Buenos Aires, 23 January 1994-- The World Bank met its environmental critics here this month under the auspices of IUCN-The World Conservation Union, and sought to assure non-governmental organisations that it is changing its ways.

Colin Rees, head of the World Bank's division for land, water and natural habitats, told the conservationists that it last year gave $2 billion to environmental projects. This was 30 times more than five years ago, and around twice as much as in 1992, Rees told a workshop at the IUCN General Assembly. Some $500 million of the World Bank cash went to environmental management projects and another $200 million on building institutional capacity.

The triennial IUCN meeting gathers more than 1300 representatives from governments and most of the world's international nongovernmental environmental groups from some 125 countries. Among resolutions proposed for consideration during the Assembly is one calling upon the World Bank and other multilateral development banks to improve and implement their policies on matters affecting the environment, indigenous peoples and other social policies.

"The problem at the World Bank stems from a historical culture in the Bank that rewards staff for lending money in large quantities and quickly, not for ensuring the projects are appropriate or least harmful," said Barbara Bramble, IUCN delegate from the U.S.-based National Wildlife Federation. "All the banks have to change the incentives system for the staff and the criteria on which their own jobs depend."

Bramble cited World Bank-financed operations that have caused severe adverse environmental and social impacts, mostly affecting the poor in developing countries and the natural resources that they need to survive. Examples include projects in Brazil, India, Botswana and Indonesia where ecosystems such as coastal wetlands and tropical rainforests were needlessly destroyed, with people in the region reduced from poor to destitute in the name of development.

"The IUCN resolution is a follow-up on Agenda 21," said Jeff McNeely, head of IUCN's Biodiversity Program, referring to the document produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, also known as the Earth Summit. "This is to help countries implement the spirit of Agenda 21 by putting pressure on donors not to fund projects overseas they wouldn't fund in their own countries."

The resolution, proposed by the Wilderness Society of Australia, calls upon donor countries not to provide funding to multilateral development banks that do not meet their own country's environmental standards, or "do not adequately ensure that rigorous environmental and social standards are developed and applied for each project."

"Just as a country shouldn't dump pesticides it doesn't use on another country, it shouldn't dump money for projects it wouldn't fund within its own borders," said McNeely. Bramble pointed out that many of the members voting on the IUCN resolution are key donor countries whose votes control the World Bank and other multilateral development banks.

"This resolution gives donor governments the opportunity to make their positions clear. Moreover, the banks should recognize their continued public support in both donor and borrowing nations depnds upon their success in carrying out in practice reforms that they have long promised in press releases," said Bramble. "But so far, extremely few government representatives on the bank boards have taken this problem seriously and voted for needed changes."

Beyond the Assembly resolution, McNeely pointed out that IUCN's work in supporting reforms in multilateral development bank lending practices is ongoing. "IUCN tries to work at four levels:

• through our members, including conservation public interest groups in Washington DC and other capitals, to put pressure on the lending institutions to implement vigorously the significant environmental reforms the banks are adopting;
• at the level of recipient countries to encourage them to pursue such reforms through their own national conservation strategies;
• at the project level, to ensure environmental impact assessments are conducted at an early stage along with careful consideration of social and economic impacts; and"
• working directly with the banks to ensure that they have access to the best available information and expertise from the conservation community."

McNeely offered two examples of how loan recipient nations have pursued stronger environmental measures for multilateral bank development projects. "In Nepal, social and environmental impact procedures are part of the implementation of a national conservation strategy, and in Pakistan, the Cabinet has adopted a national conservation strategy that is used in guiding investment from the World Bank," he said.

"We all have to admit that we are still learning," says Rees. "We've learned from past mistakes and things are improving quite substantially. We've recognised that both in terms of institutional capacity and communities, we've got to rethink our strategies. This will mean much more responsibility will go to local communities for stewardship of their natural resources. In the future we'll rely heavily on collaboration with communities and NGOs."

Back...