BIC and our partners focused on a number of specific areas. We will be writing on the gains and gaps in the new policy in the coming weeks.
Policy on Social and Environmental Sustainability
- No reporting on project level development outcomes. The old policy did not require IFC or its clients to report on negative and positive impacts of each project, thus it is unclear whether IFC is contributing to poverty reduction, or what types of investments produce the exhibited development outcomes.
- RESULT:
- No FPIC. IFC dids not recognize the practice of securing free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) from communities for projects with potential significant impacts. IFC was relying on the less stringent "Broad Community Support," though it does not report how such community support is achieved. Reporting on how IFC ensures that communities express consent for projects would strengthen accountability by considering communities opinions when approving risky projects.
- RESULT: The new policy requires FPIC from affected communities when they are indigenous peoples. Though non indigenous peoples are only asked for broad community support, how this support is obtained must be documented.
- Inconsistent categorization. While IFC's environmental categories frame safety and safeguards requirements for a proposed project, the public has no input on how categories are assigned. Miscategorization subsequently affects data collection, public consultations, reporting, safeguard provisions and ultimately responsibility for the project. In addition, categories are not applied consistently across projects.
- RESULT:
- Lacks a meaningful requirement of extractive industry contract disclosure between IFC clients and the host governments. IFC clients will have to disclose contracts only when the project generates 10% or more of government revenues. No project from all extractive industry projects approved since 2006 meets this criteria.
- RESULT:
- No overarching provisions to mitigate climate change. The Sustainability policy does not include specific provisions to mitigate climate change.
- RESULT:
- Limited scope of projects. The scope of the project impacts during the appraisal is still narrowly drawn. The issues arising from the so called associated facilities, the infrastructure and supply chain operations of companies that feed into the projects directly supported by IFC, in practice often fall outside of the project appraisal scope due to limiting language of the policy.
- RESULT:
Performance Standards
- No human rights provisions. The Performance Standards have no provisions or safeguards against human rights violations, despite IFC’s investments in risky projects or investments in economies with a poor track record of human rights protection.
- RESULT:
Policy on Disclosure of Information
- Weak project disclosure framework. The current policy provides for publication of basic project information before board consideration, but completely lacks project implementation and completion reporting requirements.
- RESULT:
- Document translation. Project related information is only available in English, except when environmental impact assessments and action plans were prepared in local languages.
- RESULT: