Skip to main content
ENES

Search the Bretton Woods Project site

UK civil society meeting with UK World Bank Executive Director Gwen Hines

Attendees

World Bank (video link):

Gwen Hines, UK World Bank Executive Director

Clare Roberts, UK World Bank Alternate Executive Director

Phil Stevens, Advisor to the Executive Director

UK Government:

Steven Sabey, International Financial Institutions Department, DFID

Rachel Grant, International Financial Institutions Department, DFID

Angelique Botella, International Financial Institutions Department, DFID

NGOs:

Tim Wainwright, ADD International (by phone)

Helen Tugendhat, Forest Peoples Programme

Preethi Sundaram, IPPF

Steve Lewis, Results

Anushree Shiroor, Results

Bandula Kothalawala, TUC

Natasha Kennedy, Sightsavers

Alison Holder, Oxfam

Alessandra Masci, Amnesty International

Sarah Best, IIED

Chiara Capraro, Christian Aid

Florence Richard De Vesvrotte, ActionAid

Petra Kjell, Bretton Woods Project

Luiz Vieira, Bretton Woods Project

 

Annual meetings agenda

It was noted that the Development Committee meeting papers are not online. The ED said that she would look into the issue.

Shared prosperity/inequality

NGOs

Oxfam offered to provide its recent paper on the subject for consideration of the UKED. Are pleased with the inclusion of inequality as topic of discussion and consideration by the WB and welcomed the inclusion of shared prosperity as one of the two twin objectives. Oxfam recognised the good work done on theme by Bank as reflected in its recent report.

Oxfam were also pleased that the report recognises that potential impact of government policies and that the amelioration of inequality is a political choice. Oxfam also welcome the recognition of the role of fiscal policy in addressing inequality. That said Oxfam voiced concerns about some of the report’s shortcomings:

–          The report provides a misleading impression of the global trends in inequality, as the progress in large countries skews the sample.

–          The report lacks sufficient focus on within-country inequality trends.

–          The report’s focus on the bottom 40% also disguises important trends. The Bank would be better served by focusing attention on the trends in wealth of the top 1%.

–          More clarity is required on the data used.

–          The report’s language on redistributive policies is disappointing as the report limits itself to stating that “redistributive policies may not be harmful.”

–          There are also gaps in the solutions provided. While the role of the private sector is indeed nuanced, there must be recognition that productivity growth in the private sector must translate into higher salaries. The role of public services also lacks due recognition in the report.

Gwen Hines

Gender equity update

Gwen Hines

Ebola update

Gwen Hines

Safeguards

The ED noted that she will be in London the first week of November and is willing to have a meeting on safeguards with CSOs and the IFI team in DFID.

NGOs

Forest People’s Programme presented a series of general, over-arching concerns about the current safeguards draft document:

–          Expressed concern that the proposed document relies heavily on staff judgement, as staff on the ground will be responsible for assessing and providing the justification for the application of broad language such as “where applicable”, etc. This concern is particularly relevant given the observations of previous IEG reports on the technical capacity of Bank staff.

–          It is feared that the new document as it stands may impact the role of the Inspection Panel, which may be left to assess whether the applications of safeguards are ‘necessary’ rather than focusing on whether breaches have taken place.

–          The emphasis on borrower system raises serious questions about the extent to which the adequacy of country systems will be judged prior to delegation of responsibility. This seems an erosion of OP 4.00, which requires that the Bank analyse the adequacy of borrower systems.

–          The proposed system lacks an assessment of the local level governance mechanisms.

–          Importantly, the process does not require public involvement in the assessment of local systems.

Amnesty also focused initially on broader framework concerns. Amnesty noted that the increased delegation of responsibility to borrowers did not adequately account for the possibility that the borrower may lack the willingness to apply and comply in good faith with the safeguards. A concern was also raised about the current draft’s human rights aspirational language. Current examples show that human rights violations take place also because of the lack of robust HR due diligence and weak implementation and monitoring mechanisms Amnesty will send a letter to the UK government outlining the human rights gaps in the draft policies.

The UK government has Human Right’s obligations when acting multilaterally through the Bank, therefore we would expect the UK to have a leadership role to ensure respect for human rights within the safeguards Amnesty inquired about the DFID/ UK government’s position on the issues raised and asked for this position to be made public, following examples from other Member States for example the US.

Relating to the discussion about delegation of authority to borrowers, BWP asked for the ED’s opinion on its application by the IFC and whether she thought that the IFC’s experiences were relevant and could provide any lessons for the discussions about the current draft.

Gwen Hines

 Disability

ADD International asked for clarification on how the safeguards process links with other ongoing reform and review processes.  He mentioned that he recently attended the consultations on procurement and was very pleased with its openness and focus on strategic questions. The discussion on disability within the context of safeguards was quite late. He contrasted this with the discussions at the procurement consultations, which he found much more specific. He underscored the utility of focusing on ‘buying accessibly’, which while subject to a 1% premium, do avoid subsequent very high retrofitting costs.

Gwen Hines

Labour rights and gender

The TUC noted that it had sent a letter to DFID and the ED on its concerns regarding labour issues in the new document. The TUC remains concerned at the lack of mention of the ILO’s Core Labour Standards (CLS) in the document, although these are applicable in all countries in all circumstances. The TUC also noted the omission of contractors from the protection of the safeguards. The representative noted that the AfDB, EBRD and IFC have all included mention of CLS in their documents.

ActionAid requested an update on the thinking of the ED on progress made on gender issues and her views on the gender components of the new safeguards document.

Gwen Hines

 Indigenous peoples

FFP raised the issue of ESS 7 or the Indigenous Peoples Alternative approach.

Gwen Hines

Undernutrition spending

Results raised the issue of funding for nutrition, in particular with regards to the new Global Financing Facility (GFF) and asked whether the UK will contribute to the new facility. He also asked whether the contributions are new funding or former IDA contributions.  He also recommended that nutrition be included in the future. Results requested information on how countries will bid for support.

Gwen Hines

Inspection Panel pilot

Amnesty raised the issue of the Inspection Panel pilot and noted that the USA has agreed with many of the Amnesty’s concerns and that the UK and other ED we spoke to suggested that it may be interesting to extend the panel role to mediation The Inspection Panel assured AI that will think long and hard before applying the pilot project and that it seems perhaps lessons have been learned. The Policy needs greater clarity on basis principles – such as, who are the requesters, are requesters informed about the process they opt for, will they still be allowed to obtain registration after choosing the Pilot? Amnesty remains concerned about the Panel’s Pilot and cited the case of Badia East, Nigeria as an example.  Amnesty requested to know the UK’s position on the pilot and if a more established mediation’s role for the Panel is on the cards

Gwen Hines