Greenpeace activists hang a 60 foot banner from the World Bank's building in Washington to protest its funding of forest destruction.
Together with its sister organisation, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank formulates and enforces major
economic policy decisions for most poor countries.
The World Bank has been criticised for its role in financing
projects that have had detrimental effects on the natural
environment and human rights.
Together, the World Bank and the IMF have more power to
influence development in the developing world and Eastern Europe
than any other institutions in the world.
In particular the economic restructuring policies of the IMF are
placing an unacceptable burden on the environment and the social
development of developing countries.
While the World Bank is only one of the multilateral development
banks (MDBs), it is believed to be the most influential.
With the massive increase in foreign direct investment flows -
which now exceed US$1 trillion a year - and the reduction of
government aid, the private banking sector is also actively engaged
in shaping the future of developing countries' economies.
Greenpeace has long campaigned to expose the inconsistencies
between the World Bank's lending practices and its stated
policies.
The World Bank is primarily funded by taxpayers' money,
therefore Greenpeace believes this money should only be used to
help clean up the environment and continues to pressure the World
Bank to do so.
For example in 1994, Greenpeace took direct action against the
World Bank to draw attention to its role in deforestation.
Since then the World Bank has adopted a better policy on
forests, but there are still attempts within the World Bank to
regress to old and unsustainable policies and practices.
Greenpeace activists in 1994 interrupted the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund's (IMF) 50th Anniversary in Madrid,
Spain, calling for the World Bank to stop funding
hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HFC) projects in developing countries
which perpetuated ozone destruction. As a result, the World Bank
stopped funding such projects.
As anti-globalisation protests escalate, the World Bank is
increasingly under the public spotlight.
In November 2000, Greenpeace asked World Bank President James
Wolfensohn to invest in environmentally sound technologies and
clean production, and stop funding large discharge pipes that are
putting local populations at risk, such as in Gujurat, India.
Along with this pressure from Greenpeace and its thousands of
cyberactivists worldwide, Wolfensohn wrote to Greenpeace,
announcing a shift in World Bank policy in Gujurat.
To its credit, the World Bank is now leading efforts to
understand environmental issues and to talk with advocacy
organisations. But it has a long way to go.
There is a huge gap between the rhetoric and goodwill of current
World Bank President James Wolfensohn, and the organisation's Board
of Governors where the real power lies with the donor countries'
finance ministers.
Most private banks continue with a business as usual approach,
putting profits ahead of pollution prevention as well as many
government-funded development banks, from Asia to Central and South
America.
None of these should be exempt from calls for greater
transparency, clear environmental targets and better dialogue with
stakeholders affected by investment decisions. Investing in
polluting and destructive technology is as bad as creating the
environmental damage directly.