Sharing my analysis of IFC’s new Remedial Action Framework. Marking start of new accountability & remedy era @IFC_org & @WorldBank
The framework recognizes role WorldBank + all DFIs have in providing remedy for harm from investments
https://t.co/pKJQWUlsk1
Kate Donald of OxFam International opened the session by emphasizing a reformed model of the E&S must improve outcomes and precent the dilution of standards.
Elana Berger of BIC stated that civil society spends too much time reviewing WBG documents. She notes project documents have improved in 20 years in ESIA, but those plans are not implemented well.
The public sector of the WBG is far better at implementation than IFC and the private sector. Elana mentions that for IFC the gap between policy and implementation is too large. The Bank must incentivize task teams when working on projects to see more improvements.
Elana calls for two major changes. First, IFC must learn from the public sector, though she notes that IFC is better regarding reprisals. There must also be a change of incentives to enable task teams to prioritize implementation.
The panel turns to Livi Gerbase of CICTAR presenting a report detailing a road through Itaituba, in Brazil and the Amazon. The city received IFC investment and was classified as a high-risk project. There are two Indigenous communities nearby.
In this case, the effects of the port complex on Itaituba has negatively impacted road usage, fishing practices, and the diverse biodiversity of the area.
Perhaps most importantly, there was no intervention with the Indigenous and traditional communities in the area. PS7 was completely ignored, and no Free, Prior, and Informed Consent was given.
Maninder Gill of the World Bank agrees there is a big difference between policy and implementation, but is improving. There are 825 specialists working to improve E&S safeguards.
He states that this merger will improve E&S systems in a way that will prioritize implementation. It should be viewed as the Bank’s commitment to improvement. A big piece of the new architecture is the Makers & Checkers. This separation is an important distinction.
This separation will allow projects to identify issues throughout the project lifecycle. He states that he hopes the Bank and civil society will work together proactively to identify issues.
Kate Donald reiterates several points raised. There is a culture around accountability that needs to improved at IFC and asks how that can happen. She also questions how the merger will impact staffing at the Bank.
Maninder states the culture of the entire World Bank Group needs to improve, especially regarding its focus on bettering implementation. He finds better relationships, more listening will help, and the merger is an opportunity to further learning across the Bank’s institutions.
To address questions on staffing, Maninder states Banga will increase resources and funding will not decrease. There will be staff reductions, he states, but there is a commitment to more resources.
Maninder states the Checkers’ responsibility is to purely identify problems throughout the full project lifecycle. The goal is to catch everything that could potentially go wrong.
Livi adds that these new standards must go above and beyond what clients are reporting. She emphasizes problems of exit without remedy, which must be addressed.
Elana calls the Bank to be better at verifying information that clients report, given their vested interested. She asks the Bank to recognize that things will inevitably go wrong during development projects, but prioritizing risk management is worthwhile.