With respect to both environmental and social elements of development, we have sets of minimum standards that are stringent and world-class by any judgment. These standards apply to both environmental impact assessment and social assessments, including looking at the extent to which indigenous peoples participate in decisions and are consulted on projects. Our rules are some of the best in the world and are recognized to be so. So, I think it is a little unfair to compare us with the Fund or for the Fund to be criticized. Their role really involves operations at the macro-level. The World Bank is much more concerned with sectoral issues, sector-to-macro questions, and, in some cases, scaling down to the level of community. One of our fastest-growing portfolios on the social front has been our community development portfolio, which is at about US$2 billion now. This is where funds go directly to communities for self-improvement schemes. And that is the sort of level of work that groups at the IMF typically would not deal with. We are, however, beginning to see greater harmonization across the international arena, as the World Bank begins to work very closely with both the IMF and the regional development banks to try to get much more harmonization on our approaches to environmental and social issues.

In your opinion, what has been the World Bank Group’s largest recent success with respect to environmentally and socially responsible growth?

In my mind there are a few recent successes that stand out as very important. One is that we really take the climate change agenda very seriously, and we have delivered in terms of the way our mainstream lending on energy and other areas works. We have done a lot on renewable energy and energy efficiency, and we have promoted the role that climate change needs to play in future investments. Recently, the World Bank started major work on adaptation because we think that many developing countries will need to think about how they might adapt to changes in climate. And one area of environment policy that I am very proud of is our work on carbon finance.

Another area of success is the linkage between health and the environment. One of the things we argued for, especially in the context of the MDGs, was healthcare. A lot of people think of health solely in terms of how we get more doctors or health centers, and so on. We, as environmentalists, started looking at the underlying causes of ill health and what we have discovered is that for many poor people, a poor environment provides the basis for poor health. We have taken this very seriously in looking at programs and projects on indoor and outdoor air pollution, sanitation, and water supply. One of our fastest growing portfolios is in drinking water sanitation. I think that is another area where we have done well.

The World Bank has also boosted up our natural resource management work, the third area, where we have done a lot of work now on water resource management, watershed management, and forestry; our forestry portfolio over the last five years has really increased dramatically. With forestry in mind, we are the largest financier of biodiversity in the world and we do a lot of work partnered with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Indeed, we have a major alliance with them and Conservation International, which are relationships that could not have been fathomed ten years ago. And now it is reality on the ground. We also have major partnerships with large NGOs and continue to work with national governments on biodiversity conservation and management.

A globalizing economy seems to have significantly raised the status of international NGOs in the realm of social and environmental activism. How does the Bank interact with civil society, and to what extent has civil society contributed to the movement toward social and environmental sustainability?

I think civil society has had an enormously positive influence on the Bank’s policies and work consistent with the goals of the Bank. They are a force for the good and have helped us on so many fronts. They were our first critics, and they will probably be our last critics and that is to their credit. They want to continually improve us and keep us on our toes and I think we have had a very positive dialogue over the last ten years with NGOs at the corporate level on the kinds of rules of engagement and programs we have. They have been very supportive even where they have been very critical. Thus, I think they have had an enormous influence. We should not underestimate the influence of NGOs working with their parliaments and their national governments.

Secondly, NGOs have a lot of expertise that we do not. If I look at our alliance with Conservation International or the WWF, they have on-the-ground expertise in many countries. We simply could not maintain that kind of level of presence, so it is a natural complement to our ability to work with governments on enlightened policy and provide larger-scale resources. Also, when working through NGOs such as the WWF, you have a very strong presence at the ground level, so you have a very good partnership in a lot of programs.

Thirdly, we have worked with NGOs on increasing voice and ensuring participation of the otherwise disenfranchised. We have a number of rules that we abide by, our safeguard policies, several of which require that we consult with civil society and that we consult with the people that are affected by the programs and projects that we finance. I would like to emphasize that our relationship with NGOs is not just about the large international NGOs, increasingly it is about how we deal with civil society at the country level. One example is our work on poverty reduction and the work that is done by governments at the national level. We encourage local civil society to get fully engaged, and I think our lasting effects should really occur at the country-level. Last, ensuring that the voices of those affected by programs and the voices of those who can contribute positively to the programs we finance are heard and considered is an overarching goal that I think we have had a positive role in fulfilling. And I think that is really the most important arena. It is often missed because we think of the NGO relationship as only at the Headquarters level, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. The bulk of it really occurs in the field and at the local level. And I think we have a very good record there.