Sanction System
1. Introduction: World Bank Sanctions and the GCRI–NE Opportunity
1.1 Context of Anti-Corruption in Development
One of the World Bank’s core missions is to ensure that financing entrusted to it—intended for reducing poverty and promoting sustainable development—is used for legitimate, beneficial purposes. Corruption, fraud, collusion, coercion, and other sanctionable practices undermine these goals, diverting funds and weakening trust in the Bank’s projects.
Consequently, the Bank employs an administrative sanctions system to investigate and sanction companies or individuals who engage in misconduct. This system:
Protects WBG resources from misuse.
Deters future wrongdoing by ensuring credible penalties.
Promotes compliance and better corporate governance among participants in Bank-financed operations.
1.2 GCRI–NE: Enabling a More Efficient, Data-Driven Approach
GCRI (Global Centre for Risk and Innovation), operating as a research and development non-profit in 120+ countries, has deep experience in global risk intelligence, advanced analytics, digital transformations, and governance frameworks. NE (Nexus Ecosystem) translates that research into enterprise-grade solutions. The synergy is designed to help large institutions (like the World Bank) integrate next-generation data frameworks, advanced analytics, aggregator-based solutions, and multi-layered compliance oversight.
For the World Bank’s sanctions system, GCRI–NE can:
Accelerate how allegations are processed, documented, and adjudicated.
Improve the quality and speed of evidence verification for OSD (Office of Suspension and Debarment) and the Sanctions Board.
Enhance the post-sanction compliance environment, ensuring sanctioned parties have robust digital tools to track and demonstrate changes in corporate integrity, thereby reducing recidivism.
Outcome: A more robust, agile, and fair sanctions process that reaffirms the Bank’s zero-tolerance stance on corruption in Bank-financed operations.
2. Overview of the World Bank’s Sanctions System
2.1 Origins and Rationale
Formally established to combat corruption and protect donor and borrower interests, the sanctions system is anchored by:
Integrity Vice Presidency (INT): Investigates allegations of sanctionable practices—fraud, corruption, collusion, coercion, obstruction—in Bank-financed projects.
Two-Tier Adjudication:
First Tier: The Office of Suspension and Debarment (OSD) reviews cases from INT. If the evidence meets the threshold, OSD issues a Notice of Sanctions Proceedings and recommends a sanction, along with a temporary suspension. If respondents don’t contest, the OSD’s recommended sanction becomes final.
Second Tier: The Sanctions Board (composed of external judges) hears contested cases de novo, imposing final sanctions if wrongdoing is proven on a “more likely than not” standard.
2.2 Sanctions and Compliance
If found culpable, a respondent faces a potential range of penalties:
Debarment (ineligible for Bank-financed projects)
Debarment with Conditional Release
Conditional Non-Debarment
Public Letter of Reprimand
Restitution
Debarred parties can only regain eligibility by demonstrating compliance with the Bank’s integrity standards and guidelines, reflecting an emphasis on rehabilitation and improved corporate governance.
2.3 Achievements and Ongoing Challenges
Since its formal inception in 2001, the Bank has sanctioned over 700 firms and individuals, significantly curbing misconduct. Yet challenges persist:
Complexity in analyzing large volumes of evidence, from cross-border transactions to local procurement records.
Evolving, more sophisticated fraud and corruption schemes.
Resource constraints, especially for contested or multi-jurisdictional cases.
In this context, advanced analytics, cross-referencing, and aggregator-based solutions from GCRI–NE can greatly strengthen how quickly and accurately the system processes allegations, adjudicates them, and monitors compliance post-sanction.
3. Core Entities in the Sanctions Process
3.1 Integrity Vice Presidency (INT)
INT is independent of Bank management, investigating allegations to decide if evidence is sufficient to refer a case to OSD (or relevant evaluation officers at IFC/MIGA for private sector projects). INT’s success in building strong cases depends on robust data gathering, multi-lingual document analysis, and sometimes complex forensic or cross-border intelligence.
3.2 Office of Suspension and Debarment (OSD)
The OSD, led by the Suspension and Debarment Officer (SDO), determines if INT’s allegations meet the threshold for an administrative sanction:
If yes, the SDO issues a Notice of Sanctions Proceedings with a recommended sanction and enforces a temporary suspension.
Respondents can accept or contest. Uncontested cases end here with the SDO’s recommended sanction.
3.3 World Bank Sanctions Board
A panel of seven external judges, the Sanctions Board is the final decision-maker if respondents contest INT’s allegations or the proposed sanction. Operating under a standard of “more likely than not,” the Board conducts a de novo review, unswayed by the SDO’s recommendation. After thorough consideration, the Board imposes final sanctions.
3.4 Compliance and Follow-Up
Many debarments require compliance with an approved plan—like adopting integrity compliance guidelines. If the respondent meets these conditions, they can exit sanction status. The system’s emphasis is as much on penalizing wrongdoing as it is on enabling corporate rehabilitation.
4. GCRI–NE: Mission, Structure, and Capabilities
4.1 GCRI (Global Centre for Risk and Innovation)
Focus: Interdisciplinary research across governance, digital transformation, climate resilience, and advanced risk frameworks.
Global Network: Partnerships in 120+ countries, bridging local data with global standards.
Non-Profit Independence: No direct involvement in WBG operations or contract awards, ensuring no conflict of interest in supporting the sanctions system.
4.2 NE (Nexus Ecosystem)
Enterprise Solutions: NE turns GCRI’s research into operational, aggregator-based platforms, advanced analytics, and integrative compliance frameworks suitable for large institutions.
Technical Depth: Skilled in large-scale data ingestion, text analysis, geospatial analytics, chain-of-custody systems, encryption, and secure collaboration.
Relevance: The synergy can specifically help OSD and the Sanctions Board handle case data, ensure robust forensics, accelerate the review of respondent arguments, and track compliance conditions seamlessly.
5. Strategic Alignment with the Sanctions System Mandate
5.1 Strengthening Accountability
Accountability forms the crux of the sanctions process. GCRI–NE can:
Deliver aggregator-based data solutions to unify contract records, investigative leads, or IFC/MIGA references in complex multi-institution or multi-country fraud schemes.
Provide advanced analytics to quickly highlight patterns of collusion or cross-border suspicious linkages.
5.2 Facilitating Quick and Fair Resolutions
With GCRI–NE’s approach:
OSD can examine evidence more swiftly, guiding preliminary suspensions and unchallenged determinations.
The Sanctions Board, in contested cases, can handle thousands of pages or multifaceted allegations more effectively, supporting thorough, data-driven judgments.
5.3 Enhancing Post-Sanction Compliance
Compliance is critical. GCRI–NE can help sanctioned firms track their internal governance reforms, produce reliable metrics, and provide the Bank’s compliance officers with real-time updates. This fosters genuine corporate culture change, reducing repeat offenses.
6. Investigative Inputs: Collaboration with INT and Others
6.1 INT’s Investigative Workflows
INT must gather evidence from local governments, project implementing agencies, or whistleblowers—often across multiple languages and local law contexts. GCRI–NE can:
Provide aggregator-based “forensic” modules that unify digital evidence, cross-check contractor backgrounds, or highlight suspicious repeated invoices.
Speed up how INT compiles the final allegations package for OSD.
6.2 Potential Integration with IFC and MIGA
Beyond World Bank (IBRD/IDA) projects, IFC and MIGA also have sanctionable practices. Each uses an Evaluation and Suspension Officer (EO) at first tier, with contested cases likewise heading to the Sanctions Board. GCRI–NE solutions can unify data or analytics across these arms, helping investigators see if the same firm or group of co-conspirators is repeating misconduct in IFC or MIGA.
Outcome: Stronger synergy among the Bank’s different arms, leading to consistent, cross-cutting enforcement.
7. First Tier of Adjudication: Office of Suspension and Debarment (OSD)
7.1 OSD Mandate and Key Tasks
When INT finds “sufficient evidence” of wrongdoing, it refers the case to the OSD. The SDO reviews:
Whether the alleged practice(s) are within the Bank’s definitions of sanctionable offenses.
If the evidence is enough to present a plausible case under the “more likely than not” threshold.
If yes, the SDO issues a Notice of Sanctions Proceedings, recommending a specific sanction and imposing a temporary suspension on the accused pending final resolution.
7.2 GCRI–NE Added Value
Structured Evidence Packages
Aggregator-based systems can highlight, in user-friendly dashboards, each piece of evidence that supports or refutes the alleged misconduct.
SDO can quickly see summaries, timelines, and cross-references to relevant Bank policies.
Recommend Sanctions with Precision
By referencing prior similar cases stored in aggregator “lessons logs,” the SDO can see typical sanctions for matching patterns, encouraging consistent outcomes.
Temporary Suspension Monitoring
If multiple affiliates or subsidiaries are also recommended for suspension, GCRI–NE solutions can unify data about those affiliates, ensuring coherent coverage of all impacted entities.
Outcome: A more agile, consistent, and data-based first tier. Respondents receive timely, well-documented notices. If they choose not to contest, the recommended sanction automatically becomes final.
8. Second Tier of Adjudication: The World Bank Sanctions Board
8.1 Composition and Role
The Sanctions Board is composed of seven external judges (appointed by the Executive Directors), ensuring independence from Bank staff. In contested cases, the Board performs a fresh evaluation (“de novo”), unaffected by the SDO’s recommendation, to determine if the standard of proof is met.
8.2 GCRI–NE Support for the Sanctions Board
Holistic Evidence Platform
The aggregator can present the entire record: INT’s allegations, OSD notice, respondent’s response, further briefs, any new evidence introduced, etc. Board members can easily navigate or cross-check references.
Complex Document Analysis
Board members often review voluminous contract documents or financial records. GCRI–NE’s advanced text analytics can expedite keyword searching, highlight conflicting statements across multiple briefs, and reduce the manual burden.
Hearing Facilitation
If the Board schedules an administrative hearing, aggregator-based tools can assist in real-time referencing of documents, ensuring any clarifications or exhibits are accessible, consistent, and organized.
Decision Drafting
Once the Board weighs the final evidence, aggregator solutions can help produce initial draft decisions, referencing relevant policies, prior cases, or recognized precedents. The Board retains full independence to finalize the language.
Outcome: More robust, data-enriched decisions, with decreased risk of overlooking relevant evidence or contradictory statements. The Board can also reference aggregator-based summaries to confirm that the recommended sanction aligns with established guidelines or prior decisions, promoting fairness and consistency in sanction outcomes.
9. Sanctions, Compliance, and Post-Sanction Follow-Up
9.1 Sanctions Imposed
Possible sanctions include:
Debarment: The entity is ineligible for Bank-financed contracts.
Debarment with Conditional Release: Reinstatement only if certain compliance reforms are proven.
Conditional Non-Debarment: The entity remains eligible, but must fulfill compliance measures.
Public Letter of Reprimand: Less severe, but still publicly signals wrongdoing.
Restitution: The entity must compensate for damages or funds lost.
9.2 Compliance Tracking
When a “Debarment with Conditional Release” or “Conditional Non-Debarment” is ordered, the sanctioned party typically must implement an integrity compliance program consistent with the Bank’s Integrity Compliance Guidelines. GCRI–NE can:
Provide a Digital Compliance Portal
The sanctioned entity logs its policy changes, staff training, internal audits, etc.
GCRI–NE aggregator environment automatically flags milestones or gaps, enabling the Bank’s Integrity Compliance Officer to see real-time improvements.
Risk-Based Monitoring
If the aggregator detects repeated red flags or contradictory updates, the Bank can schedule follow-up queries, possibly adjusting the compliance timeline or recommending further audits.
9.3 Collective Action
The compliance approach often encourages “collective action,” inviting sanctioned firms to engage in knowledge-sharing or mentorship. GCRI–NE can build secure collaboration modules for these firms to:
Exchange anonymized best practices on integrity compliance.
Access guidelines, e-learning, or group sessions with Bank compliance staff.
Outcome: A structured, data-driven approach to compliance fosters genuine corporate reforms, diminishing corruption recidivism.
10. Synergy with IFC, MIGA, and PRG Evaluations
10.1 IFC and MIGA
Alongside IBRD/IDA projects, IFC invests in private sector ventures and MIGA underwrites political risk insurance or non-commercial guarantees. Both IFC and MIGA have:
Evaluation and Suspension Officers (EOs) for the first tier, paralleling the SDO’s role in IBRD/IDA.
Sanctions Board for contested cases, shared with the World Bank at second tier.
A single aggregator environment can unify data from all arms, so if a firm is found colluding in an IDA project, IFC or MIGA staff can see relevant references, or vice versa.
10.2 Partial Risk Guarantees (PRGs)
Certain investment projects guaranteed by the Bank also have an EO at first tier. GCRI–NE can ensure aggregator-based synergy so sanctions track across all relevant WBG instruments, preventing “forum shopping” by unscrupulous parties.
Outcome: A consistent WBG-wide approach that ensures no one “slips through the cracks” by jumping from one financing arm to another after being debarred or sanctioned in a separate project.
11. Enhancing Efficiency of Fraud and Corruption Investigations
11.1 From Allegation to Decision
Currently, the timeline from when INT uncovers potential wrongdoing to a final sanction can be lengthy, especially if the case is contested. GCRI–NE can introduce aggregator-based solutions to:
Compress Data Collection: Real-time merging of financial, procurement, or communications data relevant to the alleged misconduct.
Speed Pre-Hearing Preparations: OSD and the respondents gain quicker access to the same evidence set (respecting confidentiality levels), removing delays in document retrieval or indexing.
11.2 Minimizing Overload in Contested Cases
Large contested cases can involve thousands of pages. GCRI–NE’s advanced text analysis or pattern recognition cuts down the manual reading time. This ensures:
Respondents can also present evidence more effectively (if done within aggregator channels), simplifying references.
The Board invests less time on mechanical data searching and more on the substantive merits of the allegations.
Outcome: Each stage of the sanctions process sees shortened review cycles, more robust accountability, and reduced potential for error or omission in evidence handling.
12. Data Integration, Security, and Governance
12.1 Aggregator Architecture
A specialized aggregator environment for the World Bank’s sanctions process might combine:
Core Data from procurement documents, contract logs, relevant OSD or Board references.
External Data like corporate registries, open reporting on indicted or suspicious vendors, or cross-checks with other MDB debarment lists.
User Interfaces for INT, OSD, and the Sanctions Board, each with role-based access to protect privacy and maintain the independence of each step.
12.2 Security Protocols
The aggregator must abide by strict encryption standards, comprehensive logging, and robust user authentication:
Chain-of-Custody for evidence is crucial, ensuring no tampering or unauthorized modification.
Audit Trails track every query or download, if necessary, to demonstrate the system’s reliability.
12.3 Data Partitioning
To preserve the “two-tier” separation, the aggregator can enforce partitioned views:
OSD environment sees evidence up to the Notice stage.
If contested, the aggregator grants the Board an unfiltered view but retains secure modules so SDO or INT content not relevant to the final review remains isolated.
This ensures no cross-influence from first-tier recommendations.
Outcome: A flexible yet secure digital backbone that upholds confidentiality, procedural fairness, and the independence of each stage.
13. Advanced Analytics for Evidence Assessment
13.1 Automated Collusion Detection
Collusion is often subtle: repeated winning by a consortium, identical text in separate proposals, or suspicious bid patterns. GCRI–NE analytics can:
Compare large sets of bidding documents for overlapping language or improbable pricing parallels.
Cross-reference official addresses or contact details that appear in multiple supposedly separate bids.
13.2 Forensic Accounting
For allegations of bribery or hidden commissions, aggregator-based solutions can:
Analyze suspicious invoice spikes, bridging them with external references to known shell firms.
Uncover unusual payment cycles or round-dollar amounts.
Generate risk warnings, feeding them to INT or OSD for quick action.
13.3 Linguistic and Cultural Nuances
Projects occur worldwide. GCRI–NE’s aggregator can parse documents in multiple languages. Natural language processing or translation modules can highlight key terms (like references to under-the-table “consulting fees” in local slang).
Outcome: Investigators, OSD staff, and Board members gain deeper, more systematic insights, minimizing the chance of critical evidence being missed.
14. Case Scenarios: Detailed Examples of GCRI–NE’s Potential Contribution
14.1 Large-Scale Infrastructure Project with Multi-Bidder Collusion
Scenario: A major roads project valued at $200 million shows abnormally close bid amounts from four different contractors, raising suspicions.
INT’s Allegation: Collusion among these bidders to inflate prices.
Aggregator Use:
Aggregator-based analysis reveals repeating text blocks in their proposals, shared sub-suppliers, or staff overlaps.
OSD sees this evidence quickly, issues a Notice of Sanctions Proceedings recommending debarment.
If contested, the Board references aggregator-based pattern detection. The final ruling might impose multi-year debarment with potential restitution.
14.2 High-Tech Procurement in Education
Scenario: A project to supply tablets in multiple schools. Complaints arise about substandard tablets at inflated prices, possibly bribery with local education officials.
OSD/Board Steps:
GCRI–NE aggregator merges logs of deliveries, brand specifications, cost breakdowns.
INT obtains evidence that the contract awarding official had suspicious bank transfers from the vendor.
OSD sees “balance of probabilities” is reached, imposes recommended sanction unless contested.
If contested, aggregator-based cross-checking helps the Board affirm the final sanction.
Outcome: The aggregator ensures no hidden e-mails or local media stories about the bribery are missed, reinforcing the sanction’s validity.
14.3 IFC-Financed Private Infrastructure in Emerging Market
Scenario: IFC invests in a private power generation facility. Allegations revolve around corruption in land acquisition. The IFC EO imposes a recommended debarment or conditional non-debarment.
Aggregator: Cross-checks land records, local social media chatter, prior sub-contracting deals, IFC documents.
Sanctions Board: If the sponsor contests, aggregator-based data fosters clarity about whether the sponsor used bribes or defrauded landowners. The final Board decision imposes multi-year or conditional sanction.
Outcome: A consistent and fair outcome that is data-backed, preventing further IFC engagement with unethical actors.
15. Ensuring Fairness, Procedural Integrity, and Independence
15.1 Adhering to Due Process
The aggregator approach never overrides the fundamental principles:
Right to Respond: Respondents must see relevant evidence, present rebuttals.
Confidentiality: Some evidence might be restricted or anonymized to protect witnesses.
Decision by Humans: The SDO and the Board remain the ultimate arbiters—analytics is purely supportive.
15.2 Respecting the Two-Tier Separation
The aggregator environment keeps the first-tier record distinct from second-tier expansions, ensuring Board members do not see internal SDO notes beyond the official record.
Any new evidence introduced is carefully logged as part of the contested review.
Outcome: A modern, data-driven process that never compromises on the established legal framework.
16. Governance and Overseeing the GCRI–NE Partnership
16.1 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
A Board-approved MoU or similar arrangement clarifies:
Roles and responsibilities of GCRI–NE vs. OSD, the Sanctions Board, and INT.
The aggregator’s permissible uses, data ownership, chain-of-custody.
Funding or cost structures (GCRI–NE might be funded through the Bank’s administrative budget or specific trust funds aimed at anti-corruption innovation).
16.2 Steering Committee
A small steering committee composed of:
The SDO’s office, representing the first tier.
The Sanctions Board Secretariat, representing the second tier.
Possibly IFC/MIGA EOs.
GCRI–NE representatives.
They meet periodically to ensure aggregator solutions remain updated, comply with new policies, and address any operational or legal concerns.
16.3 Independent Audits
To maintain trust, external auditors may verify aggregator compliance with the system’s confidentiality and independence. The Board’s oversight role ensures the system remains free of undue influence.
17. Capacity Building and Stakeholder Engagement
17.1 Staff Proficiency
OSD staff, Board members, or their legal advisers must be comfortable with aggregator usage, able to quickly retrieve evidence. GCRI–NE can:
Offer structured “sandbox” training for staff to practice scenario-based tasks.
Develop quick reference guides for data retrieval or AI-based collusion analysis.
17.2 Engagement with Respondents
Firms under investigation might also benefit from a streamlined approach:
Clear digital portals for uploading their responses, scanning evidence, or requesting clarifications.
This fosters fairer, more transparent, and timely communications in contested cases.
17.3 Partnerships with Global Anti-Corruption Networks
The Bank can also share aggregator-based best practices or insights with other MDBs or the global anti-corruption community, promoting cross-institution synergy.
18. Preventive Measures and Knowledge Sharing
18.1 Prevention-Driven Insights
The sanctions system is not only punitive but also aims to deter future misconduct. By analyzing aggregator data from past cases, the Bank can:
Detect repeated “risk signals” in procurement or operational design.
Produce internal bulletins that highlight typical red flags (like suspicious JV structures, artificially low bids, or known shell companies).
18.2 Collaboration with PSU or Integrity Compliance Officers
While the formal counterpart is the SDO and Board, GCRI–NE solutions could also feed relevant intelligence into the Bank’s broader compliance or prevention frameworks, bridging lines to the Preventive Services Unit (PSU) or compliance offices that handle risk assessments in new projects.
Outcome: The sanctions system is reinforced by a complementary push for better project design and early detection, ensuring the cyclical synergy of punishment, rehabilitation, and prevention.
19. Monitoring Impact and Key Performance Indicators
To verify that GCRI–NE’s aggregator solutions and advanced analytics genuinely enhance the sanctions process, the following KPIs can be used:
Time to Issue Notice of Sanctions Proceedings
Average from INT referral to official notice, comparing aggregator usage vs. prior baseline.
Contested Case Duration
Mean time from contest submission to Board final decision.
Data Overlook or Error Rates
Frequency of discovered oversights in evidence, either by OSD or the Board, vs. historical data.
Respondent Feedback
Whether respondents find the aggregator-based submission process more structured or less burdensome, possibly indicating improved fairness.
Compliance Outcomes
Post-sanction recidivism rates among firms that used aggregator-based compliance tools vs. those that did not.
Cost Efficiency
Administrative time or overhead savings for the SDO or Board Secretariat, reallocated to more thorough analysis or other tasks.
20. Long-Term Vision for a Corruption-Free Development Ecosystem
The ultimate purpose of the sanctions system is to protect development funding from fraudulent or corrupt diversion, ensuring that every dollar entrusted to the World Bank is directed to reduce poverty and improve livelihoods. By integrating GCRI–NE solutions:
The Office of Suspension and Debarment (OSD) and the Sanctions Board can expedite case handling, rely on robust data-driven insight, and finalize sanctions that deter misconduct with unwavering credibility.
INT can feed advanced aggregator-based investigations into the system, producing cohesive evidence packages that reduce delays or confusion.
IFC, MIGA, and PRG processes can similarly unify around aggregator-based references, guaranteeing consistent sanctions across the entire WBG family.
20.1 A Transparent and Data-Savvy World Bank
Adopting aggregator-based analytics fosters a more transparent approach to allegations, ensuring that alleged wrongdoing is thoroughly explored and that respondents have fair opportunities to respond. Over time, as these solutions become routine:
Stakeholders—donors, beneficiary governments, civil society—gain heightened trust, seeing that the Bank uses state-of-the-art methods to hold wrongdoers accountable.
Sanctioned firms find a clearer path to redemption or requalification through integrative compliance tracking, facilitating genuine corporate reform.
20.2 Encouraging Global Collaboration
The World Bank’s anti-corruption stance resonates with broader efforts by peer MDBs and global anti-corruption networks. The aggregator approach, once proven, can be shared or adapted by other institutions, reinforcing a global environment of accountability.
20.3 Emphasizing the People’s Benefit
Ultimately, the beneficiaries are local communities worldwide. By minimizing corruption, the sanctions system helps ensure that critical infrastructure, health, education, and social safety-net projects deliver their intended results—without the leakage or harm inflicted by unscrupulous actors.
In this sense, GCRI–NE synergy with the World Bank’s two-tier sanctions system stands as an exemplar of harnessing data, advanced analytics, and integrative compliance frameworks to protect the greater good, uphold development objectives, and champion integrity in global finance.
Concluding Note
Through these 20 comprehensive chapters, we have delineated how the partnership between the Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI) and the Nexus Ecosystem (NE) can amplify the World Bank’s sanctions system—from the Office of Suspension and Debarment (OSD) at the first tier to the Sanctions Board at the second tier—alongside collaboration with IFC/MIGA EOs, robust post-sanction compliance, data integration, advanced analytics, capacity building, and the entire synergy of governance.
By bridging aggregator-based solutions and the Bank’s strong legal framework, the sanctions regime can become:
Faster, more data-based, and less prone to oversight in investigating fraud or corruption.
More transparent, giving respondents fair, well-documented processes.
Better at ensuring corporate or individual compliance after sanctions, encouraging real reforms that reduce corruption recidivism.
A global model for how cutting-edge technology, well-designed processes, and independent adjudication can come together to uphold zero tolerance for fraud and corruption in development financing.
This proposal underscores the potential for a robust, innovative alliance that preserves the Bank’s fundamental principle of ensuring funds serve their rightful purpose: uplifting communities, fostering good governance, and delivering on the promise of sustainable poverty reduction worldwide.
Last updated
Was this helpful?