In 2006, the World Bank's private sector lending arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), introduced eight Environmental and Social Performance Standards (PSs) to define IFC clients’ responsibilities for managing their environmental and social risks, including those related to cultural heritage. Since their introduction, the PSs have evolved into a de facto global standard that other development banks and many private sector banks, insurers, and development proponents have voluntarily adopted to help manage their own risk exposure. Although the widespread adoption of such policies can be viewed positively as a reflection of good governance, the PSs were never designed with this purpose in mind. This article traces the development of cultural heritage policy within the World Bank Group, then critically examines the IFC PSs as they relate to cultural heritage, drawing attention to the elements in need of revision to better reflect internationally recognized good practice for the management of cultural heritage. Equally important, we recommend the development and implementation of a bespoke cultural heritage framework for the private sector.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are point sources of pollution and require Clean Water Act permits. The 2003 regulations allow Large CAFOs to propose alternative performance standards (APS) that offer equivalent or better environmental performance than the baseline technology. Principal obstacles to APS success include the complexities of demonstrating superior performance, cost uncertainties for obtaining approval, CAFO risks of participation, inter- and intra-organizational barriers of permitting agencies, and potential lawsuits brought by environmental groups. Despite obstacles, APS offers potential for technology innovations and reduced environmental compliance costs.

Objective: The paucity of evidence and wide variation among communities creates challenges for developing congressionally mandated national performance standards for public health preparedness. Using countermeasure dispensing as an example, we present an approach for developing standards that balances national uniformity and local flexibility, consistent with the quality of evidence available.

Methods: We used multiple methods, including a survey of community practices, mathematical modeling, and expert panel discussion.

Results: The article presents recommended dispensing standards, along with a general framework that can be used to analyze tradeoffs involved in developing other preparedness standards.

Conclusions: Standards can be developed using existing evidence, but would be helped immensely by a stronger evidence base.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2010;4:285-290)