Civil society organizations criticise the World Bank as regards its environmental and human rights responsibilities

Thursday 7 October (Washington D.C.)
Who is responsible if a hydroelectric project financed by the World Bank displaces a whole population or pollutes rivers? These kinds of questions were raised in debates between representatives of civil society organizations and Bank officials in the forum about policies that affect civil society, which was part of the annual IMF and World Bank Group meetings in Washington DC from 6 to 10 October.

One of the debate panels dealt with World Bank safeguard mechanisms that are designed to protect the environment and vulnerable social groups from the negative impacts of operations financed by the World Bank. These instruments include policies about indigenous peoples, involuntary re-settlement, and environmental and cultural property evaluation. We should remember that many of these progressive standards were only established after long campaigns to improve the World Bank’s social and environmental performance, campaigns that were undertaken by NGOs in the North and in the South, very often in alliance with indigenous organizations.

Korinna Horta, of the German environmental organization URGEWALD, issued a call to improve the system for evaluating environmental impacts because the current policy can de summed up as “We’re not sure, but let’s take the riskiest road anyway.”

In addition, Nancy Alexander, an analyst at the Heinrich Böell Foundation, severely criticised the Bank for its hypocritical stance in that it establishes safeguard mechanisms but at the same time it always invokes international agreements to protect investments, which tend to neutralise environmental and social protection regulation. ‘This double standard means that the Bank washes its hands of things when they don’t turn out well. Someone at the World Bank told me once, “You just don’t understand. If we implemented all these safeguards we wouldn’t be able to compete with China.” And Alexander concluded, ‘But I honestly do not think that ought to be the World Bank’s role.’

In another session about the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and human rights, representatives of civil society organizations and lawyers defending human rights called on the Bank to have coherent policies so as to give clear guidelines for enterprises to comply with minimum human rights standards. At the present time, the multinational enterprises that carry out projects with Bank financing have to act in accordance with IFC, OECD and UN measures, and very often these contradict each other.

Human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have recognised that progress is being made in this area with guidelines drawn up by John Ruggie, a representative of the United Nations Secretary General on Business and Human Rights. These organizations say that Ruggie’s recommendations about enterprise social responsibility should be adopted by the CFI as a framework for the minimum demands its clients should comply with.