COMMENTS ON IFC’S CONSULTATION DRAFTS OF THE IFC SUSTAINABILITY POLICY AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND DISCLOSURE POLICY

The document argues that the IFC's shift toward an "outcomes-based" approach has reduced its accountability and oversight, leading to inadequate risk identification and poor development outcomes. It calls for a return to more stringent, verifiable requirements, particularly regarding the rights of indigenous peoples, climate change mitigation, and transparency in financial intermediary lending.

• The IFC's transition to an "outcomes-based" approach has shifted responsibility from the IFC to its clients, resulting in less rigorous risk identification and monitoring.
• Lending through financial intermediaries (FIs) creates a transparency gap because FIs are not subject to the same disclosure and sustainability requirements as direct IFC investments, often hiding the location and nature of subprojects.
• The current risk categorization process is flawed, as it relies heavily on client self-reporting and a high threshold for what is considered a "significant" risk, leading to the under-categorization of high-risk projects.
• The IFC's standards for indigenous peoples are insufficient because they do not explicitly adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) or the requirement for free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC).
• Climate change standards are inadequate as they focus only on greenhouse gas emissions rather than all global warming pollutants and lack an institution-wide commitment to phase out fossil fuel funding.
• There is a significant lack of transparency and risk assessment in IFC's Advisory Services, with the document citing a pulp plantation project in Indonesia as an example where no environmental or social impact assessment was provided.
• The IFC's disclosure policy is criticized for not having a true presumption of disclosure, falling short of World Bank standards regarding the release of monitoring and supervision reports.
• The document argues that the IFC's current approach to biodiversity offsets is too weak, as it uses language that only anticipates avoiding net reductions in endangered species populations rather than guaranteeing it.

APA

Center for International Environmental Law (2010). COMMENTS ON IFC’S CONSULTATION DRAFTS OF THE IFC SUSTAINABILITY POLICY AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND DISCLOSURE POLICY. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CSO_Submission_IFC_27Aug10.pdf

Chicago

Center for International Environmental Law. COMMENTS ON IFC’S CONSULTATION DRAFTS OF THE IFC SUSTAINABILITY POLICY AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND DISCLOSURE POLICY. 2010. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CSO_Submission_IFC_27Aug10.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=COMMENTS ON IFC’S CONSULTATION DRAFTS OF THE IFC SUSTAINABILITY POLICY AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND DISCLOSURE POLICY |date=27 August 2010 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CSO_Submission_IFC_27Aug10.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{centerforinternationalenvironmentallaw2010comments, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{COMMENTS ON IFC’S CONSULTATION DRAFTS OF THE IFC SUSTAINABILITY POLICY AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND DISCLOSURE POLICY}}, publisher = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2010}, month = aug, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CSO_Submission_IFC_27Aug10.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }