Recourse

The IFC - International Finance Corporation Sustainability Framework used to be a “gold standard” that other financial institutions sought to emulate, but it has fallen behind its peers.

Now, it has a chance, and an imperative, to update them.

Recourse's Dan Willis explains more in this opinion piece for Sustainable Views, a specialist service from the Financial Times ⤵

Call for stronger safeguards at the World Bank Group

The IFC - International Finance Corporation and MIGA - Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, arms of the World Bank, are reviewing their Sustainability Framework.

This framework holds the policies and standards intended to protect people and the environment from harms linked to IFC and MIGA investments, such as pollution, displacement, biodiversity loss and violations of Indigenous rights.

These standards also influence investments far beyond IFC and MIGA, including those made by more than 100 private banks, 32 export credit agencies and other development finance institutions.

Strengthening them could help make global finance more responsible.

IFC and MIGA will soon begin public consultations for the review. A network of nearly 200 organisations from around the world are already working together to advocate for stronger safeguards on topics including human rights, land, gender, climate, biodiversity, labour, Indigenous rights, financial intermediaries and access to information.

It is open to any organisation working to strengthen protections for communities and the environment. Join us via the link below.

Warnings for the AIIB’s policy-based lending in Brazil: More transparency and climate focus needed.

The Brazil VERDES programme is the AIIB's first Climate-Focused Policy-Based Financing operation in Latin America.

It sets important precedents for how these new programmes are designed and for the bank’s expanding engagement in the region.

Julia Gerlo from Latinoamérica Sustentable, who worked with Recourse to examine the programme, comments:

“While this type of financing can mobilise significant resources for climate action, its flexibility also raises concerns around traceability, accountability, and the growing financialisation of climate policy. Once these resources enter the national budget, maintaining traceability over their ultimate allocation becomes nearly impossible, as they cannot be directly linked to specific climate expenditures.”

What needs to change?

“The AIIB should therefore publish all loan agreements and establish transparent mechanisms to track how disbursed funds are used, while ensuring the reforms it supports genuinely advance climate and social priorities, preserve countries' fiscal space, and do not exacerbate debt vulnerabilities.”

Read the full analysis in our report ⤵️

📢 OUT NOW | AIIB OBSERVER VOLUME 4

As the 2026 AIIB Annual Meeting begins in Doha, we’re releasing the latest AIIB Observer.

This issue examines AIIB’s investments across Asia—from hydropower and waste-to-energy to digital finance and fossil fuel-linked infrastructure—and asks: Who benefits, who bears the costs, and are communities being heard?

It also looks ahead to AIIB’s 2027 Energy Sector Strategy Review and the need for a truly just and sustainable transition.

📖 Read Volume 4: https://www.forum-adb.org/specialpublications

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is lending out billions of dollars in the name of climate action. But where does that money go – and can affected communities hold the lender accountable?

The has lent $6.4 billion through Climate-Focused Policy-Based Financing (CPBF) in only two years.

Instead of funding a clearly identified project, this financing supports government policy programmes, specifically those designed to address climate change. Once the money is disbursed, however, it can be difficult to trace how it is actually spent.

Our analysis of programmes in Bangladesh and Brazil found that fossil fuels are not ruled out, risky technologies are supported, gendered impacts are overlooked, and communities face major barriers when seeking remedy.

If the AIIB wants to deliver meaningful , it must close these loopholes and ensure its financing protects people and the planet.

Read our analysis with CLEAN - Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network, Latinoamérica Sustentable, GT Infraestrutura and NGO Forum on ADB ⤵

AIIB: High carbon and harming the climate

Five years ago, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) launched its first investment in infrastructure asset-backed securities (IABS).

The bank claims to use these financing instruments to support “low-carbon and climate-resilient” infrastructure projects for developing countries.

A closer look at AIIB-backed IABS reveals a less green picture.

The bank backed nine IABS products from 2021 to 2025, with a collective value of $4.23 billion.

• More than 50% of this went to oil and gas, while only 19% went to renewable energy.
• Subprojects include large, upstream oil and gas infrastructure in Asia and Latin America which are incompatible with the bank’s own commitments to energy transition.
• Some IABS subprojects also have documented links to social & environmental harms, yet affected communities cannot get access to the bank’s complaint mechanism.

Learn more about this indirect financing instrument in our fact sheet, linked below ⤵

Join us in urging the AIIB to walk its green talk, by closing fossil fuel loopholes across all its financing instruments and writing this into policy when it updated its Energy Sector Strategy.

Happening tomorrow!

Can IMF lending genuinely support climate resilience while constraining public investment and reinforcing dependence on fossil fuels and extractive industries?

Join us for the launch of our new report and a discussion on the contradictions between the IMF’s climate ambitions and its conventional lending programmes, and what must change as the Fund reviews its approach to conditionality and programme design.

📅 Thursday, 17 September
🕒 7 a.m. MX / 9 a.m. EDT / 3 p.m. CEST / 4 p.m. EAT / 6:30 p.m. IST

🌍 Register: https://tinyurl.com/IMFlending

One week to go 🌍

Next Thursday, join us for a conversation on what the IMF’s climate turn means in practice for countries facing debt pressures, development challenges and continued reliance on extractive industries.

We will hear from Alexandros Kentikelenis, Thomas Stubbs, Haneen Shaheen from Menafem movement, Daniele Berdeja from Latindadd and Emmanuel Musuyu from CORAP, with Shehrzade Moeed from Alternative Law Collective moderating.

The discussion will draw on research and experiences from Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Pakistan and Egypt – with a focus on the choices being made now, and the opportunities to influence ongoing IMF reforms.

📅 Thursday, 17 September
⏰ 7am MX / 9am EDT / 3pm CEST / 4pm EAT / 6:30pm IST
🔗 Webinar registration here: https://tinyurl.com/IMFlending

One week to go 🌍

Next Thursday, join us for a conversation on what the IMF’s climate turn means in practice for countries facing debt pressures, development challenges and continued reliance on extractive industries.

We will hear from Alexandros Kentikelenis, Thomas Stubbs, Haneen Shaheen from Menafem movement, Daniele Berdeja from Latindadd and Emmanuel Musuyu from CORAP, with Shehrzade Moeed from Alternative Law Collective moderating.

The discussion will draw on research and experiences from Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Pakistan and Egypt – with a focus on the choices being made now, and the opportunities to influence ongoing IMF reforms.

📅 Thursday, 17 September
⏰ 7am MX / 9am EDT / 3pm CEST / 4pm EAT / 6:30pm IST
🔗 Webinar registration here: https://tinyurl.com/IMFlending

Development banks cannot claim to finance climate-resilient development while failing to act on risks identified in the projects they finance.

A new investigation by Scroll.in finds that the International Finance Corporation (IFC), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and British International Investment (BII) were among the institutions financing Nepal’s Upper Trishuli-1 hydropower project despite serious gaps in assessing its exposure to climate and disaster risks.

An independent panel had already warned that no climate resilience assessment had been carried out and called this a “significant gap”. A year later, the assessment was still outstanding. Now, following devastating floods, workers remain missing and communities are again facing the consequences of safeguards that were not properly implemented.

Recourse’s Sunil Acharya told Scroll: “There is a clear lapse of their own accountability duties. These projects are simply being pushed through.”

Development banks must stop treating climate risk assessments as optional. They must ensure that existing safeguards are properly implemented, that climate risks shape project design and financing decisions, and that banks are held accountable when their own requirements and warnings are ignored.

Flood risks to Nepal hydropower project were known – but banks ignored them Over 70 Indian workers have been rescued from the Upper Trishuli-1 project. Many are still missing.

On 17 September, we are launching our new report, The IMF’s Climate Turn: Lending, Debt and Extractive Dependence, examining these tensions across IMF programmes in Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Pakistan and Egypt.

We’ll be joined by report authors Alexandros Kentikelenis and Thomas Stubbs, alongside Haneen Shaheen from Menafem movement and Daniele Berdeja from Latindadd. Shehrzade Moeed from Alternative Law Collective will moderate the conversation.

The discussion will explore what the findings tell us about IMF lending, climate policy and extractive dependence, as well as opportunities to influence ongoing reforms of IMF conditionality and debt sustainability frameworks.

📅 Thursday, 17 September
⏰ 7am MX / 9am EDT / 3pm CEST / 4pm EAT / 6:30pm IST

🔗 Register here: https://tinyurl.com/IMFlending