The Inspection Panel - Mandate to Conduct Independent Verification - Technical Briefing to the Board of Executive Directors and Advisors - February 13, 2026

Jul 19, 2026

Upload by Himbo

Technical briefing outlining the Inspection Panel’s mandate to recommend and conduct independent, risk-based, proportionate verification of Management Action Plan implementation. Covers why verification is needed to reduce reputational and implementation risks, the verification framework and governing documents, and core principles limiting scope to Bank actions in the MAP. Details when verification can be recommended, how risk-based proportionality criteria guide decisions, and how verification modality and scope are determined based on evidence and specific concerns.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages13

Reading Time33 min

WHY Verification? The Mandate

Verification Framework

Governing Documents for Verification

Principles for Independent Verification

WHEN can the Panel recommend a Verification?

In general

In exceptional cases

HOW does the Panel determine recommending a Verification?

Risk-Based Proportionality Criteria

Modality: HOW does the Panel conduct a Verification?

Desktop vs. site visit thresholds

WHAT does a Verification entail?

Process summary

Disclosure Authorized Pub lic Disc losure Authorized Pub lic Disclosure Authorized The Inspection Panel: Mandate to Conduct Independent Verification Public Technical Briefing to the Board of Executive Directors and Advisors February 13, 2026 WHY Verification? The Mandate • The Executive Directors may approve, as an additional reassurance tool for avoiding reputational risks, independent risk-based proportionate verification of the implementation of the management action plan by the Panel and/or Group Internal Audit. The modality adopted for such additional verification will be proportionate to the complexity and seriousness of the case. Resolution para. 48 Verification Framework (VF) para. 2 • The Panel will verify the implementation of Management’s actions in the management action plan that have been agreed between Management and the borrower, designed to address harm that occurred as a result of the Bank’s non-compliance. Resolution para. 51 VF para. 5 Governing Documents for Verification ▪ IBRD/IDA Resolution, The World Bank Accountability Mechanism: Inspection Panel and Dispute Resolution Service (2025): Paragraphs 47-53. ▪ Inspection Panel Operating Procedures (2025): Paragraphs 86-102. ▪ Framework for Proportionality Criteria and Modalities for Independent Verification of Management Action Plan Implementation (2021) . Principles for Independent Verification 1) Verification focuses solely on the Bank’s actions as outlined in the MAP. 2) Verification assesses the status (including completion) of specific Management actions in the MAP, based on appropriate evidence of implementation status . 3) Verification follows timeline based on timelines of agreed actions-to avoid premature review of actions and ensure efficiency of verification. 4) Verification role of Panel and/or GIA consistent with their respective expertise and institutional roles. Resolution, Para. 49 & Verification Framework, Para. 4 WHEN can the Panel recommend a Verification? In general: ✓After substantial implementation* of the MAP, or if the Progress Report indicates lack of implementation, at any stage of implementation. * It is understood that the first Progress Report marks this stage gate. Verification Framework, Para. 11 In exceptional cases: * ✓At the stage of Board approval of the MAP, or shortly after * The VF defines the circumstances of a case “exceptional” based on the gravity of the harm that is related to the Panel’s findings of non-compliance. Verification Framework, Para. 12 HOW does the Panel determine recommending a Verification? • The Panel determines Verification Recommendation based on specific concerns described in relation to Risk-Based Proportionality Criteria. • These Criteria comprise eight questions covering five risk categories (see table) • All but one question relate directly to the Project and the Panel’s findings of non-compliance. Question 4 relates to the MAP. • The Panel uses its collective judgement to answer each question . • Threshold of minimum of three positive answers to eight Criteria form the basis of a Verification Recommendation (next Slide) . Verification Framework, Para. 7 and 17 | Risk-Based Proportionality Criteria | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | Yes | No | Comments | | Urgency of redress | | | | | | 1. | Is urgent of immediate redress required based on the severity of harm experienced? | | | | | Risk of repetitive harms materializing | | | | | | 2. | Is there a risks of repetitive harm in this project? | | | | | 3. | Is there a risk that the harm in this project might be repeated in other projects? | | | | | Number and vulnerability of project affected people | | | | | | 4. | Does the MAP address vulnerable groups such as women, children, indigenous peoples, marginalized communities, etc., requiring special attention? | | | | | 5. | Are there significant numbers of project-affected peo

FAQs

What is the purpose of independent verification under the Inspection Panel’s mandate?

It provides additional reassurance by independently, risk-based and proportionately verifying implementation of agreed Management actions in the MAP to address harm arising from the Bank’s non-compliance.

When can the Panel recommend a verification?

Generally, after substantial implementation of the MAP or at any stage if the progress report indicates lack of implementation. In exceptional cases, it can be recommended at the stage of Board approval of the MAP or shortly after.

How does the Panel decide whether to recommend desk-based verification or a site visit?

The decision depends on answers to eight risk-based proportionality criteria: fewer than three positive answers lead to no verification; three to five support desk-based verification; six to eight support verification that may include a site visit.

Jul 19, 2026

Upload by Himbo