World Bank's IFC ramps up investment amid global uncertainty
The Washington-based IFC -- the World Bank's private sector arm -- mobilises private capital and provides financing to support businesses across emerging economies.
Though not widely known outside development circles, the organisation plays a crucial role in creating jobs and supporting growth in less developed regions.
"The world economy has been going through a bit of a turbulent time, but what I must say is that even though there is turbulence... we are seeing a lot of interest in investing in emerging countries," Makhtar Diop, the IFC's managing director, told AFP.
This optimism is backed by concrete numbers. In the fiscal year ending June 30, preliminary data shows that the IFC committed over $71 billion -- nearly double its commitment from just three years ago and a significant jump from last year's record of $56 billion.
The investment spans the globe, with more than $20 billion flowing to Latin America, $17 billion to Asia, and $15.4 billion to Africa.
The dramatic increase stems from a deliberate strategic shift.
Diop, an economist and former Senegalese finance minister, explained that the IFC has focused on becoming "simpler, more agile, and delegating decision-making to our teams that are in the field."
This approach abandons the over-centralised structure that previously "was slowing down our ability to respond and seize new opportunities."
The timing is significant. As Western economies pull back from direct aid to developing countries -- constrained by mounting debts, rising defense budgets, and increasingly inward-looking politics -- the IFC has accelerated.
"It's totally understandable that they have fewer resources to make available in the form of grants to developing countries," Diop acknowledges.
However, he emphasized that World Bank funding for the world's poorest countries remains fully replenished, calling it "the most efficient and best way to support countries."
The IFC's expanding role within the World Bank Group is evident. Today, its funding nearly matches the support the bank provides directly to governments, making it an equal partner in development efforts.
The organisation is also attracting new types of investors.
Many co-financing partners now come from regions that traditionally haven't invested outside their home areas. The IFC's largest renewable energy investment in Africa, for example, was completed with a Dubai-based company.
These investors trust the IFC not only for its market knowledge but also for the risk-mitigation tools it offers, Diop said.
In Africa, particularly, the IFC pursues a strategy of identifying and supporting "national champions" -- successful local companies that need help to become more competitive and globally integrated.
A significant portion of the IFC's mandate involves sustainability projects, an area where Diop decries debates with false choices between economic development and the environment, especially in electricity projects that form an important part of the agency's portfolio.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
Can Trump's unpredictable diplomacy lead to lasting peace?
Of all the accusations President Trump may face, he surely deserves credit for effort, at least, to end conflicts, particularly the Ukraine war. Image: AFP US President Donald Trump attracts an avalanche of international scrutiny for all the right reasons — he is, after all, the commander-in-chief of the world's most potent army and presides over an economy with significant global influence. Washington's penchant for a cantankerous foreign policy that is replete with unpredictability is also an added reason to the long list of why the US matters the most in international relations. However, of all the accusations President Trump may face, he surely deserves credit for effort, at least, to end conflicts, particularly the Ukraine war. His surprise telephone call to his Russian counterpart, President Vladimir Putin, this week, reveals the side of the US President that confirms his unpredictable human nature. The one minute, he is bombing Iran under the guise of thwarting Tehran's nuclear programme. The very next minute, he unilaterally announces the pending resumption of talks between the US and Iran aimed at ending the simmering tensions and military confrontation. Typically, Trump seems to revel in leaving his friends and foes alike wondering what his next move will be. Like a hurricane, he leaves everyone scrambling for cover in his wake. In East Central Africa, President Trump has recently succeeded, almost out of the blue, to bring about a peace treaty between long-term neighbouring adversaries in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). According to the International Rescue Committee, from 1998-2007, an estimated 5.4 million people died as a result of conflict in the DRC, Africa's foremost producer of minerals and rare earths. Throughout many years until recently, Rwanda stood accused of providing military support to the notorious rebel group, the M23, that seeks to topple the DRC's democratically elected government. The African Union (AU) has been woefully unable to end the DRC conflict. The regional body, the Southern African Development Community (SADC), has attempted to halt the war through military intervention. However, the SADC army has been thoroughly overrun by the Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group, causing a major continental embarrassment as purported peace-keeping soldiers were forced to cut and run with tails between their legs. It has thus taken great effort from the Trump administration to intervene, and successfully so, in bringing the warring sides to Washington a fortnight ago to put pen to paper, thereby creating a rare sense of normalcy to Africa's territory that has so far known only terror. Granted, Trump's endorsement and material support for the Israeli genocide against Gaza leave too much to be desired. With naked impunity and US diplomatic cover, Israel continues to extinguish helpless Palestinians on whose plight the world, except South Africa, has deliberately turned a blind eye. So far, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — aided by the US and EU — has killed nearly 60 000 Gazans since 2023. Nearly 20 000 of the victims are innocent children, including newborn babies in understaffed hospitals that the Western NGO's have elected to ignore. Methinks that if Trump never receives a Nobel Peace Prize, he so desperately aspires, Gaza will be the singular cause for that failure. But then again, nothing in life is ever 100% good or bad, at least in my book. Despite Trump's glaring litany of shortcomings, his unexpected nearly one-hour telephone call to President Putin, during which the elephant in the room was how to end the war in Ukraine, deserves merit. It happened during a time when some in Europe and Nato are desperately investing their time and resources in propaganda to peddle Russophobia, creating an atmosphere of foreboding fear about unsubstantiated claims of Moscow's dreaded secret intentions to conquer Europe one territory after the other. The Kremlin has consistently dismissed the war-mongering Western drums, dismissing the claims simply as ludicrous. During the Trump-Putin call, according to the Russian Presidential Aide, Yuri Ushakov, the discussions were cordial and meaningful and, above all, goal-oriented. Of greater importance, Trump raised 'the issue of an early end to hostilities in Ukraine'. In return, President Putin stressed that 'Russia continues to seek a negotiated solution to the Ukrainian conflict'. Although other issues were also discussed, the spirit of conviviality that characterised the discussion and their clear convergence of standpoints hint at the renewed path and hope that the road to a peace deal is getting clearer by the day. Finally, thanks to Trump, there is a thaw in bilateral relations between the two nuclear powers. Furthermore, the jovial discussions took place during a week in which Trump suspended the supply of US arms deliveries to Ukraine. This included a pause in the delivery of several critical munitions to Ukraine, including the patriot interceptors. Reports attributed the decision to Washington's concerns over dwindling US stockpiles. In my view, it matters less what the real reason could be. The move expedites the push toward the attainment of the much-needed truce in the Ukraine conflict. Too many lives have been lost, and unless there is a halt to the hostilities, and pretty soon, Ukraine could end up as one gigantic heap of rubble. The Trump administration's moves in global affairs, of course, affect every nation. But the greatest effects are inevitably felt across Europe, where Washington's traditional allies find themselves at the receiving end of devastating imposition of tariffs on various goods by the Trump administration. Additionally, at the level of Nato, the unity that until recently held the bloc together is rapidly disintegrating. Nato is no longer certain that, under Trump, the US still adheres to Article 5, which refers to 'an attack on one is an attack on all'. Instead, Trump has implored Europe to pull itself by the bootstraps and increase military expenditure to 5% of each country's GDP. This is a tall order. At the moment, many EU economies are reeling, and any expenditure on arms ahead of welfare, healthcare and social services is highly likely to trigger upheavals. This eventuality, the EU politicians are not prepared to face. Washington's push for peace in Ukraine has also forced Europe to rethink its aggressive propaganda against Russia, and instead, restart ways to seek a negotiated settlement. This week's out-of-the-blue call by the French President Emmanuel Macron to President Putin — the first in a long time — signalled Europe's acceptance that, without the US backing, the EU can no longer continue to threaten Russia with military force. Macron's call to his Russian counterpart follows the EU's years of demanding Russia's defeat, sending Scalp missiles, and spewing anti-Putin rhetoric. These latest moves, and a rare posture that cries out for peace talks, are a drastic change in the EU's foreign policy toward Moscow. The unprecedented barrage of economic sanctions that the EU had imposed on Moscow at the behest of the Biden administration has had a boomerang effect on Europe. It has caused EU economies to contract, such as Germany, and at the same time, the Russian economy flourished in spite of the sanctions. Europe's talk of going it alone if President Trump pushes for peace has dissipated very quickly. So has the talk of the so-called Coalition of the Willing led by the UK and France's Macron, aka 'Little Napoleon'. War talk, seemingly, has short legs. And now, as peace looms ever so large on the horizon, Moscow is insisting that the West address the fundamental causes of the Ukraine conflict, which is NATO's expansion eastward, especially to Russia's doorstep.
TimesLIVE
5 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Israeli military kills 15 in Gaza as US marks Independence Day
At least 15 Palestinians were killed overnight in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza, according to local health officials, as US President Donald Trump said he expected Hamas to respond to his "final proposal" for a ceasefire in Gaza in the next 24 hours. Health officials at the Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, said the Israeli military had carried out an airstrike on a tent encampment west of the city around 2am, killing 15 Palestinians displaced by nearly two years of war. The Israeli military had no immediate comment. Later on Friday, Palestinians gathered to perform funeral prayers before burying those killed overnight. "The ceasefire will come, and I have lost my brother? There should have been a ceasefire long ago before I lost my brother," said 13-year-old Mayar Al Farr as she wept. Her brother, Mahmoud, was among those killed.
eNCA
6 hours ago
- eNCA
Inter-American court says states must protect people from climate change
SAN JOSE - The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that countries belonging to the Organization of American States (OAS) have an obligation to take "all necessary measures" to protect populations from climate change. The decision means that around 20 countries across Latin America and the Caribbean that recognise the court's jurisdiction must undertake legal reforms that could increase the requirements imposed on businesses, something environmentalists have long advocated. "States must adopt all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising... from the degradation of the global climate system," the Costa Rica-based court said in response to a request submitted by Colombia and Chile. It underlined that "the right to a healthy environment" is included among the rights protected by the American Convention on Human Rights. The court is an autonomous legal institution that interprets and applies the American Convention, which has been ratified by more than 20 countries including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Peru. The court said countries must "adopt legislative and other measures to prevent human rights violations committed by state and private companies." "States must urge all companies domiciled or operating in their territory to adopt effective measures to combat climate change and its impacts on human rights," it said. The first government reaction to the decision came not from one of the OAS member states, but from the small Pacific island of Vanuatu, which hailed it as "groundbreaking." The ruling was also welcomed by environmentalists. The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), which was involved in the case, said such "advisory opinions" were "authoritative statements of binding international law and carry substantial legal weight." "The court has broken new ground and set a powerful precedent," said Nikki Reisch, the organisation's climate and energy program director. "The court's conclusions should put big polluters, like the fossil fuel industry, on notice: climate-destructive conduct violates the law." Viviana Krsticevic, executive director of the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), said the ruling established "legally binding standards" for the protection of the right to a healthy environment. Marcella Ribeiro, an attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, said that it was the first time an international court had "directly addressed climate change as a legal and structural human rights issue."
