Through its various arms, the World Bank last year funded projects worth some $200million in Peru. The Bank also has a wider role in shaping the ‘culture’ of project design and setting environmental standards. So an event in Cusco and Lima earlier this month to discuss suggested changes to the Bank’s guidelines was of considerable significance.

Since July 2014, the World Bank has been engaged in consultations over its draft document revising the environmental safeguards it builds into World-Bank-funded projects. Early in February Cusco and then Lima were the sites of the latest consultation (February 2 and 4). The Lima meeting ended prematurely with a mass walk-out by most of the civil society organisations participating, and a letter to the Bank signed by 195 civil society groups and individuals.

Extensive criticisms of the document have arisen in the various different consultations that have been taking place around the world. These have led to many protests, including the signing in November 2014 of a strong critique of the draft by 360 civil society organisations.

The criticisms focus on the process of consultation, as well as the changes proposed which are widely seen as weakening the protection afforded to vulnerable groups, especially indigenous peoples. The November letter described the draft as ‘a massive dilution’ of standards (http://transparency.am/files/news/1412697318-0-200667.pdf). Our readers will be aware that any encouragement to weakening standards is a critical matter for Peru, given the various measures taken over recent months that weaken environmental protection standards.

Process was certainly a problem in Lima, where the press was excluded and very little warning given of the event. The groups involved point to the dilution of standards, and the fact that the language of the document represented a ‘softening’ of obligations on the part of recipient governments; vague language provides more scope to non-compliance. They also claim that the Bank’s draft fails to uphold standards of international law, particularly on human rights.

The process of consultation is due to end on March 2. A new version is supposed to take account of the views expressed, but on the civil society side no-one is optimistic that this will happen (www.international-alert.org/blog/world-bank-safeguarding-progress-towards-peace).

A recent Guardian piece takes the UK government to task for failing to use its influence at the Bank to improve environmental standards, especially with regard to indigenous peoples (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/andes-to-the-amazon/2015/feb/19/uk-must-fight-better-world-bank-environment-policy).