Responsibly managing globalization
The lead editorial in today’s Washington Post is a must read.
Most people agree that globalization is here to stay; that it has both positive and less positive effects; and that the world lacks good institutions to ameliorate the negative ones. The "Equator Principles," created by the private-sector arm of the World Bank in 2003 and now embraced by 40 big private banks, are a rare creative effort to grapple with this deficit. The principles govern the social and environmental impact of large-scale projects such as mines or roads or dams; although their implementation remains uneven, the fact that perhaps $125 billion of the $170 billion in global project finance is supposed to respect the Equator code represents genuine progress. On Tuesday an updated version of these principles faces a vote by the board of the World Bank. It is vital that the governments that sit on the bank's board approve the update.
The Post argues that the update will make the principles more effective and less legalistic. Critics argue that they will reduce accountability and that the standards are too low. The Post counters that perfectionist standards have a downside. The World Bank Group's role in middle-income countries is also touched upon.
Ever since the early 1990s, when private capital began to flood into emerging markets, skeptics have doubted the relevance of the World Bank in countries such as Brazil or Thailand. In fact, because the world lacks good institutions to manage globalization, keeping the bank active in these rich developing countries is justified. For example, the bank is mobilizing money to fight avian flu, even in comparatively rich Turkey. But the Equator Principles are a direct response to the skeptics. They demonstrate that the bank can remain relevant in a world awash in private capital -- provided that the governments that sit on its board do not frustrate its efforts.
Rachel Kyte is our expert on environmental and social standards, see her posts here, here and here.
Update: The IFC's board has approved the new standards.
Comments (3)
Bookmark
E-mail
Facebook



The enhanced IFC requirements add to the burden of adherence to the Equator Principles by the countries that can least afford these restrictive standards. Much of the industrialized world developed economically with no requirments to be either environmentally or socially responsible. Also a concern is the time frame required to complete all the studies and reports for a successful application. How does the World Bank intend to use this funding to help emerging world threats like avain flu? What wavers were processed for Turkey? And if wavers can be acceptable, then what is the purpose of implementing these restrictions? I obtain my information about the spread of avian flu from http://www.FluTrackers.com and my concern is that avian flu is speading into Europe and the "red tape" required for access to this funding will stifle the effort to stop this world threat.
Posted by: Maddy | Feb 22, 2006 12:32:56 AM
Just curious if you know of similar standards with respect to health and medicine? For example: commitments on job safety, health benefits of workers on the project or the impact on the public health of the affected community?
Posted by: Christine Gorman | Feb 22, 2006 8:43:21 AM
Christine: I'm not the expert on this. Will try to find someone who can better answer this. This is the little that I know of:
The IFC/WB guidelines also touch health issues:
http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/Content/EnvironmentalGuidelines
Here is our Occupational Health and Safety Guide: http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/gui_OHS/$FILE/OHSguideline.pdf
The best group within the World Bank for these question is Health, Nutrition and Population. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTHEALTHNUTRITIONANDPOPULATION/0,,contentMDK:20287810~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:282511,00.html
The ILO has about 70 conventions related to occupational safety and health.
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/safework/standard.htm
Also, in 2002 the WHO and WTO published a 171 page report that explains how WTO agreements relate to different aspects of public health.
http://www.wto.org/English/news_e/pres02_e/pr310_e.htm
More to come later. Thanks for reading.
Posted by: Pablo Halkyard | Feb 24, 2006 12:57:46 PM