THE WORLD BANK - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OR DESTRUCTION?

 

Is the World Bank really working towards a greener future or is it just pandering to multinational corporations?

When the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) hold their annual meetings in Prague, Czech Republic, September 25-28, thousands of people will join together in protest to these organisations. Some of these protesters are part of the so-called "anti-globalisation" movement that became famous last year in connection with the ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in Seattle. Others will come from development non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which are concerned that World Bank and IMF policy practice largely benefits the rich countries, while causing more poverty in developing nations. Environmentalists will also be present to remind the World Bank, despite its promises and some efforts, that it continues to harm the environment and doesn't do enough to remedy past environmental damage in developing countries and countries with economies in transition.

Since 1988, Greenpeace has been exposing destructive projects and urging manifold reform within the operations of banking and trade organisations. Increasingly, trade organisations and banking institutions are funding projects that support multinational corporations at the expense of the poor and the environment in less industrialised nations.

The World Bank recently released its discussion draft called Towards an Environmental Strategy for the World Bank where the organisation's new goal strategy was outlined as "to help contribute to the Bank's poverty reduction mission by improving people's livelihoods, health and security". According to the Bank, this will be achieved by "helping to enhance environmental quality and natural resource management to maintain global ecosystems."

The full World Bank Environmental Strategy:
http://www.worldbank.org/environment/strategy/index.shtml

Following a closer look at the strategy, Greenpeace has released its first response draft, outlining its inconsistencies towards enhancing environmental quality and further solutions the World Bank can implement to rectify this. Greenpeace said that while recognising poverty alleviation is, of course, a key goal for the World Bank, environmental protection is a goal in itself and it must feature in any strategy carrying its name. "In this sense, clear and measurable environmental objectives (without which there can be no long term poverty alleviation) must be highlighted as independent goals. We expect that we will not be alone in questioning the economic growth=poverty alleviation=environmental good theme of the strategy".

According to Greenpeace, the draft is missing clear indications that the World Bank will not use money to fund increased pollution. Greenpeace said the strategy was missing the World Bank's commitment to not using money to fund increasing pollution. "Such statements should include recognition that every investment involves a choice between more or less pollution, and that in no instance will the World Bank fund a technology or project where a less polluting/destructive technology or practice is available".

Greenpeace is calling for the World Bank to:

  • Propose actions to measurably alleviate the urgent environmental problems such as climate change, forest/biodiversity loss and water pollution;
  • Implement specific targets and timetables to achieve poverty and environmental objectives, and any financial quantification of the investments required;
  • Indicate its internal environmental standards; and
  • Realise that although Greenpeace welcomes the World Bank's idea of closer consultation with NGOs, this will be very resource intensive for them so funds will need to be allocated.

Greenpeace has also prepared a set of proposals on its specific campaign areas: shrimp aquaculture, climate change, ancient forests, genetically modified organisms in food and waste incinerators.

Shrimp aquaculture

The World Bank supports shrimp aquaculture as part of the drive for non-traditional exports to repay external debts and to enter the path of export-led growth. The World Bank's International Finance Corporation (IFC) is also providing funds to private investors for the expansion of shrimp farming. Aquaculture poses severe problems faced by national governments in attempts at conservation and sustainable use marine living resources. The rapid and unregulated expansion of the shrimp aquaculture industry in Asia, Latin America and now Africa poses a threatening example of this problem. Shrimp aquaculture has not been supported by sound planning for sustainable development strategies.

Greenpeace is urging the World Bank to:

  • Ensure its policies and practices, which promote the international fish trade and export production do not result in environmental degradation or the nutritional rights of people who rely on fish for their health and well being;
  • Support the call by many environmental and development NGOs for a worldwide moratorium on further expansion of the shrimp aquaculture industry;
  • Provide necessary resources to support affected communities that are trying to restore coastal areas, which have been affected by shrimp aquaculture development; and
  • Meet with Greenpeace and community based NGO representatives from shrimp producing countries to discuss shrimp aquaculture solutions.

Click here for the full Shrimp aquaculture briefing

Climate change

The World Bank must commit to speeding up, rather than slowing down, the transition towards fossil fuel alternatives. However, most of the World Bank's investment portfolio lies in the energy sector with about 80 percent of these loans having financed continued construction of carbon-intensive, coal burning power plants.

Greenpeace recommends that the World Bank:

  • Implements a decarbonisation policy that includes the phasing out of fossil fuel loans from its energy portfolio in favour of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies; and
  • Introduces a carbon accounting system that identifies and makes public the carbon dioxide emissions generated by its proposed energy projects.

Click here for full the climate change briefing

Ancient forests

In 1991 environmentalists hailed the World Bank for adopting a new Forest Policy that included a ban on logging in tropical moist forests. However, this policy is now under review almost 10 years later, it appears the World Bank has failed to implement its Forest Policy adequately and made little progress in addressing the impacts of adjustment lending on the forest sector; and environmental assessment guidelines are not systematically applied to structural adjustment loans. The World Bank also needs to take full account of its Operational Evaluation Department's (OED) report that acknowledges trade liberalisation and market deregulation are among the key causes of accelerated pressure on forest resources.

Greenpeace recommends that the World Bank should: ·

  • Retain and reinforce the precautionary approach which characterised the adoption of the 1991 Forest Policy ban;
  • Tackle the issue of unsustainable logging activities as a major priority;
  • Implement more action-oriented research into the relationship between logging and poverty; and
  • Support socially just and environmentally sound forest management and conservation.

Click here for full Ancient forests briefing and forest-related issues

Genetically modified organisms in food and agriculture

Through the World Bank, the biotechnology industry is promoting and facilitating the proliferation of genetically modified organisms in food and agriculture in developing countries. This is inconsistent with the World Bank's environmental, social and transparency requirements.

Greenpeace calls for:

  • A publicly maintained comprehensive inventory of all biotechnology projects the World Bank is considering or funding;
  • A halt or moratorium on World Bank projects involving the use of genetically modified organisms in food and agriculture; and
  • The World Bank to avoid direct involvement of biotechnology companies in project planning and implementation of World Bank projects.

Click here for the full GMO briefing

Waste incinerators

The World Bank is continuing to fund projects that include incinerators for medical, municipal, hazardous and other wastes, particularly in developing countries. Medical waste incinerators are included in at least 30 World Bank and International Finance Corporation projects in 20 developing countries. Incinerators for municipal, industrial, hazardous and other wastes are included in at least 16 World Bank Group projects in 15 developing nations.

Greenpeace is calling for: ·

  • A review of all proposed and pending projects to ensure they do not include incinerators; and
  • The involvement of civil society in the World Bank´s current internal review of projects that will potentially lead to the generation and release of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) or otherwise add to the global Pops burden.

Click here for the full waste incinerators briefing

What happens now?

Greenpeace's political director Remi Parmentier comments on the World Bank's meeting in Prague: Everyone can expect that at the World Bank annual meeting in Prague at the end of September, World Bank officials will say that they have "heard the message from NGOs and civil society", and that they are committed to more transparency, more openness and more dialogue. This is all well, and it's not entirely untrue at some levels within the World Bank. But we have been hearing from the World Bank, for at least 10 years, commitments to transparency and public participation as well as to environmental protection.

However, despite some good work in the area of conservation, World Bank projects and economic adjustment policy continues to cause widespread environmental damage. In his defence, World Bank President James Wolfensohn says that it takes time to change the culture of an organisation with a staff of 10,000 people. "How long would it take to change your own organisations?", he said at a recent meeting he convened for representatives of a few international NGOs, including Greenpeace International.

The task is not easy, certainly, but the damage is on going and the human suffering that it entails will continue well into the future. Meanwhile, the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) - a fund for sustainable development and environmental protection that was established by the Rio Earth Summit of 1992 and administered by the World Bank - is not even spending all of its resources available on an annual basis for projects.

If it wants to be credible, the World Bank must accelerate its own reform. In less than two years, in June 2002, the international community will mark the 10th Anniversary of the Rio Earth Summit on Environment and Development. On that occasion, the public will want tangible facts, and no vague promises.

More related links

Information about Greenpeace activities and policies relating to international trade
http://www.greenpeace.org/politics/wto

The next two links contain comprehensive lists of NGOs working on environmental and development aspects of the World Bank at local, national and international levels.

The Bank Information Centre
http://www.bicusa.org

The Bankwatch organisation
http://www.bankwatch.org