Earth Summit 2002 - Greenpeace

The World Bank is one of the most powerful financial institutions in the world.

Together with its sister organisation, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), it formulates and enforces major economic policy decisions for most poor countries.

The World Bank has been criticised for its role in financing projects that have had detrimental effects on the natural environment and human rights.

Together, the World Bank and the IMF have more power to influence development in the developing world and Eastern Europe than any other institutions in the world.

In particular the economic restructuring policies of the IMF are placing an unacceptable burden on the environment and the social development of developing countries.

While the World Bank is only one of the multilateral development banks (MDBs), it is believed to be the most influential.

With the massive increase in foreign direct investment flows - which now exceed US$1 trillion a year - and the reduction of government aid, the private banking sector is also actively engaged in shaping the future of developing countries' economies.

Greenpeace has long campaigned to expose the inconsistencies between the World Bank's lending practices and its stated policies.

The World Bank is primarily funded by taxpayers' money, therefore Greenpeace believes this money should only be used to help clean up the environment and continues to pressure the World Bank to do so.

For example in 1994, Greenpeace took direct action against the World Bank to draw attention to its role in deforestation. Since then the World Bank has adopted a better policy on forests, but there are still attempts within the World Bank to regress to old and unsustainable policies and practices.

Greenpeace activists in 1994 interrupted the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) 50th Anniversary in Madrid, Spain, calling for the World Bank to stop funding hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HFC) projects in developing countries which perpetuated ozone destruction. As a result, the World Bank stopped funding such projects.

As anti-globalisation protests escalate, the World Bank is increasingly under the public spotlight.
In November 2000, Greenpeace asked World Bank President James Wolfensohn to invest in environmentally sound technologies and clean production, and stop funding large discharge pipes that are putting local populations at risk, such as in Gujurat, India.

Along with this pressure from Greenpeace and its thousands of cyberactivists worldwide, Wolfensohn wrote to Greenpeace, announcing a shift in World Bank policy in Gujurat.

To its credit, the World Bank is now leading efforts to understand environmental issues and to talk with advocacy organisations. But it has a long way to go.

There is a huge gap between the rhetoric and goodwill of current World Bank President James Wolfensohn, and the organisation's Board of Governors where the real power lies with the donor countries' finance ministers.

Most private banks continue with a business as usual approach, putting profits ahead of pollution prevention as well as many government-funded development banks, from Asia to Central and South America.

None of these should be exempt from calls for greater transparency, clear environmental targets and better dialogue with stakeholders affected by investment decisions. Investing in polluting and destructive technology is as bad as creating the environmental damage directly.