United States Comments on the Guidance Notes for the World Bank Environmental and 

Social Framework (ESF) -- “Draft for Public Comment” of November 1, 2017

December 2017

Introduction

The United States appreciates the World Bank’s efforts in preparing the draft Guidance Notes 

and making them available for public comment.

However, the U.S. is concerned that the draft Guidance Notes fall short of what we and many 

others expected, and that they risk undermining both the substantive policy commitments and 

requirements of the ESF and the Bank’s credibility and standing. Accordingly, revising these 

documents to be of much higher quality should be a priority.

The U.S. recommends that the World Bank revise the Guidance Notes to make a much more 

substantive, robust product that will help borrowers implement the ESF well, and put the revised 

Guidance Notes out for a second public comment period.

The U.S. strongly believes that:

 High quality Guidance Notes are important for the effective implementation of the ESF.

 High quality Guidance Notes will support the Bank’s global development leadership role,

its role as a knowledge bank, and potential adoption of the ESF by other development 

finance institutions in co-financing situations and as their own policies. Poor quality 

Guidance Notes may result in the Bank, in effect, ceding its knowledge/leadership role. 

 High quality Guidance Notes will be an important element of training and capacity 

building, especially since resources for training and capacity building are limited and are 

unlikely to reach everyone with a need to understand and apply the Environmental and 

Social Standards (ESSs). 

 High quality Guidance Notes are especially important for World Bank staff, to provide an 

institutional reference point to support specialists in their discussions with 

borrowers. Since the ESSs allow for more staff judgment than the current safeguards, 

borrowers may push back against specific recommendations by a Bank specialist. Hence, 

it is important for any World Bank specialist to have clear guidance and/or examples that 

he/she can point to. They can also provide a base of information so that the specialist can 

focus on the specifics of a project, not just on basic concepts and approaches. Guidance 

Notes support and assist a specialist, making him/her more effective. 

Overarching/cross-cutting recommendations on the Guidance Notes

 The Guidance Notes should clearly state that their purpose is: “To assist borrowers in the 

effective implementation of the ESS policy requirements.” That is, their purpose is to 

provide guidance on how to interpret and apply the technical content of the ESS 

principles and requirements. As such they should:
2

o Explain what is intended by the ESS and the technical considerations that should 

be brought to bear. 

o Assist the reader in making key judgements, implementing best practice and 

dealing with typical problem issues.

o Provide practical “how-to” guidance that can be applied in an operational context, 

without attempting to cover every scenario or to be too detailed or prescriptive. 

o Foster willingness and ownership by addressing “why” a requirement is important 

and what is to be gained from its implementation.

o Draw on and incorporate the work of others, including but not limited to other 

MDBs, the Inspection Panel (e.g., the “Emerging Lessons Series”) and the 

Independent Evaluation Group.

 The “how” should focus on what good implementation would look like. It should help 

borrowers understand what is expected of them under the ESF, and how to do it. The 

Guidance Notes should articulate a high standard of implementation. The purpose of the 

ESSs is to promote sustainable, inclusive development and that is best achieved by telling 

borrowers how to use and implement the ESSs effectively. 

o Where judgement is required, the Guidance Notes should not just repeat the 

standard but should “unpack” it. This could include discussion or listing of:

 Key choices or decisions to be made;

 Factors that might affect the choice or decision; and

 Some examples of different scenarios. (If more than one example is 

provided, that can help demonstrate that there is room for judgement.) 

 Revised Guidance Notes should be modeled after the IFC’s Guidance Notes in terms of 

scope and level of detail. 

 The Guidance Notes should be written in an appropriate “voice” that supports the ESSs. 

In general, they should use “should” to express guidance, as other MDB guidance notes 

do. “Should” is appropriate for measures that are recommended, but not required.

o For discussing or characterizing ESS requirements or Bank requirements under 

the Environmental and Social Policy (ESP), the Guidance Notes should use 

“will,” “shall” or “must,” i.e., words of obligation. 

o Phrases such as “it is important that,” “it is best practice that,” “the borrower 

may,” and “the borrower can” suggest something optional, and should not be used 

to characterize or paraphrase an ESS requirement or national or international 

obligations. They may be appropriate for options or possibilities.

o Repeating the text of an ESS is unnecessary. Paraphrasing it in a weaker form is 

inappropriate and not acceptable. 

o Guidance Note text that undermines or misrepresents the ESS is also 

inappropriate and not acceptable.

 Some specific examples (“may” – “should”):
3

o GN10.1 should say, “The process to identify stakeholders should may include the 

following:..” 

o GN11.2 should say, “Baseline data studies should may comprise a combination 

of...” 

 Some specific examples of problematic text:

o ESS1 GN 9.2 undermines the Bank’s role in a common approach (i.e. the shared 

safeguards when the World Bank is co-financing with other development finance 

institutions). Rather than an active World Bank using its requirements to shape a 

common approach (as expected in the ESS), the GN only envisages the Bank as 

reviewer of common approaches already agreed by the borrower and other 

lenders. 

o ESS1 GN11.4 narrows the definition of “associated facility” from that stated by 

the policy. 

o ESS6 GN 40 suggests, with no basis, that a borrower’s ability to control or 

regulate primary suppliers does not include regulation (except in exceptional 

cases). 

o ESS2. Paragraph 15 requires that borrowers “will provide appropriate measures of 

protection and assistance” for workers with vulnerabilities. GN 15.2 undermines 

this provision by focusing on minimizing the cost of any potential measures and 

excluding consideration of effectiveness. The overall effect of the paragraph as 

written is to suggest that a borrower do as little as possible for its vulnerable 

workers, rather than suggesting that the Bank supports inclusive development and 

is committed to helping the borrowers with this challenge. 

 The ESF broadens and deepens the focus on social risks and impacts, and the Guidance 

Notes should support this change. This should include:

o A focus on social impact assessment generally (e.g., much greater depth on how 

to do a social impact assessment, potentially with supplemental guidance and/or 

good practice documents being developed); 

o A focus on mainstreaming the identification, assessment and mitigation of 

impacts on disadvantaged and vulnerable groups throughout the Guidance Notes, 

not just in the notes related to ESS1 and ESS10.

o Consideration of information on human rights risks and factors that affect civil 

society space. The Bank’s consideration of social impacts and stakeholder 

engagement plans should be informed by available information and analysis on 

human rights risks and dynamics affecting civil society space. 
4

 Resources. The Guidance Notes should include references and links to other resources 

and tool-kits. There is no need to reinvent or redraft materials well-articulated by others, 

but the Guidance Notes should bring together existing resources. A good set of resources 

is, however, not a substitute for good Guidance Notes. 

 Level of sophistication: the Guidance Notes can speak to a more sophisticated audience 

than the current draft. The readers will likely include experienced government officials 

as well as consultants and contractors who work with these issues on a regular basis. (If 

the Bank believes that it needs “entry level Guidance Notes” for some borrower staff, 

perhaps it could be creative in presenting key messages in the Guidance Notes, or having 

a “basics” section for each ESS. We recognize that different audiences are a challenge.)

 Although written for borrowers, these Guidance Notes will inevitably inform Bank staff’s 

due diligence and supervision of projects, and frame the working relationship between 

Bank and borrower staff. The GNs (or an introductory chapeau) should explain how 

these Guidance Notes will relate to or be used by any future due diligence guidelines or 

supervision guidance for Bank staff.