Русская версия

Civic Engagement Policies
of the World Bank and
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in Russia

Issue Paper

Liliana N. Proskouryakova
OSI IPF Fellow 2005

The World Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development are international institutions that play an important role in global economic governance.  They recognize the indispensability of civic engagement for successful implementation of structural reforms carried out with their financial and consultative support [1]. My research concerns ways in which that recognition can be optimized in practice.

In the case of Russia, both formal and informal policies of the WB and EBRD seek to make civic-engagement principles of public participation open and clear, which, in turn, should contribute to wide public awareness, understanding and support of economic development and reforms, as well as useful feedback to policy-makers.

Scale of Involvement

As of end of the year 2003 the World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and International Development Agency) portfolio in the Russian Federation enccomapssed 33 projects and 3 grants, constituting $9.7 billion of net obligations of the World Bank to the Government of the Russian Federation.

Russia became a shareholder and a member of International Finance Corporation (IFC) in 1993. As of June 1, 2005, IFC invested around $2 billion of its own funds and syndicated over $200 million in more than 100 projects across a variety of sectors, while its committed portfolio stands at $1.404 billion. At present, Russia commands the largest country exposure in the IFC.

As of the end of 2002 the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development invested EURO 4.9 billion in Russia in the form of direct and regional investments. 25% of all investments of the EBRD are made in Russia. On average the Bank invests EURO 1.2 billion in Russia.

Civil Society

            One of the most comprehensive studies of civil society in the World – Civil Society Index (CSI) - was developed and implemented by the World Alliance for Citizens Participation (CIVICUS). In Russia the CSI was implemented by the St.Petersburg “Strategy” Center using the following definition of civil society (developed by the project National Advisory Board):

“Civil Society is an arena, situated for the most part outside family, state and market, at which people voluntarily interact for promotion of their own and public interests and the common good”.

Opinions differ on the extent to which Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) influence public opinion and attitudes in local communities. Whatever its advocacy positions, the ability of a CSO to influence public opinion depends on its capacity (human, financial, etc.), the political environment in its area of operation, the size of its membership and/or number of beneficiaries, the organization’s visibility and information activities, and other factors.  In other words, the ability of a CSO to influence public opinion depends on a complex number of factors and can be assessed only on a case-by-case basis. 

Forms of Civic Engagement

Different forms of civic engagement are available to international organizations and national decision-makers.  These include, first of all, 1) consultations to sound out the views of various social actors and stakeholders on issues of key importance for international institutions and national authorities, and the creation of 2) consultative bodies.  The latter can be standing councils with regular meetings on current and pending programs/ projects of the institution/ ministry, and should be based upon clearly defined criteria for the selection and replacement of its members, democratic mechanisms of coordination and decision-making, and accountability to various social groups. 

Other forms include 3) public opinion research (though much data may already have been gathered by governmental and non-governmental organizations) and 4) independent public expertise, that is, outside experts invited to track progress in project implementation and final post-project evaluation. Such public expertise can verify that the project in question has incorporated recommendations received in the course of consultations with civil society and other stakeholders.

International organizations and Russian officials can also organize 5) formal public hearings following individual or public consultations on projects; audits of project results may be put forward for discussion. In such public hearings the role of regional authorities is of particular value.  Furthermore, there is an option to actively pursue 6) information dissemination to raise public awareness and make an institution/ agency’s work understandable to citizens.  Information on international institution’s work should be disseminated not only by the institutions themselves, but also by CSOs that monitor and analyze their work, that look at their work from a critical perspective.

Finally, on the issue of 7) funding, possible mechanisms include sub-contracting agreements, grant agreements (договор целевого финансирования, пожертвования), indirect funding through a foundation created with the support of an international institution, or through an independent foundation; a grant agreement with the federal or regional government and CSOs.

What makes for Success?

• Civic engagement policies are formalized, i.e. developed in written form and adopted at the highest possible level of an institution/ ministry in the form of a law, a regulatory act, operational policy, directive, and so on. 
• Upon adoption, civic engagement policies become obligatory for all officials of an institution / ministry, and circumvention or delays are treated as unacceptable. 
• As needed, officials institute specific educational programs and training to learn how to better implement civic engagement policy.
• All levels of an institution/ ministry take part in the development and implementation of civic engagement policies.
• The principle of openness is observed in the development and introduction of amendments (review, changes and updates) of civic engagement policies.
• Civic engagement policies are linked and/or mainstreamed with other key policy documents of an institution/ ministry (i.e. corporate policies and strategies, such as with the EBRD Country Strategy, WB Country Assistance Strategy, mid-term programs of social and economic development of the Russia Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, and so on).
• Civic engagement events are organized in such a way that various stakeholders are represented (with consideration of gender, age, social group balance and geographic diversity or relevance). All participants are equal and free to express their opinions and positions.
• Special budget and other resources are previewed for civic engagement activities.
  

• International institutions and national authorities may opt to keep CSO databases of their own and regularly updating them, or use existing databases. In either case it may be useful to request contact information of organizations by sector/region from NGO resource centers or from national/regional umbrella organizations.
• It is inadvisable to contract CE events to a commercial company, which on some occasions has hard times finding common language with both civil society organizations and authorities.
• Translations of project documentation into Russian should be double checked for accuracy.
• Internal Compliance Mechanisms of international organizations should be adjusted to be able to deal with complaints of civil society organizations and citizens.
• At meetings, if the Moderator has a preliminary predetermined list of presenters/speakers, the procedure of composition of this list should be clear to all participating CSOs.  Participating CSOs should be informed in advance of this procedure. Alternatively, this could be openly discussed at the beginning of the meeting.International organizations may be willing to launch a more active consultation process with civil society under the leading role of Resident/Country Offices, in addition to electronic consultations.
• There may be 2 co-chairs at a CE event: one from the part of CSOs and one from authorities/ international agencies. Co-chairs may change each session, while representing various CSOs/ networks. If agenda or a meeting is agreed with an international agency/ authority in advance, this should be done in an open and transparent manner. Co-chairs should seek to be as neutral as possible towards issues discussed. Furthermore, CSOs that co-chair meetings should represent both independent watch-dogs monitors, as well as partner-organizations of international agencies/ authorities (for example those who were contracted to set up civil society consultations.
• International institutions and national authorities may opt to keep CSO databases of their own and regularly updating them, or use existing databases. In either case it may be useful to request contact information of organizations by sector/region from NGO resource centers or from national/regional umbrella organizations.
• It is inadvisable to contract CE events to a commercial company, which on some occasions has hard times finding common language with both civil society organizations and authorities.
• Translations of project documentation into Russian should be double checked for accuracy.
• Internal Compliance Mechanisms of international organizations should be adjusted to be able to deal with complaints of civil society organizations and citizens.
• It is advisable to develop and disseminate evaluation forms to participants to assess the level of their satisfaction with the event and identify the week spots in logistics or thematic coverage. Participants should be reminded to complete evaluation forms and required time should be previewed in the agenda to fill in the forms.
• It makes sense to pro-actively inform NGOs from various regions and networks about possibilities to take part in annual meetings and other events open for public organized by international organizations; public hearings organized by national authorities; grant programs organized by international organizations and authorities. When selecting candidates for participating in an event (with a limited number of places) priority should be given to organizations that have professional analytical/ expert knowledge and organizations representing interests of sizable social groups (has big membership, has big network of partners in own and neighboring countries, is a member of a national or international network, has a sizable number of clients/ beneficiaries).
• During the meeting it is important to set time-limit for all interventions of CSOs. All participating CSOs should be treated equally in terms of time provided for comments/questions irrespective of the relative importance of an issue. 
• Giving the CS participants of CE events to set up the agenda is great. However, it is no good if one civil society group monopolized the agenda and the process. Inviting up to 5 competent and strong international, regional or network organizations will give the CS participants an opportunity to drive the agenda setting both time wise and thematically.