Summary:
On August 4, 2016, the World Bank’s Board of Executive Directors approved a new Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) to help protect people and the environment in
the investment projects it finances. The new framework broadens coverage and access and makes important advances in areas such as transparency, non-discrimination,
social inclusion, public participation, and accountability. The framework seeks to promote sustainable development through capacity and institution building and will enhance
efficiency for both the Borrower and the Bank. This session will consist of a short briefing on the implementation status of the ESF Roll Out and a general discussion about operationalization.
Presentation:
John Kellenberg, Manager, Environmental & Social Framework Implementation, OPCS – WBG
Panellists:
Alicia Phillips Mandaville, Vice President for Global Development Practice, InterAction
Una Meades, Lead Counsel, Legal Vice Presidency (LEGEN) -WBG
Julia Bucknall, Director, Environment and Natural Resources Global Practice (ENR) – WBG
Maninder Gill, Director, Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience Global Practice (SURR) – WBG
Sumir Lal, Director, External and Corporate Relations (ECRGP) – WBG
Afshan Khawaja, Manager, Environment and Social Safeguards Team, OPCS – WBG
Mark King, Chief Environmental and Social Standards Officer, OPCS – WBG
Opening Remarks:
Hartwig Schafer, Vice President, Operations Policy and Country Services (OPCS) – World Bank Group (WBG):
Expanded and better system, stakeholder, FPIC, labour – difficult to achieve consensus among 189 members
Now focus on implementation – about 200 people involved in implementation. Also a core group of 15 people.
John Kellenberg, Manager, Environmental & Social Framework Implementation, OPCS – WBG
Cannot give date of implementation –driven by readiness indicators.
Budget and staffing: additional resources have been released for four years. Staffing has also been guaranteed.
New ESF – more risk-driven. Moving away from box-ticking. Need for flexibility. Uganda Transport project was a key learning opportunity. Creation of GBV Task Force. Focus on labour influx impact.
Context:
ESF – Board August 2015 – looking to go live by 2018. Training, systems overhaul, readiness indicators. Investment lending (75% of lending).
New comprehensive framework – which have been harmonised with other institutions. Non discrimination, participation core elements.
Have begun outreach with countries and supporting capacity development. Trainings will begin likely in October through e-learning and other face-to-face events.
Will not retrofit old projects – will run two parallel system with the old system.
Guidance materials are being put together. Will go out public with materials by late summer. These are live documents.
Will undertake accreditation of ESF staff – about 500 people (including new IT system upgrade).
Una Meades, Lead Counsel, Legal Vice Presidency (LEGEN) -WBG– Guidance note development:
Two sets of guidance notes – currently working on tier one guidance notes – general with each of the standards for borrowers.
Will prepare tier two – in more depth to support borrowers on addressing issues.
Guidance notes will begin internal peer-review within Bank within next few weeks. Will post draft for public comment in the summer. Hope to complete process by end of summer.
Development of guidance notes is being informed by previous discussions on ESF design.
Julia Bucknall, Director, Environment and Natural Resources Global Practice (ENR) and Maninder Gill, Director, Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience Global Practice (SURR) – staffing and skills:
Staff feel very supported by management. Trainer of trainers who will go and train borrowers.
Good staff advancement incentive. Stable budget has been beneficial. Quite a lot of extra work.
Maninder – social risk management. Previous only focused on resettlement and indigenous issues. New ESF is more comprehensive and staff are pleased by that.
As Uganda case has shown, there is a backlog of staff – however skills will also be a challenge, as many have lost some capacity given safeguards were only focused on two areas. Budget and staffing are no longer a constraint. 100 people working on social risk management – hired 11 last year and will hire 26 more. These are to clear the backlog – more hiring is likely. Team needs quite a few new skills. Taking training very seriously (including peer review).
Sumir Lal, Director, External and Corporate Relations (ECRGP)
Expanded stakeholder engagement –
New stand-alone standard on stakeholder engagement. Now mandated through lifetime of project. Very strong new step forward.
Two additional aspects:
- Through lifecycle of project
- Two categories – project affected parties and other interested stakeholders. Categories will be defined in guidance notes.
Afshan Khawaja, Manager, Environment and Social Safeguards Team, OPCS
Social development specialist – Had been looking under OP 4.10 – now however has a specific policy in line with other institutions.
Inclusiveness and non-discrimination are essential and now explicit (Gender, youth, sexual orientation).
The new ESF will provide for much better engagement. Will require better stakeholder analysis. Need to ensure consultation during project preparation. New explicit focus on accessible grievance mechanism at project level.
Mark King, Chief Environmental and Social Standards Officer, OPCS – accountability and due diligence:
There is a new management system to ensure positive outcomes.
Clear roles and responsibilities. Social environmental teams lead field work. Operation Policy and Country services oversee SE teams.
Will meet quarterly with regional teams. Review higher risk projects – identify need for additional staff.
Operations ES review committee – Chaired by Chief Officer – policy issues and high-risk project guidance. Field staff are not left on their own. Will benefit from guidance and support.
Other teams are also involved, procurement, legal, etc.
Questions and Answers:
- Gender Action –
No doubt that gender dimensions have gotten more attention. Why is there not a new gender standard? New presidential directive. However reviews indicate significant gaps in application. How will this be addressed?
A: Agree on importance of gender – Intent, ensure coverage of all excluded groups. At a stage where there is not as much need to remind stakeholders, staff and borrowers to focus on gender. Have moved from risk focus to empowerment focus. New focus on outcomes.
Gender not a safeguards issues but as empowerment issue of boys and girls. Three ‘gender flags’ to ensure projects are gender sensitive. Karen also agrees. Agrees that vulnerabilities exist.
- Peruvian lawyer – American University:
How to deal with trust deficit of government by indigenous communities. How will meaningful consultation be assured?
A: Three elements: consultations – with description, information disclosure and grievance redress.
Key issue remains identification of stakeholders and outreach to vulnerable groups. Between ESF and guidance notes, focus on the above areas. Emphasis on information approach that is appropriate for the target audience.
Q: Arab Forum for People with Disability:
Disability recognition is an important step. Focus on capacity building. How will CSOs be engaged in capacity development? What is expected of CSOs in the process?
A: Will begin with e-learning, will be available in all Bank languages. October launch (in English).
In-country capacity building is going on now. Targeting administrative finance. Equally will target project implementation unit. Capacity building will be ongoing. Field staff will retain relationships and efforts.
Civil society will be invited to participate in capacity building efforts and provide continuous feedback.
Q: CIEL
Who within government will be trained? At what level of officials will training take place. Will these be ongoing to account for institutional changes?
Q: BIC
Guidance notes – How will tier 1 and 2 notes interact?
A: Tier one guidance notes need to be quite comprehensive, however with balance for amount of information. Also seeking to harmonise with other institutions.
Q: Washington College of Law –
How will Bank deal with parallel standards across regions with more than one project falling under different standards.
A: This is a present concern – new ESF is better harmonised with other IFIs. Also Bank works closely with existing government systems.
Q: Concern with challenges required in terms of cultural change within bureaucracies – ie, move beyond rule-based behaviour.
This is the key – not working with people who are not interested in reform.
A: Adoption of FPIC – are preparing guidance on FPIC. In line with other IFIs – although it does not constitute a veto. Welcomes input on experiences with indigenous populations.
A: Human rights treaties – clear provision in ESF speaks of national law and applicable treaties. These will be examined in practice.
A: Standard 10 – stakeholders engagement – participation, meaningful consultation, redress. Guidance on prevention of elite capture.
Q: International Union for Conservation of Nature:
Will ecosystems management be addressed? ESS 6
A: Chair of ESS6 working group – following ESS6 as gold standards – some adaptation from IFC’s model as business models vary. Closely aligned.
Ecosystems services – ESS is on protecting biodiversity – however when ecosystems are disrupted , these are covered by social impact standards.
Q: Oxfam international
What are tier two specific issues? Timelines?
A: Process of development of Tier 1 will guide the design of Tier 2 notes. Children, SOGI, disability are being thought of. No specific timeframe for Tier 2. Priority is on ‘getting Tier 1 right’.
Q: Christian Aid UK
Will Bank be able to take difficult decisions and refuse to fund projects in countries that are uncooperative?
A: ESF debate was highly contentious – no country has voted against the package. Every country is expected to align with institution’s values. There is some degree of flexibility in terms of emergencies, etc.
Framework allows for engagement with countries where a difference of opinion exists. Discuss with Review Committee and likely moved up to senior management, who will eventually take a decision on project funding. Issue could also be elevated to the Board. There could be circumstances in which funding will be refused – example of LGBT issues in Uganda.
Q: WB staff – will IPN mandate be broadened to adapt to climate change and increased violence?
Q: Youth – accountability to fossil fuel and climate change issues?
A: Even in areas that are not necessarily linked to financing renewables, are committed.
