30 SEPTEMBER 2004
Activists Criticize IFC Consultations; IFC Expands Consultations

The International Finance Corporation has increased the number of consultations it will hold on proposed disclosure and safeguard policy revisions after the outreach process came under criticism by activists as inadequate and rushed.

The changes were announced just before the IFC held its first consultation, in Buenos Aires Sept. 27, where attendance was about half of the invited participants. The IFC said it expanded from four to 15 the number of consultations. The IFC response letter is available here. The IFC's revised schedule of meetings is listed here.

Environmental and disclosure advocates, some of whom have argued for boycotting the consultations, had earlier charged that the consultation process was flawed. Concerns remain that the consultations are being rushed. Representatives of nongovernmental organizations are scheduled to meet with IFC officials as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund hold their annual fall meetings Oct. 1-3.

Criticisms of the IFC process first surfaced in July when 140 civil society groups sent a letter, and continued in August with objections from the Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society and in September with yet another group letter. The Sept. 16 NGO letter is viewable here.

In a Sept. 22 reply, IFC officials addressed complaints about the consultation process and a variety of substantive concerns raised about the draft policies announced in early September. (See earlier freedominfo.org report)

Regarding disclosure policy, the World Bank's private sector lending arm said that the onset of consultations followed several years of policy review, including interaction with civil society, and that the resulting draft "enjoys a broad consensus within the World Bank."

Public comments are welcome until Dec. 17, the IFC letter said, and the complete timeline envisions introduction of the new policy and performance standards by July 1, 2005.

"We are committed to ensuring the engagement of all stakeholders," the letter continued, introducing the new list of one-day "topic-specific" and "stakeholder outreach" consultations, to be held in Bangkok, Hong Kong, Moscow, Berlin, London, New Delhi, Tunis, Johannesburg, Dakar, Lima, and Washington, D.C. Further information on these and the whole process is available on the IFC web site. The IFC also held an "open forum" at the conclusion of the meetings in Rio de Janeiro.

In addition, the IFC said that besides the principles previously issued, which were to be the basis for consultations, the organization will now issue a draft policy before the end of October. Seeing more specifics was another request from NGOs. Further, "I can assure you that we will not revise a final draft policy before sending it to the Committee on Development Effectiveness of the Board any less than 90 days from the publication, in multiple languages, of the draft policy," wrote Peter Woicke, IFC Executive Vice President.

Other Bank's Consultations Also Have Been Controversial

The debate over the IFC's consultation plans follows a similar controversy regarding the Asian Development Bank's still ongoing disclosure policy review.

Critics of the Asian Development Bank's Proposed Disclosure Policy July 16 staged a walk-out of the ADB's consultation in Bangalore, India, July 16, and issued a sharply critical statement in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The walk-out in Bangalore by civil society representatives came after they made a statement criticizing the procedures of the consultations as not representative, poorly planned and "superficial." The statement also criticized the draft policy on which the Bank is now holding a series of consultations.

In an Aug. 10 response, the ADB's Principal Director for External Relations, Robert Salamon, said that some project-affected persons did attend the Bangalore workshop and that the invitations had been drawn up with help from NGOs. "I hope you will appreciate that, for logistical reasons, such meetings cannot always include all who may wish to come," he noted.

Salamon also stressed the ADB's wider efforts to consult, gather information and solicit comments. He noted that following the Bangalore workshop, a videoconference was held with about 20 persons in Kathmandu, including some who said that they had been harmed by ADB-assisted projects, or who raised concerns on behalf of project-affected persons.

"The concerns of project-affected people have been at the forefront of our thinking in drafting this new policy," Salamon said. "As we indicated in Bangalore, if you know of project-affected persons who wish to share views on the document, we would appreciate hearing from them."

"I do apologize for the rather late formal invitations for the workshop," Salamon concluded, noting that various groups knew of it and that information had been on the ADB web site.

Perhaps the worst consultation process on disclosure policy was conducted by the African Development Bank, which published a new disclosure policy in March 2004 after proposing modifications in September 2003.

When announcing the proposals, the AfDB requested public comments but set no deadline, eventually providing less than 60 days. Officials later told freedominfo.org that they had held consultation meetings, but nothing about this was ever placed on the web site, and questions about specifics by freedominfo.org and others went unanswered. No revised draft was issued in advance of board consideration.

By Toby McIntosh

Back to top