1

United States Comments on World Bank Safeguards Review – Phase 2 

March 26, 2015

The United States (U.S.) believes that the World Bank’s Safeguards Review is an important 

opportunity to continue to strengthen and update the safeguards at the World Bank, both in terms 

of the actual written standards and in their effective implementation. We appreciate management 

and staff’s efforts in preparing the draft Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) presented 

to the Committee on Development Effectiveness (CODE) in July 2014. As the ESF will govern 

World Bank investment lending for years to come and have significant influence on the 

environmental and social standards of other development finance institutions, it is imperative 

that the ESF not be weaker than the current safeguards and provide protection at least as strong 

as the current safeguards with respect to both affected peoples and the environment. Moreover, 

the ESF is fundamentally part of the World Bank’s added value to countries, with the potential to 

contribute to lasting environmental and social outcomes, above and beyond the impact of 

specific projects. We urge the World Bank to prepare the next draft document with care to avoid 

any potential weakening from current standards. 

We see a number of areas in which the draft ESF represents an improvement to the current 

safeguard policies, including the introduction of new protections in areas such as climate and 

labor; a more comprehensive approach to social impact assessments; a new focus on vulnerable 

and disadvantaged groups1; the addition of project-level grievance mechanisms; a stronger focus 

on safeguards implementation throughout the project cycle; a greater alignment with the 

environmental and social standards of other multilateral development banks (MDBs); and a new, 

more logical structure that is likely to be easier for staff and borrowers to understand and 

implement. These are important examples of best practice and upward harmonization with other 

MDB safeguards. 

If further developed and implemented well with sufficient resources, the new safeguards 

framework will support the efforts of the World Bank and its borrowers to: (i) achieve 

environmentally and socially sustainable development outcomes; (ii) strengthen the capacity of 

borrowers to avoid, minimize, and mitigate environmental and social risks in their own 

development activities; and (iii) improve consultations with project-affected peoples, including 

disadvantaged or vulnerable groups. To achieve these important objectives, we believe that 

there are a number of areas in which the draft ESF must be revised and clarified. 

Many of the priorities described in this document reinforce points made in our comments to the 

World Bank on April 29, 2014 and July 30, 2014, and our overall support for best practice and 

upward harmonization with other MDBs. Our comments are also informed by our knowledge of 

World Bank projects and our desire to see all projects, including difficult, high-risk ones with the 

potential to make important contributions to countries’ development, designed, implemented, 

monitored, and evaluated well. We have organized our comments into three sections: 

 Strengthening the ESF – timing for the preparation of assessment and mitigation 

documents, the new risk classification system, and the use of borrower frameworks;

 

1

In the definition of “disadvantaged or vulnerable groups” in the ESF, we recommend referring to “disability” 

rather than “physical or mental disability.” 
2

 Improving the Environmental and Social Standards (ESSs) – in numerous areas, 

including associated facilities; biodiversity and sacred sites; climate change;

disadvantaged or vulnerable groups; environmental and social assessment process; 

Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines (EHSGs) and related issues; framework 

operations; human rights; Indigenous Peoples; involuntary resettlement; labor; land and 

natural resources in ESS1; and, project consultations; and, 

 Implementation – consultation process, implementation, and resource considerations.

I. Strengthening the ESF 

Timing for the preparation and disclosure of assessment and mitigation documents. The 

timely identification and assessment of risk is at the heart of an effective safeguards framework. 

The new ESF should require the preparation and disclosure of Environmental and Social Impact 

Assessments (ESIAs), and related documents (such as resettlement action plans and Indigenous 

Peoples plans) in a timeframe and manner that support the “meaningful consultation” 

requirements of ESS10. The preparation and disclosure requirements should also be explicit for 

financial intermediary (FI) and framework project and subproject documents, including ESIAs 

and Environmental and Social Management Frameworks (ESMFs). For any documents that are 

proposed for preparation after Board review of a project, the Board should be provided with 

advance information in the Project Appraisal Document on the nature and content of the 

documents, the rationale for post-Board preparation, and the timeframe for such preparation and 

disclosure. 

More specifically, the ESF should include the following requirements, at least as strong as 

currently, whether in the ESF policy, mandatory procedures, or other mandatory instructions: 

ESIAs/ESMFs for projects and subprojects with likely significant impacts

 For directly financed projects with likely significant impacts2: disclosure of the ESIA on 

the World Bank’s website at a minimum before appraisal, as is currently the case, and at 

least 120 days in advance of Board consideration;

 For subprojects (e.g., in FI or framework projects) with likely significant impacts, for 

which the location is identified prior to Board consideration: disclosure of the subproject 

ESIA on the World Bank’s website before appraisal of the project, and at least 120 days 

in advance of Board consideration of the project. As with directly financed projects, this 

is needed so that all potentially significant project-related (including subproject) impacts 

have been identified and meaningfully considered prior to Board consideration.

 For subprojects (e.g., in FI or framework projects) with likely significant impacts 

expected but for which the location is not identified prior to Board consideration: 

comprehensive information on the broad area in which subprojects will be sited and 

assessment of the environmental and social framework that the sponsor will use, at least 

120 days in advance of Board consideration of the project; and disclosure of the 

 

2

“Significant impacts” may be direct, indirect, cumulative and/or from associated facilities.
3

subproject ESIA on the Bank’s website at least 120 days in advance of the decision by 

the borrower to proceed, or not, with the subproject. The ESMF or comparable document 

should include a robust discussion of the broad area in which subprojects will be sited, 

including any potential environmental and social vulnerabilities of the area (such as 

fragile ecosystems or endangered species) as well as the potential “generic” or “typical” 

impacts likely to occur and mitigation measures that might be expected to be used.

Other environmental/social due diligence documents

 Documents in the pre-Board due diligence/consultation process: the Bank should provide 

clear timing requirements for the preparation and disclosure of these documents, 

maintaining requirements at least as stringent as in the current policies and procedures.

o This should include all impact identification and assessment documents and most 

mitigation planning documents, such as resettlement action plans, Indigenous Peoples 

plans, and labor action plans; and Environmental and Social Management Plans 

(ESMPs), ESMFs, and Environmental and Social Commitment Plans (ESCPs) or a

draft ESCP.

o For mitigation planning documents, the default requirement should be pre-Board 

disclosure, except for detailed, limited-scope mitigation documents where there is a 

sound justification for post-Board preparation and disclosure (see below).

o Any amended ESCP, ESMP or ESMF developed during the implementation phase 

should be disclosed promptly.

 For monitoring documents: reports should cover implementation of environmental and 

social safeguards and be posted on the World Bank’s website in a timely manner.

 For all environmental and social due diligence documents that might be proposed for 

development after Board consideration of a project: requirements that information be 

provided to the Board when it considers the project that includes: (i) the circumstances 

that justify preparation of these documents after Board consideration; (ii) the procedures 

to inform the Board and other stakeholders, at the time of Board consideration, about the 

type, rationale and anticipated content of any documents that are recommended to be 

prepared after Board consideration; and (iii) the timeframes and procedures for disclosing 

the document (when prepared) for consultation/review and receiving input. This 

information should be provided for directly-financed projects and, separately, for 

operations with subprojects expected to be developed after Board approval, such as 

framework operations. The World Bank should establish robust procedures so that postBoard documents are prepared and disclosed as planned. 

Risk classification system. Assigning an appropriate environmental/social risk rating is critical to 

ensuring that the World Bank and borrowers devote sufficient resources and oversight to 

managing the environmental and social risks in a project. We welcome the World Bank’s 

proposal for a new environmental/social risk classification system that considers a broader range 
4

of risk factors than the current system, and will be an important part of the World Bank’s overall 

risk management framework. We believe that the shift to a four-tiered rating system designed to 

consider both the scope and likelihood of risks and borrowers’ capacity to manage risks is 

positive. Ultimately, successful implementation of the new risk classification system is what 

will matter. We thus offer several recommendations on the application of the system. 

 Any project or subproject (e.g., in FI or framework projects) with likely significant 

environmental and/or social impacts should initially be classified as a High Risk project 

(regardless of a borrower’s implementation capacity), and should retain the High Risk

rating. The risk rating should reflect the potential for significant impacts of the entire 

undertaking, including associated facilities, not just the project. 

 Subprojects (e.g., in FI or framework projects) classified as High Risk or Substantial Risk

should be required to meet ESSs 1 to 8 and ESS10. The application of the ESSs to these 

subprojects will better address their environmental and social risks. We look forward to 

further information in the next draft of the ESF on how the risk classification of 

subprojects will be operationalized. FIs and framework project implementing agencies 

should be able to change the risk classification during implementation, subject to prior 

review and approval by the World Bank. 

 Subprojects (e.g., in FI or framework projects) classified as High Risk or Substantial Risk

should be subject to prior review and approval by the World Bank, when the World Bank 

is not satisfied that the borrower possesses adequate capacity. 

 ESS1 (footnote 19) should require that the borrower retain independent specialists 

external to the project for High Risk and Substantial Risk projects.

 The ESF should include requirements for public disclosure and providing information to 

the Board, both for a project’s initial risk rating and at any time a rating is changed. This 

information should include the basis for classification and whether any significant 

environmental and/or social impacts are likely. 

Use and strengthening of borrower frameworks. The increased use of country systems over 

time, when the appropriate capacities exist, is a core tenet of development effectiveness. The 

World Bank’s effort to propose a new, more effective approach to the greater use of borrowers’ 

environmental and social safeguards systems is thus in line with global good practice. 

Strengthening borrower environmental and social frameworks provides an opportunity for the 

World Bank to have positive development impacts beyond the individual projects it finances. 

We also acknowledge that some borrower governments have promulgated their own laws and 

procedures for the management of environmental and social impacts since the World Bank’s 

safeguards were adopted more than two decades ago. And we appreciate the World Bank’s 

effort to learn from the 2005 “use of country systems” pilot3and to present a new, project-based 

approach that can lead to systemic change incrementally. 

 

3

Piloting the Use of Borrower Systems to Address Environmental and Social Safeguard Issues in Bank-Supported 

Projects.
5

The use of borrower environmental and social frameworks provides opportunities but also poses

serious risks and challenges, as evidenced during the “use of country systems” pilot where all the 

pilot projects experienced problems. A careful, gradual, and long-term commitment by the 

World Bank is needed to continue helping borrowers achieve their objectives as well as to 

prepare and resource World Bank staff adequately. We strongly recommend that the following 

key elements be incorporated in the ESF’s approach to using borrower frameworks.

1. A shared understanding that using a borrower framework is an option, but not the default.

o An assessment of a borrower framework should be initiated only when the World 

Bank believes there is merit to devoting the time and resources to such an assessment 

and there is expressed interest by the borrower in strengthening or using its 

framework. 

2. Greater clarity about the conditions under which the World Bank would agree to use a 

borrower framework, including whether such framework materially achieves the same 

level of protection as the World Bank’s ESSs. The final recommendation to the Board on 

whether a particular borrower framework should be used should come from the World 

Bank’s Chief Safeguards Officer and the regional safeguards advisors.

o The ESF should include a requirement that, for the World Bank to use a borrower 

framework, either (i) the environmental and social risk of the project is low (e.g., 

equivalent to a Category C project in the current system), or (ii) the risk related to a 

borrower’s capacity4is “low.” That is, if the project is likely to have moderate or 

significant impacts (equivalent to Category B or A in the current system), the 

borrower’s capacity should be high. 

o The ESF should underscore that the basis and frame of reference for all discussions 

about use of a borrower framework are the ESSs. 

o Borrower ES frameworks should be used only when they, among other requirements, 

enable the project to “achieve objectives and outcomes materially consistent with 

ESSs.”5

o There should be an effective and timely recourse mechanism available to projectaffected people for redress in the case of borrower non-compliance with its own 

relevant policies and procedures. In its assessment of the borrower framework, the 

World Bank should assess the availability and capacity of local recourse mechanisms, 

including the local court system and any administrative (non-judicial) mechanisms, to 

provide adequate redress to project-affected peoples in the case of borrower noncompliance. This assessment should take into account the track record of any local 

recourse mechanisms.6

 

4 This is an element of the project’s risk assessment rating and also of the “institutional capacity for implementation 

and sustainability” factor of the World Bank’s risk management framework.

5 Environmental and Social Policy (ESP), paragraphs 23 and 24, World Bank Proposed Environmental and Social 

Framework (First Draft).

6 This is separate from assessing the borrower framework for whether the borrower provides a project-level 

grievance mechanism as required by ESS10. 
6

o To assess if a borrower framework (i) is likely to be able to address the potential risks 

and impacts of the project, and (ii) will enable the project to “achieve objectives and 

outcomes materially consistent with ESSs,” the World Bank should undertake a 

review as follows:7

 The World Bank’s review of a borrower framework should consider its 

requirements and objectives, and the potential environmental and social outcomes 

that would result from its application, including any specific measures and actions 

that may be agreed with the World Bank. A borrower framework may be used, in 

whole or in part, if it embodies the relevant requirements and objectives of the 

ESSs (without requiring an exact correspondence); can address the potential risks 

and impacts of the project and any associated facilities8, and is commensurate 

with those risks and impacts; includes appropriate procedural requirements (see 

next bullet); and, in the World Bank’s informed judgment, can be expected to 

materially achieve the same level of protection as the World Bank’s ESSs.

 “Appropriate procedural requirements” should include requirements on the timing 

of document preparation and disclosure, including the requirements for timing of 

preparation and disclosure of ESIAs and, where relevant, Indigenous Peoples 

plans, resettlement action plans, and other action plans, at least as strong as in the 

World Bank’s ESF procedures. 

 The assessment of the borrower framework should be done at an appropriate time, 

after the initial environmental and social assessment and mitigation planning, so 

that the full range of potential project impacts, mitigation plans and environmental 

and social outcomes can be evaluated in the assessment of the borrower 

framework. A particular focus of the assessment of the borrower framework 

should be treatment of disadvantaged or vulnerable groups and nondiscrimination. 

 The assessment should include review of the borrower framework’s track record, 

to understand whether there is demonstrated capacity to manage effectively the 

environmental risks and impacts of projects comparable to the project proposed 

for World Bank financing in size, type of impacts and mitigation measures, and 

complexity.

 The assessment should assess the adequacy of the country’s human and financial 

resources for project due diligence and implementation. 

3. A gradual, portfolio-wide approach to increasing use of borrower frameworks, with an 

initial five-year period of limited use, followed by a five-year evaluation of the 

experience.

 

7 The ESP discusses two other situations where it proposes a similar standard: when it develops a “common 

approach” with other multilateral or bilateral funding agencies (paragraph 9), and when the World Bank is providing 

support to an FI, where other multilateral or bilateral funding agencies have already provided financing to the same 

FI (paragraph 10). In these cases, we recommend that the ESP use the same standard (“achieve objectives and 

outcomes materially consistent with ESSs”), disclosure, recourse and assessment requirements as for borrower 

frameworks. 

8

For associated facilities, to the same standard as in ESS1, paragraph 30.
7

o During the first five years after the new ESF becomes effective, use of borrower 

frameworks should be expanded to a limited number of borrowers, and should not 

include projects with a “High” or “Substantial” risk rating. 

o Operational and Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) evaluations of the effectiveness 

of the application of the new approach to the use of borrower frameworks should be 

undertaken five years after the policy becomes effective. The results should be 

presented to the Board for its consideration and for decision on whether the approach 

is working or should be modified. 

4. A requirement that any recommendation to the Board to use a borrower framework 

include the rationale and a discussion of any associated challenges and risks, including 

how such challenges and risks will be addressed.

5. A clear role for the World Bank in strengthening borrower frameworks, whether or not 

the World Bank agrees to use a borrower framework in whole or in part. 

o The Environmental and Social Policy (ESP) and ESS1 should state that the outcome 

of an assessment could result in a decision not to use the borrower framework, 

although the option of strengthening it would still remain. 

o The draft ESP is not clear about the World Bank’s role and should track with the 

corresponding language on capacity-building measures in ESS1 paragraph 19. (ESP 

paragraph 25 should state that the measures and actions to address gaps in the 

borrower framework will include capacity-building measures, where necessary, and 

that the World Bank will develop a plan to support the agreed capacity-building 

measures, if needed.)

6. An option, if the borrower framework is changed in a manner inconsistent with the ESSs 

and the ESCP, that use of the borrower framework will be discontinued.

o As part of its standard oversight procedures, the World Bank should have a process to 

review the status of a borrower framework and its implementation on a periodic basis, 

including through consultations with expert international organizations when 

appropriate, rather than relying solely on information provided by the borrower. 

7. A clear resource and budgeting plan, so that the World Bank has the resources it will 

need to assess and assist in strengthening borrower frameworks.

II. Improving the Environmental and Social Standards (ESSs) 

Associated facilities definition. We recommend that the ESF adopt the definition of an 

associated facility as “new or expanded works or infrastructure without which a World Bankfinanced project would not function as intended.” Associated facilities should not be limited to

contemporaneous activities. 
8

Biodiversity and sacred sites. We welcome the new emphasis on biodiversity. The ESF should 

strongly encourage broad and “upstream” assessment and planning, such as landscape planning, 

river basin planning, and other strategic approaches, to improve project selection and design and 

maximize sustainability. We recommend a prohibition on offsets for impacts on critical habitat. 

The effective implementation of biodiversity offsets is extremely challenging, even in countries 

with extremely high capacity. Given the potentially catastrophic impacts on endangered species, 

we believe the risks are simply too high. ESS6 should require assessment and avoidance/

mitigation of impacts on ecosystems, including by maintaining sufficient operational flows in 

river basin ecosystems to protect the ecosystems and critical natural habitats. ESS6 should also 

include protections for forests at least equivalent to those found in OP 4.36. The protections for 

sacred sites, which are called “natural features with cultural significance” in ESS8, should 

include protections equivalent to the current prohibition on significant conversion or degradation 

of such sites. Impacts on these sites should be considered in conjunction with ESS6. 

Climate change. We welcome the inclusion of important new provisions on climate change. 

These represent a strengthening over the current safeguards policies that are silent on climate 

issues. However, the ESF should strongly encourage broad and “upstream” consideration and 

evaluation of climate change impacts as early in the project cycle as possible so that projects can 

best support low-carbon, climate-resilient development. ESS3 should clarify that the borrower 

will also consider alternatives and options to avoid greenhouse gas emissions. Quantification of 

greenhouse gas emissions as outlined in ESS3 should be required without the qualifications 

included in the text. Requirements for assessment and consideration of climate resilience risks 

should be strengthened and expanded, and should address resilience of the projects themselves as 

well as resilience of the communities and ecosystems affected by these projects. The vision 

statement (paragraph 5) should address climate change resilience. 

Disadvantaged or vulnerable groups. We welcome the inclusion of language concerning women 

and girls, persons with disabilities, and LGBTI persons in the Vision Statement, among the 

groups of persons identified as “disadvantaged or vulnerable,” and, as members of that group, 

throughout the ESF. We encourage the World Bank to strengthen the ESSs, where relevant, to 

reduce risks unique to each of these groups throughout the project cycle, including through 

robust and meaningful engagement with the affected persons and their representative 

organizations. We also encourage the World Bank to improve its staff engagement, and to 

support improvements in borrower capacity, to enable better analysis, planning, and outcomes 

for these populations and vulnerable and disadvantaged groups more broadly.

Environmental and social assessment process.

 Alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis required in ESS1, paragraph 22, should 

consider alternatives in a comparable manner, so as to provide for meaningful 

consideration of the distinctions among alternatives, and should be of a nature and depth 

commensurate with the potential impacts of the proposed project. 

 Multi-facility undertakings. The World Bank due diligence process should consider 

multi-facility undertakings – typically a project and associated facilities – in an integrated 

manner. The result should be a single environmental and social risk classification (as 

noted above) and a comprehensive, integrated assessment that both reflect a holistic 

understanding of the risks and impacts of the total undertaking.
9

 Hydropower projects. The ESS4 Annex on the safety of dams includes a reference to a 

broad range of environmental and social considerations beyond dam safety. Accordingly, 

the annex should be attached to ESS1, with a more robust discussion of the 

environmental and social issues unique to dams, and with the engagement on 

environmental and social impacts called for in the Annex appropriately integrated with 

the process and analysis called for in ESS1.

Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines (EHSGs) and related issues.

 The environmental and social requirements that will be applied to a specific project, 

based on the Good International Industry Practice (GIIP), should be spelled out in the 

environmental and social assessment document, or in a document available alongside 

it. The discussion of the project-specific requirements should specify the EHSGs, or 

where EHSGs are not available, the GIIP to be used. Additionally, where a standard 

lower than an EHSG limit is proposed, the discussion should provide a technical 

justification. 

 Any proposed alternatives that are weaker than the EHSGs should be subject to thirdparty review. The circumstances that would justify an alternative should be projectspecific, such as commercially available skills, equipment and materials and operational 

reliability. 

 The discussion of GIIP in ESS3, footnote 3, should require the use of the more protective 

of either the global or regional practice.

 Borrowers should not site projects with uncontrolled emissions and releases in pristine 

areas as an alternative to provision of controls in degraded areas. The preferred 

alternative is robust controls.

 The goal of any corrective actions during the implementation phase related to the projectspecific environmental and social requirements should be to maintain or achieve 

compliance with those requirements. This should be reflected in any revised ESCP. 

 The ESF should be clear that all requirements referring to the ESSs include the EHSGs. 

This applies not only to directly financed green-field projects, but also to projects 

concerning existing facilities, subprojects, associated facilities, projects subject to a 

common approach, FI projects where the FI has worked with another MDB, and projects 

using borrower frameworks, all of which have requirements referring to the ESSs.

Framework operations. The ESF should allow framework operations to be used only when they 

can be well-implemented and are an appropriate project structure (for example, “repeating” or 

similar subprojects managed by one agency). The ESF should include criteria on when a 

framework operation is an acceptable approach to addressing environmental and social impacts 

of a set of projects, including borrower capacity, in light of the risk assessment, mitigation 

planning, implementation and oversight challenges such operations can pose. Borrower capacity 

should be commensurate with the anticipated risks and impacts. In addition, implementation of 

frameworks should always include development and implementation of detailed site-specific 

plans.

Human rights. We welcome the acknowledgement in the Vision Statement that the World 

Bank’s operations are supportive of human rights. The explicit reference to World Bank 

operations encouraging respect for human rights is progress, although we think the Vision 
10

Statement could be bolder in this regard. We believe that an important contribution of the draft 

ESF to preventing adverse human rights impacts from World Bank projects is the clear emphasis 

on robust social impact assessments, especially with respect to disadvantaged or vulnerable 

groups. Done well, social impact assessments and related mitigation can be the vehicles for 

assessing and addressing human rights impacts. Accordingly, we urge the World Bank to 

develop robust procedures and guidelines for social impact assessment and mitigation, including 

where development activities can impact human rights.

Indigenous Peoples. It is important to address the unique realities, history, and needs of 

Indigenous Peoples. We welcome new provisions in ESS7 that represent a strengthening over 

current policy, for example, in recognizing pastoralists and peoples “in voluntary isolation.” 

Nonetheless, we cannot support the proposed “alternative approach” and strongly recommend 

that it be removed from the next draft of the ESF. We believe that ESS7 without the “alternative 

approach” is a solid basis for addressing the needs of the vast majority of World Bank-financed 

projects. ESS7, paragraph 25 provides protections related to the possible relocation of 

Indigenous Peoples from communally held or attached lands and natural resources subject to 

traditional ownership or customary use or occupation. It should be modified, and footnote 14 

deleted, so that any such relocation of Indigenous Peoples complies with both ESS5 and 

paragraph 25.

Involuntary resettlement. Involuntary resettlement occurs in a significant portion of World 

Bank-financed projects and is likely to become more prevalent as the World Bank increases its 

support for the construction of infrastructure projects. A sound ESS on involuntary resettlement 

(ESS5) as well as its effective implementation, therefore, is central to World Bank lending. We 

are very concerned by the recently released reports that outline significant weaknesses in the 

World Bank’s implementation of its own involuntary resettlement policy. We note

Management’s Action Plan and urge Management to consult with a panel of external experts to 

determine if the Action Plan is sufficiently robust. Implementation of this Action Plan should 

include a focus on sound baseline data and careful assessment of existing land and water 

ownership and usage patterns and rights, to provide a basis for robust impact assessment, 

mitigation planning, monitoring, and, if needed, adaptive management, throughout the project 

cycle. We recommend that resettlement activities be conceived and executed as sustainable 

development programs with meaningful consultation and participation. We also recommend that 

ESS5 emphasize improvement of livelihoods in cases of resettlement (not just “restoration”), 

including through opportunities for affected peoples to derive benefits from the project. ESS5 

should include requirements for recognition of individual and/or collective ownership and usage 

rights, and should consider the water resources and water rights associated with any land 

acquisition. Regarding the proposed exemption from ESS5 for “voluntary, legally recorded 

market transactions” (paragraph 5.a) and the option for relinquishing land rights (paragraph 4.f), 

the ESF should include mandatory directions to staff on how to evaluate whether these 

transactions are truly voluntary. The ESS5 exemptions for “land-titling/regularization activities” 

and “regulation or planning of natural resources or land use on a regional or national level to 

promote sustainability” should be deleted. 

 

Labor. We welcome the inclusion of an ESS on labor issues for the first time. The inclusion of 

ESS2 represents a strengthening over the current safeguards policies, which are silent on labor 
11

issues. However, as drafted, ESS2 has important gaps that should be addressed in a revised ESF. 

Regarding its scope, we recommend that “government civil servants” be more clearly defined 

and that “project workers” include contractors and sub-contractors, as well as workers in the 

primary supply chain. We urge the World Bank to incorporate reference to the International 

Labour Organization (ILO) Declaration on the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work 

(FPRW) in ESS2, including stronger protections with regard to freedom of association and 

collective bargaining consistent with the FPRW. ESS2 should include a requirement that 

“whether or not provided by national law, the borrower/contractor/ subcontractor will not 

discourage, interfere, discriminate or retaliate against workers seeking to freely associate and/or 

bargain collectively.” Where there are legal prohibitions on worker rights to associate and to 

bargain collectively, the World Bank should explore a policy dialogue with the borrower and the 

ILO, as part of its broader country-wide strategy to support policy reform on these issues. 

Land and natural resources in ESS1. We welcome the explicit ESS1 requirements for 

assessing and mitigating the risks and impacts associated with land and natural resource tenure 

and use, which represent a strengthening over current safeguards policy. We recommend that the 

next draft of the ESF provide more explicit protections in ESS1 to project-affected people whose 

use of land and natural resources, including water, is affected or restricted. The protections 

should include legal recognition of ownership and usage (including for collective ownership and 

usage), when appropriate, compensation, appropriate project benefits, and livelihood 

improvement (not just livelihood restoration). This process should consider the water resources 

and water rights associated with any land acquisition. 

Project consultations. We welcome the overall strengthening of consultation requirements in 

ESS10 relative to current requirements, including the new requirements for a stakeholder 

engagement plan and meaningful consultations. Meaningful consultations should be available 

for all project-affected people (not, as suggested by ESS 10, paragraph 10, only when they may 

be subjected to “significant” adverse impacts). Demonstrable public acceptance of the project is 

among the desired outcomes of the consultation process. The meaningful consultation 

requirements of ESS10 should explicitly include consultation during the scoping process. 

Design of project-level grievance mechanisms should include consultation with project-affected 

people to support the design of an effective mechanism, and should include protections against 

reprisal in addition to anonymity. Where relevant, for example for large infrastructure projects, 

document disclosure should include timely public access to project documents, including 

feasibility studies, economic and risk analyses, and revenue management plans, with appropriate 

exceptions for proprietary information, and to related documents, such as resource management 

plans and river basin management plans, which should be developed using full stakeholder 

participation. 

III. Implementation 

Consultations. We appreciate the World Bank’s commitment to holding a third round of 

consultations as part of the Safeguards Review. We expect the “phase 3” consultations to be 

transparent, accessible, inclusive, and robust, and to provide for meaningful engagement with a 

full range of interested stakeholders. In addition, we expect that all the necessary documentation 

will be provided with sufficient time for review so that stakeholders are able to gain a 
12

comprehensive understanding of the proposed safeguards framework. We expect the 

documentation to include at least the following:

 A revised ESF document updating all the material in the July 2014 CODE paper, 

including implementation planning, and also including all Annexes;

 All mandatory staff requirements (e.g., directives and procedures, however named);

 Information Note on Risk Assessment (mandatory); and,

 Information Note on Borrower Frameworks (mandatory).

Implementation and resources. We reiterate the comments in our April 2014 and July 2014 

statements. No matter how well drafted, the ESF’s ultimate success hinges not only on the 

words on paper, but on how they are implemented on the ground. We expect the World Bank to 

address the weaknesses in the implementation of the current safeguards highlighted by the IEG’s 

2010 review and two recent internal reports on involuntary resettlement. The World Bank’s 

processes and resourcing for implementing the new safeguards framework will be key to its 

success. 

The draft ESF document includes discussion of several measures “under consideration.” We 

urge the World Bank to present a fully developed plan to improve implementation with the next 

draft of the ESF. As part of this plan, we encourage the World Bank to consider establishing a 

larger, integrated safeguards unit, in order to support the autonomy, resource allocation, and 

career opportunities of specialist safeguards staff. We emphasize the importance of close 

collaboration on safeguards issues between all relevant units.

9 We also underscore the 

importance of the World Bank’s independent review of information provided by the borrower 

and encourage the World Bank to use third-party monitoring routinely, not only in exceptional 

cases. Lastly, we reiterate the importance of training and staff incentives to a successful 

safeguards system. 

The World Bank has stated that the new proposed safeguards framework will require even more 

professional capacity and judgment on the part of its safeguards staff than the current system. 

We agree with that assessment and strongly emphasize the importance of ensuring that the World 

Bank has a sufficient number of environmental and social expert staff with the requisite 

experience and skills to deliver on the vision and ambitions of the new ESF. It is also critical that 

incentives for both task team leaders and safeguards staff align with this new approach. We urge 

the World Bank to develop a resourcing plan which provides baseline and projected data for ESF 

implementation and to share the plan with stakeholders either in the next draft of the ESF or in a 

parallel communication.

We look forward to further discussions with World Bank management and staff as well as other 

stakeholders on these issues, and to a revised draft ESF that addresses all of these concerns and 

suggestions.

 

9This includes Operations Policy and Country Services, the Environment and Natural Resources Global Practice, the 

Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience Global Practice, and – where appropriate – other global practices, such as the 

Social Protection and Labor Global Practice, and cross-cutting solutions areas, including climate change, gender, 

and jobs.