By Jennine Meyer

Dr. Evelyn Dietsche joined the World Bank Inspection Panel in 2024. She is a development economist, a policy analyst, and a recognized expert on natural resource governance. She brings private sector experience and an applied research angle to the Inspection Panel’s cases and says she thrives on complex cases. Accountability Matters recently had the opportunity to talk in depth with Dr. Dietsche to learn more about her background and how she expects it to inform the Panel’s work in the years ahead. Spoiler alert: She is not one for simple answers.

You are well into your first year at the Panel. How does your experience of the work involved compare with your impressions of the Panel before you joined?

Before I joined, my knowledge of the Panel and its mandate was focused on some of its landmark cases, and the evolution of the safeguards from the mid-1990s as part of the development debate. Because of my private sector experience in the extractive industries, I was more familiar with the IFC Performance Standards and the Equator Principles, and how companies and industry associations have used these as a benchmark for developing their own corporate environmental and social policies and standards. 

So admittedly, I was less aware of the Panel’s compliance process itself and how it compares to the independent accountability mechanisms of other development banks. For me, the variance between these mechanisms was somewhat new because you don’t necessarily pay attention to these details if you primarily look at case findings. And so, the structural reforms that are underway across the independent accountability mechanisms and the push toward harmonization and mutual reliance are also rather new for me. 

What does accountability mean to you? 

For somebody with a broad social science background like myself, accountability means, first and foremost, respecting rules and understanding what these are meant to achieve. In the context of the World Bank, these rules are the policies and standards that the Board of the member countries has set for the organization. I see these rules anchored in principles that are established at the normative level, especially in the principle of “do no harm” and, more broadly, the concept of “responsible business conduct.” These principles have evolved as international soft law, while they have also increasingly become embedded in national and regional laws and regulations.

How did you gravitate toward the accountability sector?

So, I have gravitated toward this sector from two angles. The first is, as I have mentioned, the angle of “responsible business conduct” and the corporate perspective on sustainability as a form of enlightened self-interest. In my previous roles, the types of impact assessments I contributed to and led were often not only focused on project-level impacts but also macro-level impacts and fiduciary risks. The second angle is an empirical research interest in property rights and related socio-economic institutions and the questions of who makes the rules that govern how resources can be used, how rules get enforced, and how they get changed. 

One of your areas of expertise is natural resource governance. How do you anticipate that you will use that knowledge as a Panel member?

Well, natural resources governance is about property rights, which are not only about the rights but also the responsibilities associated with using natural resources, especially those that exhibit the characteristics of “common pool resources” and where laws and regulations are key to transforming such resources into private goods that can be sold and traded in markets. Take for example subsoil natural resources, for which public authorities grant concessions or licenses so that these resources can be developed and then sold and traded regionally and internationally, often at the expense of local people and communities.

In my previous roles with the extractive industries and applied research entities—including Chatham House, the UNU World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER), and swisspeace—I focused on conflict and tensions related to natural resources and on developing strategies to address these at different institutional levels. Many Panel cases are about the positive and negative impacts associated with developing and using natural resources and the balance of who reaps the benefits and who bears the costs. Cases are typically about whether the negative environmental and social impacts affecting people and communities have been identified and if or how they are avoided, mitigated, or managed. 

How might your work relate to the just transition?

I struggle with this term, because there are so many different angles to it. You could look at it from a global perspective between countries, or from a national perspective, between different sectors and different types of occupations. So, I don’t find it a particularly useful term, other than perhaps for advocacy. You first have to define your focus and state your main concern. And, from an economic perspective, just transition is ultimately about winners and losers, and whether winners are compensating losers. The problem is that winners don’t have to compensate losers unless they are somehow compelled to do so, or they feel that it is in their long-term interest to do so, perhaps, to avoid conflicts and maintain social cohesion.

The Panel’s mandate and its process is focused on listening to and giving voice to people and communities who have been or may be harmed by Bank-financed projects and programs and to identify whether the alleged harm is linked to the Bank’s non-compliance with its own policies and standards. Of course, this mandate and process applies equally to climate change and energy-transition related projects and programs. We cannot be complacent, thinking, for example, that renewable energy or nature conservation projects are less affected by the sorts of impacts and challenges that any other project or program also faces.

The Panel’s three-person model of decision making is unique. Can you give us a picture of how decisions are made? 

First, the Panel’s structure is such that the panel members are from different regions and different nationalities, and they come with different areas of expertise. So, this invariably means that they bring different perspectives and strengths to assessing and considering the requests for inspection. 

From my experience this year, when the Panel discusses cases, its deliberations are really important. We often take turns in playing devil’s advocate to test our understanding of the facts before us and what we’ve independently heard from the various stakeholders we have listened to and spoken with. In that way, when we come to a conclusion, we feel confident that we’ve also tried to argue from different sides and really tested ourselves on the findings and the recommendations we put forward.

I think the other part to the three-person model is that the Panel Chairperson is always based in DC and works full-time, whereas the other two panel members are usually based elsewhere and are not full time unless the Panel’s work requires them to have a greater engagement. This means that the Panel Chairperson is at the forefront of much of the engagement that happens in DC on a day-to-day basis, with the Board and with World Bank management. Meanwhile, the other Panel members get more involved in the case work. So, this is about complementing each other and working as a team. 

A panel member’s term is five years. That will go by fast. What do you hope to achieve?

First and foremost, I aspire to deliver good case work with the team. I think I do bring a solid and broad background paired with an independent, analytical mindset. I thrive on cutting through complexity and I enjoy writing, so I think that’s a strength when you’re dealing with compliance cases. At the same time, the Panel has been and continues to undergo structural changes, and it is fascinating to observe this journey as it continues. There remains a lot to do—and to contribute to.