Syndicate content

European Investment Bank

Global Infrastructure Forum maps out route towards delivering sustainable infrastructure

Amal-Lee Amin's picture



Last Saturday, tens of thousands of people gathered on the Washington D.C. mall for the March for Science alongside hundreds of sister marches around the world to coincide with Earth Day. Climate change and environmental protection were high on the agenda as the planet continues to warm and countries confront an increasing number of extreme weather events.

Meanwhile, down the road at the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the 2017 Global Infrastructure Forum was in full swing, discussing how to deliver inclusive and sustainable infrastructure to ensure we achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Quito: Turning sustainable transport ideas into reality

Mahmoud Mohieldin's picture
During Habitat III in Quito, Ecuador, World Bank Senior Vice President Mahmoud Mohieldin and Arturo Ardila-Gomez, Global Lead for Urban Mobility & Lead Transport Economist, look at an example of how World Bank-supported operations and technical assistance contribute to the objectives of the Sustainable Development Goal No.11 to make cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.
 


The World Bank views Planning, Connecting, and Financing as three essential policy tools to nurture inclusive economic growth in cities. The Connecting tool is aimed at connecting people with jobs and schools, and businesses with markets, in order to help promote inclusion. Within the framework of its transport initiative, Sustainable Mobility for All, the World Bank is assisting client countries and cities in developing urban transport projects and policies that support both public transport and non-motorized transport. 

Does it help to complain?

Jan Mattsson's picture

Masai in KenyaIt is a year since I blogged about my early impressions of the Inspection Panel and specifically a complaint from a Maasai community that was resettled to accommodate a geothermal plant in Kenya.

Since then I have heard variants of the question: Do accountability mechanisms make a difference?  In this case, I believe the Inspection Panel has made a positive contribution. But the ultimate test of the effectiveness of the Bank process, of which the Panel is only one part, must be the redress of any harm caused. Signs are encouraging, and we shall see.

We submitted our investigation report in early July. The Board meeting in October resulted in a clear direction for the future (see press release). This was followed by the Panel’s debriefing of the community and other stakeholders in Kenya. 

As we analyzed the facts it became clear the Bank had failed to bring to bear its rich experience with resettlement and the full force of its safeguard policies. This had negative repercussions for many of the project-affected people, especially the poor and vulnerable.

In a nutshell, the requirement to engage resettlement expertise was not met, consultations were hampered by the absence of Maa language and by sidelining the traditional Maasai authority structure, and there was no effective monitoring against a comprehensive socio-economic baseline. We also highlighted many positive aspects, including the climate-neutral generation of electricity and the investment in new infrastructure for schools and dwellings in the resettlement area.