United States Comments on World Bank Safeguards Review 

April 29, 2014 

IMPORTANCE OF WORLD BANK SAFEGUARDS AND ASPIRATIONS FOR THE

REVIEW 

 

The United States (US) believes that the World Bank’s safeguard policies are an integral part of 

its comparative advantage and impart value added beyond the financing it provides. The 

safeguards are an essential tool for avoiding or mitigating environmental and social risks in 

World Bank-financed projects, and are a key component of borrower and Bank risk management 

efforts. At a practical level, the Bank’s safeguards help to ensure that Bank projects do not result 

in unintended or harmful consequences to people and the environment, both in the short and 

long-terms. In addition, the safeguards process provides an opportunity to go beyond a “do no 

harm” approach and to strive for positive environmental and social outcomes. This is already 

evident at the project level, where the safeguards not only prevent harm, but are also used to help 

project sponsors and affected people become more skilled at addressing the environmental and 

social dimensions of sustainable development. 

Moreover, strong safeguards yield benefits beyond individual projects. Through the processes of 

impact assessment, mitigation planning and implementation of individual projects, the 

safeguards can help inform Bank and borrower responses to broader challenges faced at the 

regional, national, and global level such as climate change and biodiversity. Lastly, the Bank 

can serve as a role model and resource for borrower countries seeking to improve their own 

environmental and social safeguard standards, regulations, and capacity which are all essential 

for long-term sustainable development. 

The US strongly agrees with the World Bank’s stated objective for the ongoing review of its 

safeguard policies as set forth in the 2012 Approach Paper: “to strengthen the effectiveness of 

the safeguard policies in order to enhance the development effectiveness of Bank operations.” 

The US also concurs with the desired outcomes articulated by the Bank in the Approach Paper: 

 a renewed partnership with borrowers; 

 better approaches to addressing environmental and social risks of the next decade; 

 increased effectiveness, efficiency, and timeliness; 

 policy harmonization; and 

 alignment with the evolving nature of the Bank’s business. 

The US would also like to highlight another high-level outcome that is implicit in these five 

desired outcomes: improved implementation of the safeguards throughout the project cycle 

through more robust monitoring and supervision. In considering all the desired outcomes, the US 

would like to highlight the importance it attaches to World Bank management’s commitment that 

there will be no dilution of Bank safeguards standards. 
2

Throughout the safeguard review process, the US urges the World Bank to continue to share and 

update its timeline and documents with interested parties on an ongoing basis through the 

specially established website, as well as engage in a wide-ranging consultation process with 

external and internal stakeholders. 

CURRENT SAFEGUARDS: CONTEXT 

Historically, the World Bank has been a global leader in safeguards. Since it first adopted an 

environmental assessment policy in 1989, the Bank has been recognized as having strong policy 

requirements and strong due diligence prior to Board approval of development projects. 

However, the World Bank needs to keep pace with emerging challenges and progress achieved 

by other multilateral development banks (MDBs) that have more recently put in place new 

policies reflecting lessons learned from both their own experience and the Bank’s. To cite a few 

examples of what other MDBs have done, the African Development Bank (AfDB) is the latest 

MDB to apply its safeguards to policy lending as well as investment lending; the Asian 

Development Bank (AsDB) has meaningfully integrated gender in its safeguards; and the 

International Finance Corporation (IFC) has led the way in addressing issues pertaining to labor 

and working conditions. 

The 2010 review by the World Bank Group’s Independent Evaluation Group (IEG), “Safeguards 

and Sustainability Policies in a Changing World,” identified several areas for potential 

improvement of the current safeguards. The report noted weaknesses in implementation, and 

made recommendations on strengthening safeguards supervision arrangements as well as 

monitoring, evaluation, and completion reporting. The report also identified expanding thematic 

coverage of the safeguards as an area for improvement, recommending coverage of social effects 

such as community and gender impacts, labor and working conditions, and health, safety and 

security issues. 

UNITED STATES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE SAFEGUARDS REVIEW 

The US believes the World Bank safeguards review should result in the establishment of a new 

and comprehensive institutional approach that recognizes safeguards as critical for advancing the 

Bank’s development goals and meeting clients’ needs. The review provides the Bank with the 

opportunity to put in place up-to-date, systematic, and clear policies that improve project design 

and implementation and build borrowers’ capacity to address environmental and social 

challenges that go beyond individual projects. Revisions to the safeguards should improve 

environmental and social outcomes and generate greater country ownership. In fact, we believe 

improved policies will create a virtuous circle in which better outcomes are reinforced by greater 

country ownership and vice versa. 

As Bank management begins to draft a full proposal for consideration by the Board’s Committee 

on Development Effectiveness later this year, we are conveying the US’ current views on 

priorities for the review. These views have been developed through an assessment of existing 

MDB policies and practices, US policies and practices, relevant bilateral and multilateral 

agreements, and recognized best practice standards and principles. The views put forth in this 

paper aim to provide a basis for a renewed partnership with borrowers and maintain the Bank’s 

role as a leader in environmental and social safeguards. 
3

The rest of this paper is organized in four sections that present our current recommendations to 

the Bank. We welcome further discussion with Bank management and other shareholders on all 

the issues covered. The first section addresses the overall framework and cross-cutting issues 

related to the organizational structure, scope, and breadth of the safeguards. Section 2 covers 

recommendations for enhancements to themes already covered in the current safeguards. In 

section 3, we focus, primarily, on what the Bank has identified as “emerging” thematic areas of 

focus. The final section focuses on recommendations for implementing the safeguards, including 

strengthened monitoring and supervision. 

I. Safeguard Framework and Cross-cutting Issues 

This section includes recommendations related to the organizational structure, scope, and breadth 

of the safeguards. 

 An integrated safeguard framework. Best practice among MDBs is to establish: (1) 

integrated safeguards consisting of an umbrella policy that articulates general principles 

defining basic roles and responsibilities as well as general commitments and objectives; (2) 

issue specific policies that spell out concrete substantive aims and requirements pertaining to 

environmental and social impact assessment; and (3) guidance documents that provide 

practical details for implementing the policy requirements. The issue specific policies, while 

also conveying expected outcomes, should continue to include ex-ante assessment 

requirements. The AfDB1

 is the most recent MDB to adopt this approach to improve the 

clarity, coherence, efficiency, and effectiveness of its operations. 

 Delineated responsibilities. The current safeguard policies outline the Bank’s and the 

borrower’s responsibilities, but they lack sufficient clarity on respective roles. The new 

safeguards framework would benefit from separate clear statements of the Bank’s and 

borrower’s responsibilities. We believe the Bank must continue to oversee ex-ante 

assessments of environmental and social risks, and be accountable for overseeing safeguards 

compliance throughout the project cycle and assisting the borrower when problems arise 

during implementation. At the same time, it is the borrower that is responsible for the 

implementation of safeguards through appropriate systems and policies as well as projectspecific actions. To promote positive outcomes and project compliance, we believe the Bank 

should continue a high level of engagement with borrowers, as needed, throughout the 

project cycle. 

 Use of country systems. Part of the Bank’s development contribution is to help strengthen 

borrowers’ capacity so that ultimately their systems are strong enough to provide necessary 

environmental and social protections for the preservation of their valuable environmental and 

social resources. However, the conditions under which borrower systems can be used must 

be clearly defined and benchmarked and, where relevant, accompanied by technical 

assistance and capacity building to establish and implement standards equivalent to the 

Bank’s. We urge the Bank to reach out to other providers of development assistance, both 

bilateral and multilateral, to coordinate capacity building efforts. 

                                                           

1

 African Development Bank Group’s Integrated Safeguards System (ISS), December 2013. 
4

 Financial intermediary projects, framework projects, and strategic environmental 

assessments. To provide flexibility to adapt to borrower needs, the Bank’s investment 

lending approaches include lending to financial intermediaries and to borrowers that are 

using a framework approach. Projects financed through such mechanisms may have 

environmental and social impacts that should be identified and mitigated with appropriate 

rigor. (For example, frameworks establish broad approaches but need to be followed by 

appropriate impact assessment and mitigation at the sub-project level.) In this regard, we 

believe that financial intermediary and framework sub-projects (Category A and B) should be 

held to the same standards as Category A and B projects financed directly by the Bank. The 

Bank should also promote the greater and timely use of Strategic/Sector Environmental and 

Social Assessments for framework projects and other appropriate circumstances, such as 

when it undertakes multiple projects in the same sector. 

 Scope of the safeguards review. The review is currently limited to investment lending and 

excludes Development Policy Loans (DPLs). DPLs represented close to 30 percent of Bank 

financing in 2013. Consistent with this significant share of lending, the Bank should include 

DPLs in the review. We note that other MDBs, such as the AfDB and AsDB, have explicitly 

applied their safeguards policies to their DPL-equivalent instruments and a recent IEG 

report2

 on the forest sector specifically demonstrated the weaknesses of the DPL safeguards. 

Leaving DPLs outside of the scope of the review puts the World Bank’s approach at odds 

with that of other MDBs and would leave a significant portion of Bank lending vulnerable to 

environmental and social risks. 

II. Enhancing Coverage of Themes in the Current World Bank Safeguards

The following section provides suggestions for the areas covered by the current environmental 

and social safeguard policies, including OP 4.01 (Environmental Assessment), OP 4.04 (Natural 

Habitats), OP 4.10 (Indigenous Peoples), OP 4.11 (Physical Cultural Resources), OP 4.12 

(Involuntary Resettlement), OP 4.36 (Forests), and OP 4.37 (Safety of Dams). We recognize and 

value the work the World Bank is already doing in these areas and encourage the Bank to 

continue to strengthen its approach to these issue areas in the context of the new environmental 

and social standards. 

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA). We believe ESIAs should be 

conducted in an integrated manner, provide for public involvement and transparency, and 

utilize the best available science. The assessment of social and environmental impacts should 

be inclusive, paying particular attention to potential impacts on vulnerable and marginalized 

groups and individuals, consistent with the conclusions of the World Bank’s report, 

“Inclusion Matters.” Under the current safeguards, social impact assessments have generally 

been limited in scope and isolated from environmental assessments. This was pointed out in 

the IEG review that indicated that social impacts derived from environmental impacts, and 

vice versa, may not have been adequately addressed in all instances. Where the 

environmental and/or social impacts of a project are likely to be significant, the ESIA should 

                                                           

2 “Managing Forest Resources for Sustainable Development: An Evaluation of World Bank Group Experience,” 

February 5, 2013, page 48. 
5

cover cumulative impacts and associated facilities. Analysis of alternatives should be 

commensurate with the complexity and potential impact on the area of influence, consider 

cumulative impacts, and continue to include the “no project” alternative. It is important that 

the assessment process begin as soon as possible in the project process. An early start will 

help establish sound baseline data to fully inform decision makers and identify gaps or 

limitations of the baseline data. In assessing project activities, the ESIA should take into 

account all of the borrower’s international obligations related to those activities. 

 Consultations. We attach particular importance to establishing and maintaining a robust, 

meaningful consultation process with project-affected communities throughout the project 

cycle. The Bank should improve the quality of consultations during the project design phase, 

requiring borrowers to provide opportunities for effective community participation in 

identifying potential effects and avoidance/mitigation measures, and also continue effective 

community consultation and participation during project implementation. To be effective, 

consultation processes must be inclusive and overcome linguistic, institutional, cultural, 

economic, historical, sex-based, gender-identity based or sexual orientation-based barriers, 

and other potential barriers to effective participation. Documents, notices and hearings 

should be readily accessible to affected communities. 

 Pollution Prevention. We recommend using the IFC’s Performance Standard 3 (PS3) 

requirements on pollution prevention as a model for the Bank because it covers a broad range 

of hazardous and non-hazardous waste and other pollutants. In addition, the World Bank 

Group Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines provide an appropriate 

benchmark for pollution prevention, while allowing for alternative levels and measures to be 

used for specific projects. However, any alternative levels or measures that represent lower 

standards than the EHS benchmark should only be applied where warranted by projectspecific circumstances. In such (rare) cases, we believe the Bank should seek a review of the 

proposal to use lower standards by a credible third party to assess the impacts of the lower 

standards. 

 Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples are often particularly vulnerable and yet can bring 

great value as partners in a sustainable development process. We recommend that the Bank 

develop an approach to provide project-specific, focused capacity-building to Indigenous 

Peoples3 affected by World Bank-financed projects to facilitate their effective and 

constructive participation at all stages of the project process. We also recommend that any 

social impact assessment incorporating Indigenous Peoples encompass their political status 

and legal rights pertaining to land and natural resources affected by the project. The Bank 

should encourage countries to complete relevant legal recognition processes as soon as 

possible in the project process. In those cases where the Indigenous Peoples possess the land 

and natural resources in question, we suggest that, unless prohibited by domestic law and 

subject to the consent of the Indigenous Peoples, recognition of this fact be in the form of 

collective ownership. Similarly, access and usage rights should be recognized on a collective 

basis. 

                                                           

3

 Similar capacity building efforts should be applied to other vulnerable populations. 
6

 Cultural Heritage. We recommend that the Bank adopt the concept of “cultural heritage,” 

including intangible as well as tangible cultural heritage, in lieu of “physical cultural 

resources,” to align with international standards. Given the specialized knowledge needed to 

address preservation of cultural heritage, we also recommend that the Bank require the use of 

outside experts in any assessment and preservation process pertaining to cultural heritage. 

Furthermore, we believe it is important that the Bank assess the adequacy of borrowers to 

manage cultural heritage that may be affected by Bank-financed projects and incorporate 

capacity building where the assessment determines that capacity needs strengthening. 

Finally, we recommend that the Bank not include any language that may prejudice ongoing 

international negotiations at the World Trade Organization and at the World Intellectual 

Property Organization related to the protection of intangible cultural heritage. 

 Involuntary Resettlement. First, the revised safeguards should go beyond the current 

“restore or improve” objective and aim, in all cases, to establish conditions for improving 

living standards. Second, the Bank should require that any project with the potential for 

significant resettlement have the resettlement activities be a separate component of the 

project (with its own cost-benefit and risk analyses), including meaningful participation of 

affected persons throughout the project cycle and access to an effective project level 

grievance mechanism. Third, resettlement experts should be engaged throughout the project 

cycle. Finally, the Bank should also adopt procedures aimed at thwarting “pre-resettlement 

activities” that negatively impact affected communities while a project is still in concept. 

 Water. Water resources have not, to date, been an explicit focus of World Bank safeguards. 

However, given growing pressures on the availability and quality of water, we recommend 

that the revised safeguard policies place a heightened focus on water resource management, 

including considerations related to climate change. The safeguards should reinforce best 

practices and procedures for making informed decisions for managing a country’s or region’s 

water resources, including meaningful consultation with affected stakeholders, and be 

supported by capacity building that better enables countries to implement these practices in a 

timely fashion. The viability and feasibility of any proposed dam should be considered 

within the context of the river basin using cumulative impact assessment and management 

approaches and integrated resources planning. Assessments should take into account 

potential impacts and avoidance/mitigation measures. The technical capacity, available 

resources, and governance of the host country should be strong enough to help ensure that the 

decisions made can be fully implemented and enforced. Large dams, in particular, can have 

long-term profound impacts on people and the environment and should be subject to more 

rigorous attention. We encourage the Bank to adopt best practices related to dam 

development and safety.4

 

 Habitats and Ecosystems. We encourage the Bank to consolidate various ecosystem issues 

into one safeguard that would simplify and clarify policy requirements. Bank requirements 

and guidance should reflect the critical role that ecosystems and environmental services play 

in maintaining the Earth’s basic biological “operating systems” and in sustainable economic 

                                                           

4 In the US, for example, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Bureau of Reclamation have developed guidelines related to dam 

development and safety.
7

development. The report by the World Bank and the Global Tiger Initiative entitled, “Smart 

Green Infrastructure in Tiger Range Countries: A Multi-Level Approach”5

 illustrates the 

stakes involved and the actions needed to balance environmental sustainability with 

economic development, including adoption of “no go” zones. In this regard, we urge the 

Bank to commit to implementing the mitigation hierarchy in the projects it finances. 

However, our position remains, consistent with when we discussed the adoption of the IFC 

Sustainability Framework, that offsets should not be allowed for impacts in critical habitats. 

We also expect the Bank to adopt best practices established by other MDBs in the area of 

habitats and ecosystems, such as the AsDB’s definition of critical habitat and the provisions 

on invasive species adopted by the IFC, Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), and 

AfDB. 

III. “Emerging” Thematic Areas of Focus 

The following section addresses topics that are not addressed under the current set of safeguard 

policies but that are identified as “emerging areas” in the Bank’s Approach Paper. These include 

climate change, gender, labor, human rights, disability, and land tenure. This section also addresses 

LGBTI6

 issues. 

 Climate Change. We recommend that the Bank adopt requirements for assessment and 

mitigation of the climate change impacts of and on its projects and programs, as part of the 

environmental and social impact assessment. The Bank should use all the tools at its disposal 

to encourage broad and “upstream” consideration of climate change impacts in borrowing 

countries and support low-carbon climate-resilient development across its portfolio. Bank 

policies and guidelines should aim to prevent maladaptive investments by requiring that 

program and project design identify and avoid, minimize, or manage risks of climate change 

impacts on the project, as well as risks of negative impacts from the project on populations 

and ecosystems that may be exacerbated by climate change. Implementation of practically 

feasible measures to reduce project- or program-related greenhouse gas emissions, and 

quantification, reporting, and disclosure of emissions for projects with greenhouse gas 

emissions beyond a certain threshold (such as the 25,000 tons annually of CO2-equivalent 

threshold established by the IFC) should be required. For projects and programs with high 

potential emissions of greenhouse gases or black carbon, the Bank should consider additional 

requirements, such as expanding the assessment of policy and economic considerations 

relevant to the sector and to the selection of project design with an emphasis on project 

efficiencies and on greenhouse gas emissions reduction; and including a discussion of 

environmental and health externalities, even if they are not quantified. 

 Gender. As part of the broader social impact assessment recommended for the revised 

safeguards process, we recommend that the Bank proactively make the safeguards more 

gender-sensitive and gender-inclusive. In particular, we recommend that when safeguards 

are applied in Bank projects, the Bank require gender-sensitive impact assessments and 

gender-differentiated measures, where appropriate, to avoid or mitigate adverse gender-

                                                           

5 Smart Green Infrastructure in Tiger Range Countries: A Multi-Level Approach

(http://www.globaltigerinitiative.org/download/GTI-Smart-Green-Infrastructure-Technical-Paper.pdf). 6

 Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex.
8

related impacts, and pay particular attention to vulnerable groups. We also suggest that the 

Bank integrate requirements into specific safeguards where guidance may be helpful, either 

because gender impacts and risks are predictable, or because such risks and impacts could be 

especially harmful. This may be the case with involuntary resettlement, labor, indigenous 

peoples, pest management, and climate change. 

 Labor. We believe there is a compelling need for a separate labor safeguard policy. Almost 

all Bank projects affect workers in some way, and good jobs and “decent work” are 

acknowledged to be cornerstones of development, as documented in the 2013 World 

Development Report. We believe that an appropriate basis for the substantive provisions of a 

labor safeguard policy can be found in the IFC’s Performance Standard 2 on Labor and 

Working Conditions (PS2), the EBRD’s Performance Requirements on Labor and Working 

Conditions, including occupational health and safety (PR2 and PR4), and the AfDB’s 

Operational Safeguard on Labor Conditions, Health and Safety (OS5). These labor safeguard 

policies require borrowers to respect the “core” or “fundamental” labor rights set forth in the 

1998 International Labour Organization (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and 

Rights at Work and to adhere to other requirements that promote the fair treatment of 

workers, protect children from exploitative child labor and all workers from harm, and foster 

positive worker-management relationships. 

 Human Rights. We believe the World Bank has a role to play in protecting human rights 

where development activities and human rights are interrelated. There are wide zones of 

overlap between substantive areas covered by international human rights treaties and areas in 

which the Bank operates. We recommend that the Bank explicitly commit to respect human 

rights, include relevant human rights issues in environmental and social assessments, and 

guard against human rights violations and abuses in its projects and programs. We believe 

these human rights issues should be addressed throughout the project cycle, not only in 

impact assessment and mitigation planning, but also project supervision, monitoring, 

reporting, and evaluation. 

 Disabilities. Given the cross-cutting nature of the issues related to persons with disabilities, 

we recommend that persons with disabilities and pertinent disability concepts be 

mainstreamed in the safeguard policies throughout the project cycle, including screening, 

consultations, and monitoring and evaluation, rather than have a specific, stand-alone 

safeguard. Persons with disabilities should be explicitly referenced among groups of people 

identified as “vulnerable.” Bank projects should also be consistent with standards reflected 

in relevant international instruments, such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with 

Disabilities. 

 Land Tenure and Natural Resources. Adequately protecting affected peoples’ tenure rights 

and arrangements (both formal and informal), and preventing associated conflict, requires 

more consistent attention. Accordingly, we recommend that the Bank require that land 

tenure issues be systematically considered for all projects that may affect access to and use of 

land and natural resources in the impact assessment, impact avoidance and mitigation 

planning, and implementation processes. The Bank’s approach should reflect the variety of 

formal and informal mechanisms through which people’s relationship to, and use of, land and 

natural resources is recognized. It should pay particular attention to vulnerable people. 
9

 LGBTI. LGBTI persons have been subject to exclusion to varying degrees throughout much 

of the world. Impact assessments should consider risks to LGBTI persons to help ensure that 

Bank projects do not directly or indirectly contribute to exclusion based on sexual orientation 

or gender identity. As highlighted above, Bank management should make certain that there 

are no barriers to LGBTI persons being included in consultations.

IV. Implementation, Monitoring, and Supervision 

This paper makes a number of recommendations to strengthen the safeguards, but perhaps 

nothing would do more to strengthen the safeguards than to focus more relentlessly on 

implementation. The safeguards, as written, will have little meaning without an effective 

management of safeguards issues within the Bank. 

We recommend that the current review process be used to improve the downstream phase of the 

safeguards. In addition to the IEG’s 2010 report, a 2013 report commissioned by Germany7

 also 

notes the current weaknesses in the implementation phase and makes several recommendations 

for improvement with which we agree. 

Broadly, we recommend that the World Bank: 

 Adopt a much more rigorous, transparent, and user-friendly approach to project 

monitoring and supervision, including expanded use of third-party monitoring and input 

from independent experts. 

 Adopt the AsDB policy of requiring that the borrower establish and maintain a projectlevel grievance redress mechanism to receive and facilitate resolution of affected 

people’s concerns and grievances about the borrower’s social and environmental 

performance. Steps should be taken to help ensure these mechanisms are accessible to 

all, regardless of their status, gender, or affiliation. 

 Provide the safeguards central office and specialists with sufficient budgetary and 

decision-making authority throughout the project cycle so they can effectively support 

and oversee safeguards implementation. This should include the following: 

 Establishing “budgetary separation” such that there are separate resources for 

environmental and social safeguards control under the authority of safeguards 

experts, separate from the task team leader-controlled project resources; 

 Having safeguards specialists (not sector managers/task team leaders) be responsible 

for monitoring and assessing safeguards compliance; and 

 Being prepared to provide additional budget resources to strengthen the effectiveness 

of the safeguards system. 

 Incorporate the goal of effective safeguards into the relevant project evaluation, staff 

performance, and training systems. This should include the following: 

                                                           

7 “Reforming the World Bank’s Safeguards: A Comparative Legal Analysis,.” By Jochen von Bernstorff and 

Philipp Dann, July 2013 
10

 Including environmental and social safeguards outcomes as core indicators in project 

development objectives, and performance on safeguards in evaluating the project’s 

overall performance rating; 

 Rewarding staff for the responsible management of environmental and social risks, 

including in annual performance evaluations; and 

 Providing more training on safeguards for the Bank’s general staff and for borrower 

staff responsible for safeguards implementation. 

Conclusion 

Finally, we applaud the Bank for its demonstrated commitment to a robust consultation process 

as the safeguards review moves forward. The first phase of the Bank’s review process included 

a rich discussion on a range of topics. We look forward to continued outreach in the second 

phase, including regular updates of key dates and milestones for the review process, and 

openness to constructive ideas on how the Bank can improve. The US continues to view the 

World Bank’s safeguards as a key component of its contribution to sustainable development 

globally.