Mapping Entry

IFC Performance Standard 5

IFC Performance Standard 5 extends displacement governance into private-sector finance, but responsibility remains anchored to client risk management and project boundaries rather than public-system inclusion.

Political economy archetype Private-risk internalization

Private-sector displacement risk is internalized through client obligations, lender requirements, mitigation plans, and project accountability systems.

What it is

IFC Performance Standard 5 is the IFC standard on land acquisition and involuntary resettlement. It forms part of IFC's Sustainability Framework and applies to IFC clients whose projects involve land acquisition, restrictions on land use, physical displacement, or economic displacement.

Governance function

The standard turns displacement risk into a condition of private-sector finance. It requires clients to avoid or minimize displacement, compensate affected people, restore livelihoods, engage communities, and establish grievance mechanisms.

Who is included

People and communities physically or economically displaced by IFC-supported client activities, including people with formal rights, customary claims, or recognized use of land and assets, depending on the circumstances.

Who is left out

People indirectly affected through cumulative impacts, market shifts, downstream effects, informal tenure not recognised in practice, or impacts beyond the project area may be excluded if the client's assessment does not capture them.

Where continuity breaks

Continuity breaks when livelihood restoration is time-limited, when company-managed processes are not connected to public land administration or social services, or when accountability weakens after financial close or project completion.

Why it matters

Performance Standard 5 shows how displacement governance is increasingly mediated by private finance, ESG risk, lender requirements, and corporate due diligence. The political economy archetype is private-risk internalisation: displacement is governed to protect affected people and manage project risk, but public-system absorption remains external to the standard.

Governance coding table

Political economy archetypePrivate-risk internalization
ResponsibilityThe IFC client carries implementation responsibility, with IFC review and supervision. Government authorities may also be involved in land acquisition, permits, compensation, and local service systems.
EligibilityEligibility is tied to project impact, displacement category, land or asset use, cut-off dates, and client assessment of affected persons and communities.
FinancingFinancing is project and client-bounded. Costs are carried through project budgets, compensation frameworks, resettlement action plans, livelihood restoration plans, and lender-required mitigation measures.
Data systemsSocio-economic baseline surveys, asset inventories, resettlement action plans, livelihood restoration plans, stakeholder engagement records, grievance logs, and monitoring reports form the data architecture.
Delivery systemDelivery occurs through client systems, consultants, local authorities, contractors, compensation mechanisms, livelihood programmes, and grievance processes.
PortabilityPortability is weak unless project records connect affected people to public documentation, land systems, social protection, livelihood services, and long-term local development planning.
AccountabilityAccountability includes client grievance mechanisms, IFC supervision, lender requirements, disclosure expectations, and potential complaints to the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman where applicable.
Time horizonProject and investment lifecycle, with ongoing monitoring where livelihood restoration or displacement impacts continue.

Sources

Official sources

Secondary sources

Related Mapping entries

Related research