Towards more inclusive, participatory, just and sustainable development.

AWC Special Edition: World Bank/IMF Spring Meetings 2025

The 2025 World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) Spring Meetings, held from April 21 to 26 in Washington, DC, marked a significant moment for institutional reforms, policy updates, and critical discussions on recovery and reconstruction efforts, particularly in fragile contexts such as Lebanon and Syria. Major processes were launched, including updates to key frameworks like the International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) Sustainability Framework and efforts to strengthen the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Framework (ESF). Discussions also focused heavily on the future of accountability mechanisms within the World Bank Group (WBG), including proposals to reform or consolidate existing bodies such as the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) and the Inspection Panel, reflecting broader debates about transparency and effective accountability. Arab Watch Coalition (AWC) was actively engaged throughout the meetings, participating in consultations, roundtables, and co-sponsoring sessions. Below is a summary of AWC’s engagements during the 2025 World Bank/IMF Spring Meetings.

AWC attended the International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) information session on the Sustainability Framework update during the Spring Meetings. This session was a major highlight, marking the launch of a significant institutional process—long overdue—aimed at responding to accumulated lessons from implementation and evolving global environmental and social expectations.

The meeting’s purpose was threefold: to formally launch the update process with external stakeholders, to outline the approach and structure of consultations, and to ensure early, inclusive, and ongoing input from civil society.

The core of the Framework includes three documents: the Environmental and Social (E&S) Policy, which sets out IFC’s own roles and commitments; the Performance Standards, which define what is expected of IFC clients at the project level; and the Access to Information Policy (AIP), which guides how and when information is disclosed.

The current version of the Framework was adopted in 2006 and was updated in 2012. The Framework has since been adopted by over 150 other institutions, underscoring its global relevance but also creating an added layer of responsibility in updating it.

The update aims to modernize the Framework in several ways: ensuring its flexibility and responsiveness to new financial products, addressing gaps revealed by Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) cases, aligning more closely with global developments such as climate justice, gender equity, and human rights, and supporting the broader One World Bank Group vision.

The update process will occur in two major phases. The first, the Dialogue Phase, will last between 9 and 12 months—from April 2025 to March 2026—and focuses not on reviewing draft policies but on co-creating the consultation approach. During this time, IFC is soliciting input on who should be consulted, how consultations should be conducted, what themes are most critical to address, and which formats are best suited for various regions and populations. The objective is to ensure that when formal policy drafts are released in the second phase, the consultation methods will already be inclusive and effective. During this phase, broad and diverse inputs will be gathered to refine the consultation approach, which will be captured in the Stakeholder Consultation Plan. Technical sessions will also be held on specific thematic environmental and social (E&S) topics to inform this planning process.

By involving civil society and affected communities early in designing the consultation architecture, IFC hopes to avoid past pitfalls and foster a more trusted and transparent process throughout the update.

The second phase, the Public Consultation Phase, will last between 12 and 24 months (from April 2026 to March 2028). This phase will include two rounds of global, inclusive consultations:

• Round I

  • Publishing and disseminating the first draft of the updated Sustainability Framework (including the Environmental and Social Policy, Performance Standards, and Access to Information Policy)

  • Conducting consultation sessions through regional sessions, online platforms, and email

  • Gathering and analyzing feedback from diverse stakeholders

• Round II

  • Publishing a revised draft based on feedback received

  • Holding a second round of consultations on the revised draft

  • Finalizing the updated Sustainability Framework and submitting it for approval by the IFC Board

At the conclusion of Phase II, IFC will publish the updated Sustainability Framework along with a summary of the comments received during the consultation process.

As part of this broader update, IFC also committed to revisiting the Access to Information Policy (AIP). Rather than scrapping the existing policy, IFC’s approach is to refine and clarify vague or inconsistent areas while preserving the policy’s core strengths and improving its accessibility, predictability, and practical usability.

The session also addressed IFC’s efforts to harmonize standards with the World Bank under the “One World Bank Group” initiative. The Bank is working toward greater coherence among its three main entities:

• The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and International Development Association (IDA), which operate under the ESF;

• The International Finance Corporation (IFC); and

• The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), both of which operate under the Performance Standards.

IFC’s Performance Standards will be more closely aligned with lessons learned from the Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) and the Environmental and Social Standards (ESSs). Shared vision statements or principles will also be published to reinforce this alignment.

However, civil society organizations (CSOs) raised repeated concerns during the session, particularly the absence of a firm commitment to non-regression. CSOs urged IFC to guarantee that no existing standard or protection would be weakened or diluted during the update.

Another major concern was how input would be documented, reviewed, and meaningfully responded to. Participants recalled previous update processes where CSO input was gathered but disregarded without explanation. They also stressed the need for broader and deeper outreach, warning against consultations that rely solely on established civil society networks or large NGOs.

CSOs also emphasized the importance of embedding stronger commitments to remedy and accountability within the updated framework and questioned how the revised policies would address harms already caused by previous IFC investments. CSOs insisted that the new framework must be forward-looking but must also integrate commitments made in IFC’s newly released Remedial Action Framework. (A brief explanation of this framework is available at this link.)

Detailed information about the consultations, including platforms, locations, dates, and formats, will be announced on this website. CSOs can also send their inputs and submissions through the email address: sustainabilityframeworksc@ifc.org.

AWC attended the CAO civil society roundtable which focused primarily on the ongoing debate surrounding the future of accountability mechanisms within the World Bank Group (WBG), particularly in the context of discussions about potential mergers between the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), the Inspection Panel, and other related bodies, aimed at streamlining these mechanisms under a single World Bank accountability umbrella.

CSOs were informed that a small internal working group had been formed, comprising senior representatives from the CAO, the Inspection Panel, and other offices. This group was tasked with preparing background papers and potential scenarios for the WBG’s Committee on Development Effectiveness (CODE). The scenarios being explored included potential options such as:

• A fast-track full merger of the CAO, Inspection Panel, and other bodies into a single entity within months;

• A long-term merger of accountability mechanisms, developed through consultation, reform, and policy review;

• A nominal merger under a unified "World Bank Accountability" umbrella, while allowing each mechanism to maintain its own procedures and mandates.

Questions from civil society attendees focused on the rationale for the merger and the lack of clarity regarding the problem that restructuring was intended to solve. CSOs highlighted that many of the justifications being circulated—such as improving efficiency or reducing duplication—did not clearly apply to the accountability mechanisms. Some expressed concern that the reform could be driven more by political motivations, cost-cutting pressures, or an institutional desire to simplify oversight, rather than by any evidence of dysfunction.

It was confirmed during the session that there is no consensus among Board members on whether a merger is needed or advisable. Some Board members see value in maintaining separate accountability structures that reflect different mandates and histories, while others advocate for consolidation as part of a broader institutional alignment strategy.

CSOs raised serious questions about the potential impact on minimum standards and the risk of non-regression. They warned that a merger could result in harmonizing accountability downward—particularly if the stronger elements of the CAO’s policy were weakened to match less robust mechanisms, or vice versa, risking dilution of distinct strengths on all sides. Additional concerns were raised about how critical frameworks, such as responsible exit and the Remedial Action Framework (RAF), would be implemented on the public sector side if accountability systems were merged without ensuring harmonization around the strongest protections.

AWC attended an Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) information session hosted by the World Bank. The session was organized to provide updates on ongoing efforts to strengthen the implementation of the ESF. It was made clear that while no formal revision of the ESF is currently planned, the Bank is actively working to enhance how the framework is applied in practice, with a focus on making environmental and social (E&S) processes more effective, streamlined, and rooted in borrower country systems.These strengthening efforts aim to shift the emphasis from documentation-heavy procedures toward practical, results-focused implementation.

A major theme of the session was the strategic shift from relying exclusively on the Bank’s framework toward leveraging borrower country systems wherever possible. This approach involves assessing the existing legal and institutional frameworks within a country, identifying gaps between those systems and the ESF, and using World Bank support to address those gaps. Examples from country case studies were shared to illustrate how this approach works in practice. A tool central to this process is the Country Overview Assessment (COA), which helps the Bank and its clients evaluate the strengths and limitations of national E&S systems. These assessments inform both project design and broader system-strengthening efforts.

A critical clarification made during the session was that the ESF is not being revised at this time. The framework is still considered new, and the priority is on enabling both Bank staff and borrowers to fully operationalize it, with reforms focused on improving implementation rather than rewriting standards. This includes reducing unnecessary duplication in documentation, strengthening the alignment between design and results, building borrower capacity to manage environmental and social (E&S) risks effectively, and improving how ESF documents are developed and used. Many current documents are criticized for being too long, vague, and disconnected from project realities. Streamlining internal processes, combined with stronger client capacity, is expected to enable staff to dedicate more time to stakeholder engagement, supervision, and monitoring.

In contrast, it was noted that the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) Performance Standards—which apply to the private sector arms of the World Bank Group—are currently under review, having last been updated in 2012. That review process includes stakeholder consultations and may draw lessons from ESF implementation, but the ESF itself remains outside of that review.

Finally, the session touched on the broader vision of creating a more unified World Bank Group (WBG) approach. Under the "One WBG" initiative, efforts are underway to craft a shared policy vision across the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), International Development Association (IDA), IFC, and MIGA. The goal is to ensure high-level coherence in environmental and social commitments while maintaining distinct frameworks suited to each institution’s operations.

The Bank encouraged CSOs to stay involved as partners in refining the ESF’s real-world application, as their engagement helps ensure oversight, accountability, and strengthens grievance redress systems.

AWC co-sponsored a session titled "Building Back Better: Reconstruction in Lebanon and Syria" during the IMF–World Bank Spring Meetings. The session discussed the prospects for reconstruction in Lebanon and Syria following years of conflict, economic collapse, and governance failures. It focused on what is needed to ensure that reconstruction efforts prioritize governance, transparency, social protection, livelihoods, and inclusive economic recovery, rather than reinforcing old systems of elite capture, inequality, and state fragility.

The discussion started with Lebanon, emphasizing that reconstruction must be built on a foundation of targeted, structural reforms. These reforms should focus on rebuilding the banking sector with transparency and accountability, strengthening state institutions to restore essential public services, implementing fiscal and economic policies to stabilize the national economy, and improving social protection systems to alleviate the severe multidimensional poverty affecting over 70% of the population.

In this context, the IMF is working with Lebanon’s Ministry of Finance to strengthen tax administration and remove loopholes, aiming to enhance revenue mobilization and put tax policy back on track (IMF Report), while the World Bank has approved a $250 million loan to help ease Lebanon’s electricity crisis and support critical improvements in the energy sector.

There was agreement that there has been some progress in lowering inflation and stabilizing the exchange rate, but this has occurred without fundamental reforms to the financial sector or governance structures. True recovery requires restructuring the banking sector, particularly ensuring that large depositors and elites bear the burden rather than ordinary citizens. While small steps have been made, such as passing banking secrecy reform, the path to reconstruction requires more profound changes. Reform must also focus on mobilizing domestic revenues through progressive taxation, reversing the reliance on regressive consumption taxes, and ensuring fair fiscal policies.

The reconstruction plan for Lebanon must prioritize investments in public services, especially education, healthcare, and social protection systems. Rebuilding trust between citizens and the state is seen as essential for successful recovery, which demands transparency, accountability, and national ownership of the reform agenda. The session also stressed that civil society must play a central role in shaping and monitoring reconstruction, given the Lebanese state's history of elite capture and failed governance.

On Syria, the session outlined an even more complex and fragile context. The Syrian economy has shrunk by more than 60% since 2010, with over 90% of Syrians now living in poverty. The destruction of physical infrastructure is compounded by the collapse of social and governance systems, the fragmentation of national territory, widespread corruption, and heavy international sanctions. Reconstruction in Syria faces immense challenges, particularly the lack of a clear roadmap for recovery and the complexities of sanctions which limit financial flows and investment.

Despite these challenges, the session noted new developments: for the first time in twenty years, Syrian officials engaged with the IMF and World Bank during the Spring Meetings. Gulf countries, notably Saudi Arabia, are also showing renewed interest in supporting Syria’s reintegration into regional and international frameworks. However, this engagement remains at an early stage. According to the IMF, any future work with Syria would initially focus on surveillance and technical assistance, not financial lending.

The reconstruction of Syria must begin with rebuilding governance frameworks and institutions capable of delivering public services, managing economic policy, and ensuring accountability. Infrastructure projects alone will not suffice. Without functioning institutions, reconstruction risks reinforcing inequality and instability. Moreover, effective reconstruction will require international coordination to address the impacts of sanctions and avoid channeling resources through corrupt networks. 

The session emphasized that both Lebanon and Syria present unique opportunities to rethink reconstruction in ways that prioritize systemic reform over superficial rebuilding. For Lebanon, this means strengthening the state’s capacity to deliver services, enacting financial justice, and expanding social protection. For Syria, it means creating the basic foundations of governance from scratch, ensuring that reconstruction is tied to institution-building, anti-corruption efforts, and equitable development. There must also be stronger accountability and oversight of the policies and projects of International Financial Institutions (IFIs) to ensure that their interventions align with local needs and promote sustainable, inclusive development.

Across both cases, the discussion insisted that reconstruction must not reproduce the conditions that led to collapse. Instead, it should focus on inclusive economic growth, transparency, progressive reforms, civil society engagement, and strong social protection systems, ensuring that recovery benefits the broader population.

AWC co-sponsored and participated in key sessions as part of the Civil Society Policy Forum (CSPF) during the 2025 World Bank/IMF Spring Meetings. These sessions included:

• Austerity vs. Protection: Labor’s Perspective on IMF Social Spending

• IFC Sustainability Framework Review: Protecting Rights and the Environment

• Missing Labor: Fixing the Fund’s Approach to the Gendered Division of Labor

• IAM Outcomes: Remedy and IFIs’ Commitments

The sessions can be viewed on the World Bank’s CSPF page or the Civil Society and the IMF page.

In addition to co-sponsoring sessions, AWC also participated in a learning event hosted by Oxfam and Resource. This event focused on strengthening advocacy strategies for influencing safeguard policies at multilateral development banks (MDBs). Civil society advocates shared lessons from previous advocacy efforts, emphasizing strategies such as coalition-building, direct engagement with institutions, and centering Indigenous and community participation.

AWC also joined a strategy discussion alongside international civil society organizations (CSOs), where participants shared concrete advocacy approaches to strengthen collective influence over safeguard policies and institutional accountability.

We thank our members for their continued support and collaboration !

For more information and to get involved, contact us at info@arabwatchcoalition.org