EXPLORING COLLABORATION BETWEEN MDBs AND NATIONAL ENTITIES ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS: THE CASE OF SOUTH AFRICA AND ETHIOPIA

The paper examines the shift toward 'country ownership' in environmental and social (E&S) safeguards, where MDBs increasingly allow borrowing nations to use their own national systems. Through case studies of South Africa's Medupi Power Station and Ethiopia's road sector, the authors analyze the tension between MDB technical standards and national development priorities. While South Africa is presented as a model of high legislative alignment, Ethiopia illustrates challenges including capacity gaps, limited civil society participation, and the influence of non-traditional funders like China. The paper argues for a move from prescriptive standards to results-based implementation, recommending country-specific 'E&S safeguards plans,' enhanced regional capacity building, and a greater role for national development finance institutions (DFIs).

• South Africa is considered a global best practice model for E&S safeguards due to the harmonisation of sustainability objectives across its constitution and legislation, specifically the National Environmental Management Act 1998 (NEMA).
• The use of country systems (UCS) in the Medupi Power Station project demonstrated that allowing national entities to lead E&S processes can protect national sovereignty and leverage local experiential knowledge, such as managing traditional gravesites.
• In Ethiopia, E&S safeguards are often treated as a 'tick-box exercise' because the government prioritises rapid economic growth over environmental and social considerations.
• Ethiopia faces severe constraints in civil society participation due to the 2009 Proclamation to Provide for the Registration and Regulation of Charities and Societies, which limits foreign funding for NGOs to 10%.
• The emergence of non-traditional funders, particularly China, provides borrowing countries like Ethiopia with alternatives that have fewer E&S conditionalities, potentially reducing the leverage of traditional MDBs to enforce high standards.
• Significant capacity gaps exist in Ethiopia between the international consultants who prepare Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and the government experts tasked with reviewing them, often leading to sub-standard reporting.
• MDBs and national governments often hold conflicting views on cooperation: governments view E&S requirements through an ideological lens of sovereignty and development, while MDBs take a more technocratic approach focused on standards and relationship building.
• The authors recommend that MDBs develop non-project-specific 'E&S safeguards plans' for frequent borrowers to provide a clear, country-specific guide for accountability mechanisms and flexibility.
• National Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) are identified as critical but under-capacitated partners that could drive national buy-in for E&S standards due to their local embedding.
• To maintain relevance in countries with low E&S prioritisation like Ethiopia, MDBs should pivot toward smaller-scale green energy projects (e.g., wind and geothermal) where they possess a comparative advantage in technology and capacity building.

APA

MARKOWITZ, C., & DU PLESSIS, R. (2017). EXPLORING COLLABORATION BETWEEN MDBs AND NATIONAL ENTITIES ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS: THE CASE OF SOUTH AFRICA AND ETHIOPIA. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Occasional-Paper-271.pdf

Chicago

MARKOWITZ, CHELSEA, and RUDOLF DU PLESSIS. EXPLORING COLLABORATION BETWEEN MDBs AND NATIONAL ENTITIES ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS: THE CASE OF SOUTH AFRICA AND ETHIOPIA. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2017. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Occasional-Paper-271.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=MARKOWITZ |first1=CHELSEA |last2=DU PLESSIS |first2=RUDOLF |title=EXPLORING COLLABORATION BETWEEN MDBs AND NATIONAL ENTITIES ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS: THE CASE OF SOUTH AFRICA AND ETHIOPIA |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=October 2017 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Occasional-Paper-271.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{markowitz2017exploring, author = {MARKOWITZ, CHELSEA and DU PLESSIS, RUDOLF}, title = {{EXPLORING COLLABORATION BETWEEN MDBs AND NATIONAL ENTITIES ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS: THE CASE OF SOUTH AFRICA AND ETHIOPIA}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2017}, month = oct, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Occasional-Paper-271.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }