Join our LinkedIn Group

A comparative review was conducted for the purpose of informing Bank Management, staff and stakeholders of the salient differences between the existing environmental and social safeguard policies of the World Bank (IBRD/IDA) and the corresponding safeguard policies of the other major Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs). The institutional scope of the review included the regional development banks that provide investment lending services similar to those of the World Bank and that serve, respectively, the following regions (with some overlap): greater Asia-Pacific – Asian Development Bank (ADB); Africa – African Development Bank (AfDB); Europe and Central Asia – European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and European Investment Bank (EIB); 1 and Latin America-Caribbean – Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). For some purposes the scope of the review was broadened to include the two institutions that lend primarily to the private sector, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) 2 and EBRD, whereas for other purposes the scope was limited to those institutions that, like the World Bank, lend primarily to the public sector (ADB, AfDB, EIB, and IDB). The review included the structure (or “architecture”) of each institution’s safeguard framework; the scope and application of their respective environmental and social safeguard systems; thematic coverage of environmental and social safeguard impacts and risks; and specific operational requirements applicable to borrowers insofar as these correspond to existing World Bank Operational Policies (OPs) for environmental and social safeguards. With respect to the OPs it should be noted that comparisons are limited to corresponding MDB policies that are: (1) Board-approved; (2) mandatory (rather than aspirational or recommended good practice, e.g., “guidelines”); and (3) applicable in the first instance to borrowers rather than to the MDBs.3 Given the intricate nature of the policies and topics that are the object of this review, it should be noted that the comparative work set out in this report is by nature highly interpretative. The reader should ultimately rely on the underlying policies and documents that are the object of this report

Comparative Review of Multilateral Development Bank Safeguard Systems: Main Report and Annexes

Resource Key: TAGY6F2M

Document Type: Report

Creator:

Author:

  • Harvey Himberg

Creators Name: {mb_resource_zotero_creatorsname}

Place: Washington D.C.

Institution: World Bank

Date: 2015

Language:

A comparative review was conducted for the purpose of informing Bank Management, staff and stakeholders of the salient differences between the existing environmental and social safeguard policies of the World Bank (IBRD/IDA) and the corresponding safeguard policies of the other major Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs). The institutional scope of the review included the regional development banks that provide investment lending services similar to those of the World Bank and that serve, respectively, the following regions (with some overlap): greater Asia-Pacific – Asian Development Bank (ADB); Africa – African Development Bank (AfDB); Europe and Central Asia – European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and European Investment Bank (EIB); 1 and Latin America-Caribbean – Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). For some purposes the scope of the review was broadened to include the two institutions that lend primarily to the private sector, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) 2 and EBRD, whereas for other purposes the scope was limited to those institutions that, like the World Bank, lend primarily to the public sector (ADB, AfDB, EIB, and IDB). The review included the structure (or “architecture”) of each institution’s safeguard framework; the scope and application of their respective environmental and social safeguard systems; thematic coverage of environmental and social safeguard impacts and risks; and specific operational requirements applicable to borrowers insofar as these correspond to existing World Bank Operational Policies (OPs) for environmental and social safeguards. With respect to the OPs it should be noted that comparisons are limited to corresponding MDB policies that are: (1) Board-approved; (2) mandatory (rather than aspirational or recommended good practice, e.g., “guidelines”); and (3) applicable in the first instance to borrowers rather than to the MDBs.3 Given the intricate nature of the policies and topics that are the object of this review, it should be noted that the comparative work set out in this report is by nature highly interpretative. The reader should ultimately rely on the underlying policies and documents that are the object of this report

Download Document