnold McIntyre, and Jenny Bisping; the Bank was represented by Brady Walkinshaw and Katherine Marshall, and counted with the support of Katherine Bain, Christopher Jackson, Daniel Boayke, and Kofi Tsikata, all from the Ghana Country Office. Gerrie Ter Haar, Professor of Religion at the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague, moderated the dialogue.
The encounter was characterized by a remarkably frank tone. The dialogue began with some sparks flying; the initial presentations by WCC team members launched wide ranging critiques of IMF and World Bank policies over the years (going back to 1961). But the dialogue that resulted was inclusive and generally highly constructive. All participants, in a final round of comments, attested to how much they had learned and appreciated the encounter. There are high hopes for a continuation of the dialogue, particularly in Ghana but also at Africa and global levels. The Ghana follow up is well defined and agreed upon; the Africa and global sequence needs review by all three institutions.
The Accra event was a continuation of a dialogue process launched in 2002, with a meeting involving the leaders of the three institutions (Kobia, Wolfensohn, and De Rato) in Geneva in October, 2004. This process involved a particularly consciously structured common commitment to a disciplined process of dialogue, with several meetings and publications the result of the endeavor. Since October 2004, however, the process was largely in hibernation, with leadership changes in all three institutions and some uncertainties about what represented the most sensible next step. The basic agreement that the best way to advance was to take the dialogue to the specific setting of a country and case study led to the Accra meeting, which took in part a WCC sponsored study of Ghana's experience with rice market liberalization as a point of departure.
Following past dialogues, the WCC published booklets on the encounters and plans a similar document to build on the Accra dialogue. Typically, thevbooklets have included background papers drafted by WCC participants and materials from Bank and IMF presentations.
The August 28, 2008 session centered broadly on the role of the three institutions in sub-Saharan Africa. Welcoming remarks by Rogate Mshana (WCC), Bassirou Sarr (IMF), and KM, were followed by rounds of introductions by participants, capturing a spectrum ranging from bishops to faith-inspired development practitioners at the grassroots. Many characterized a core development asset of faith leaders and institutions as their proximity to how Bank and Fund policies unfold the ground. Further, participants distinguished themselves from other Civil Society Organizations, pointing to their vast constituencies affected by development policies. Prepared statements by Robert Aboagye-Mensah, Methodist Bishop of Ghana, and Tundu Lissu of Tanzania, cast a particularly critical eye on IFI policies of structural adjustment, trade liberalization, and institutional governance. The statements recalled the differences in earlier dialogues with the WCC at the global level; differences still fervently held at the country-level in the perceptions of religious leaders. With some contrast, Bassirou Sarr and Daniel Boakye characterized the roles of the IMF and Bank, respectively, in the region, citing the encouraging outlook in many sectors and Ghana’s progress toward the MDGs of halving poverty. Concerns were shared by the three institutions that economic growth must be accompanied by vigorous efforts for social inclusion and equity, and many voiced skepticism that the positive signs on the horizon for growth were not shared by all regions. The perceptions of innate trade-offs and the view that IFI policies generated both "winners" and "losers" was a recurring theme, especially on issues of trade policy.
Rev. Dr. Fred Deegbe, Chairman of the Christian Council of Ghana, characterized a widespread perception that Bank and Fund policies assumed that progress would "trickle-down" to the poor, whereas in practice, the rising tide lifted some boats far more quickly and higher than others, always elevating the interests of economic growth above equity and welfare. Particularly damaging, was the suspicion that the Bank and Fund, despite shifts in policies in recent years, had inadequately addressed lasting hostility and suspicion toward structural adjustment at the grassroots.
Afternoon discussion shifted to issues of aid effectiveness and governance. Tilewa Johnson, Anglican Bishop of Gambia, called for greater voice of developing countries in the decision making processes of the Bank and Fund. He also drew attention to the need for national governments to take ownership of their development agendas; a recurring theme throughout the discussion that echoed principles of the Paris Declaration. Representatives of the Bank and Fund returned to themes of aid effectiveness, and strong consensus emerged on the need for faith leaders and constituencies to hold the public sector to account for spending. Many participants noted their absence, as a part of civil society, in tripartite policy dialogues with government and IFIs, and noted the recent instance of an Interfaith Waste Management (IFAWAMI) initiative in Ghana as an area of practical collaboration.
Discussion on August 29, 2008 centered on Ghana. Arnold McIntyre, IMF Resident Representative, began with an overview of the macroeconomic outlook, noting opportunities and pitfalls with the influx in oil revenues for Ghana in 2010; he highlighted the amiable advisory role and relationship between the IMF and - the Ministry of Finance. Katherine Bain summarized the Bank’s strategy in Ghana, noting shifts from IDA to IBRD lending, and the growth in budget support. She was keen to engage civil society, citing areas from social report cards to best practices, and conveyed the need for growth with equity to be incorporated into the Bank's country objectives.
Chris Jackson presented strategic choices for the agricultural sector, stressing how soaring food costs, while damaging for net consumers of staples, also came with opportunities for local growers. He spoke to the tension in agricultural policies, where the rural poor were frequently net consumers of commodities like rice, negatively affected by tariffs that aided producers. Bashiru Jumah, with the Social Enterprise Development Foundation (SEND), highlighted trade-offs in rice growing regions of northern Ghana where tariffs and subsidies, he argued, could provide protection against external shocks with local smallholder farmers producing staples. Several participants pointed to negative health trade-offs between local brown rice and imported white rice.
Some Concluding Thoughts
Anger and hostility towards the Bank and Fund, particularly associated with what is seen as the pain resulting from trade reforms (opening up markets) and budget cuts linked to structural adjustment are alive and all too well, a persisting narrative which many church leaders seemed to accept as a given. Development practitioners need to be aware of the image and reflect on whether still further efforts to address the conflicting narratives are feasible or desirable.
Over the course of the meeting, the sense of common ground grew stronger, a process similar to experience during earlier global encounters in Geneva. The struggle is to translate this to a broader community, especially at the local level among religious communities. One avenue is to ensure appropriate inclusion of faith representatives in tripartite dialogues with government and IFIs. There are patent benefits to moving this forward, given the scope of faith communities, work in service delivery and the role of religious leaders on advocacy. Efforts in Ghana through an interfaith initiative on waste management illustrate the potential of steps in this direction, but these could evolve toward a sustained policy dialogue at the country-level.
There was a strong push for organized and ongoing interreligious dialogue on development at national and regional levels. The faith leaders present emphasized strongly the differences in both perceptions and practice between religious communities and broader Civil Society. Bishop Tilewa Johnson noted the need to carve a niche for faith leaders and organizations so they have a voice in national development, fundamentally because of the impact of policies on their constituents. FBOs, in this context, are very different from CSOs, and this unique space should be used to foster change.
Broadly, faith leaders perceived three areas for collaboration: (i) service delivery and inclusion in policy dialogues to share issues of best practice and to create fora where practical work areas can be mapped and accounted for by IFIs and government; (ii) advocacy and governance where faith leaders can be unified voices for accountability on public spending; and, (iii) capacity building to improve coordination with and among faith communities to improve the technical abilities to deliver, convey, and evaluate services.
