IFC Sustainability Framework Review: a pivotal opportunity to protect human rights and the environment
•
Article summary
Notes from the 24 April Civil Society Policy Forum session titled IFC Sustainability Framework Review: a pivotal opportunity to protect human rights and the environment, during the World Bank and IMF Spring Meetings 2025. The session launched a broader effort by civil society to feed real-world evidence and policy proposals into the IFC’s evolving approach to environmental and social risk. Drawing on examples from Guinea, Nepal, and other regions, the panel demonstrated how gaps in implementation have had serious consequences on land rights, resettlement, and Indigenous consent.
Moderator
- Kate Geary, Recourse
Panelists
- Justin Pooley, Senior Manager, IFC (Policy Review Lead)
- Natalie Bugarski, Inclusive Development International (IDI)
- Bishwash Nepali, Community Self Reliance Centre (CSRC)
Notes
Kate: opened the session by framing the discussion as a vital first step in what will be a multi-year process to reform how the International Finance Corporation (IFC) understands and manages social and environmental risk. Welcoming participants from across civil society, she emphasised that this was not just a technical review — it was a chance to fundamentally rethink development finance in light of real-world harm experienced by communities impacted by IFC investments.
Justin: opened the session with an overview of the timeline and structure of the IFC Performance Standards review. He outlined IFC’s intent to consult widely and refine standards to reflect new challenges in private sector financing, including climate and rights-based concerns.While his presence was welcomed as a gesture of openness, civil society participants were quick to note that prior reviews have struggled to incorporate meaningful change. Pooley acknowledged this tension and expressed willingness to “hear the hard truths” as the process moves forward.
Natalie: presented a structural critique of the current performance standards, identifying systemic blind spots in the treatment of land acquisition, displacement and resettlement. Her analysis focused on how community agency is often treated as a box-ticking exercise rather than a principle. Using the example of an IFC-funded bauxite mine in Guinea, Bugarski illustrated how standards meant to protect local livelihoods failed in practice. Communities were neither fully informed nor fairly compensated, and the resulting environmental degradation directly undermined food and income security. She argued for embedding community-led decision-making into IFC project cycles, especially on land and natural resource access. “These are not minor technical issues,” she said. “They are central to whether the IFC can be considered a rights-respecting actor.”
Bishwash: speaking from lived experience, Bishwash Nepali offered a powerful intervention on the Upper Trishuli-1 hydropower project, financed in part by the IFC. His remarks focused on Performance Standards 1, 5 and 7, with emphasis on the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). He noted that despite repeated requests, local communities were neither adequately consulted nor informed of their rights. Translation services were absent, excluding Indigenous stakeholders from critical phases of decision-making. Nepali highlighted the contradiction between IFC’s formal commitments to FPIC and the on-the-ground reality of exclusion and harm. He closed by urging the IFC to treat language access and cultural respect not as administrative tasks, but as pillars of accountability.
Questions and answers
- Past reviews have led to updated language, but little change on the ground. What makes this time different?
- How is FPIC meaningful when communities aren’t even informed in their own languages? How can Indigenous Peoples truly give consent when there’s no access to translation or culturally appropriate consultation?
- We keep hearing about improvements to safeguards, but will communities have real power to stop harm?
Justin Pooley, IFC: acknowledged the skepticism and admitted that the IFC has historically struggled to bridge policy ambition and field-level implementation. He emphasised that this review will include structured engagement rounds and an openness to evidence-based reform. “We want this to be more than a policy refresh — but we need you to keep holding us to account,” he said.
Bishwash Nepali, CSRC: responded sharing how communities affected by the Upper Trishuli-1 hydropower project were not provided basic translations of project documents. “Consent requires comprehension,” he said, urging the IFC to treat language justice as a foundational element of FPIC, not a technical afterthought.
Natalie Bugarski, IDI: called for enforceable standards that communities can invoke, not just aspirational guidelines. She pushed for reforms that would create direct accountability pathways — including grievance mechanisms that are accessible, timely and locally grounded. “Safeguards must be enforceable — or they’re not safeguards at all,” she said.
The session made clear that community experiences must drive reform of the IFC’s Performance Standards. Civil society actors welcomed IFC’s presence but warned that engagement alone is not sufficient. Without embedding structural accountability, FPIC, and locally-led frameworks into its operations, the IFC risks continuing a legacy of harm under the guise of development.
