A/HRC/36/40 requires collective consent, it is also important to ensure that minority viewpoints are not overlooked. 64. Even strong critics of the World Bank have identified the potential of the new framework, particularly the requirement that IFC clients secure the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous communities prior to launching development activities. The President of Oxfam America observed that “IFC has been widely criticized for funding socially and environmentally risky projects that, in some cases, have had negative impacts on local communities, but IFC’s efforts to improve its lending policies are a step in the right direction”. The executive director of Oxfam Australia noted that “the revised IFC Sustainability Framework has the potential to help indigenous people get their fair share of natural resource wealth, particularly in emerging economies and conflict-prone countries”.90 65. While much in the Environmental and Social Framework is welcome and imaginative lawyers will press for more transparency and accountability, civil society organizations have signalled some regrettable lacunae, 91 including the failure to make a binding commitment to the protection of human rights, especially when it comes to balancing competing rights and interests,92 and the failure to commit to implement the core ILO Conventions. 66. Amnesty International pointed out, after contributing to the elaboration of the Environmental and Social Framework through several submissions, that “the Bank’s refusal to address its own responsibility to respect human rights … means that it is lagging behind other International Financial Institutions and risks creating major reputational risks for the institution”.93 Amnesty urged the Bank “to ensure that the ESF allows for adequate human rights due diligence in order to identify, prevent and/or mitigate all potential negative impacts on human rights”. 94 67. Similarly, the NGO Forum on the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Social Justice Connection cautioned that “gains have been largely undermined by the replacement of clear time-bound requirements with vague language, loopholes, flexible principles and reliance upon ‘borrower system’”. 95 The International Trade Union Confederation raised additional concerns over the absence of any reference to the ILO core conventions, which prohibit discrimination, child and forced labour, and require respect for freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. The director of the Confederation’s Washington office commented that “it should be an imperative for the Bank to ensure full consistency with the norms of the recognised international standard-setting bodies, including the ILO for labour”.96 68. The Independent Expert considers that the Environmental and Social Framework should have explicitly required that all decisions on financing of projects be preceded by ex ante human rights, health and environmental impact assessments and that review mechanisms be devised to continue monitoring impacts for the duration of every project. 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 16 See www.oxfamamerica.org/press/aid-group-lauds-new-world-bank-policies-on-indigenous-rightsand-oil-and-mining-transparency/. See https://medium.com/@OxfamIFIs/four-quick-ways-to-fix-the-world-banks-social-andenvironmental-protection-policies-9e63721fe414. See www.hrw.org/news/2017/04/25/human-rights-watch-submission-re-international-financialinstitutions-and-human. See https://consultations.worldbank.org/content/submission-amnesty-international. See also the environmental and social safeguard policies of the African Development Bank, the United Nations Development Programme, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Investment Bank, which all contain to differing extents a policy commitment to respect human rights in all their activities. See https://consultations.worldbank.org/content/submission-amnesty-international. Bretton Woods Observer, Autumn 2016, p. 8. Available from www.brettonwoodsproject.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/09/Observer_Sept_16_online.pdf. Ibid., p. 8. See also www.ciel.org/news/safeguard-policy-endangers-rights/ and www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/ess2-wb_ituc-critique_0914.pdf.