Public Consultation on Draft IFC/MIGA
Independent Accountability Mechanism (CAO) Policy
SOUTH ASIA
DELHI1 CONSULTATION

Virtual Stakeholder Meeting May 4, 2021
Facilitators’ ReportI.

SUMMARY

In August 2020, IFC and MIGA Boards of Directors (“Boards”) released the report ofthe External Review of IFC’s/MIGA’s Environmental and Social Accountability, including theCompliance Advisor Ombudsman’s (CAO) Role and Effectiveness (the External Review). In
response to recommendations from the External Review, the Boards tasked a Joint
CAO/IFC/MIGA Working Group (the “Working Group”) to develop a draft IFC/MIGA
Independent Accountability Mechanism (CAO) Policy (“CAO Policy”).

The draft policy outlines CAO’s purpose, mandate and functions; core principles; governance;and operating procedures and is available for public consultation between April 5 and May 19,
2021. The public consultation phase comprises nine virtual consultations sessions covering all
regions of the world. The process also allows for written comments on the draft policy to beshared by email or using an online feedback form available on the dedicated website for theconsultation process.
This report summarizes the outcomes of the session held for South Asia on May 4, 2021 at 9 a.m. New
Delhi time. The session was designed to obtain feedback from community members, civil society,private sector, and representatives of international finance institutions (IFIs) including their respective
independent accountability mechanisms (IAMs). Twenty-two (22) participants attended the meeting.
The session was conducted in English by a team of professional facilitators, with support from notetakers. Members of the CAO/IFC/MIGA Working Group responsible for drafting the policy presented
background on the process to date, the key elements of the draft CAO Policy, including enhancements
to CAO’s processes, and next steps in the process toward finalizing the policy for approval by the IFC
and MIGA Boards in June 2021 2. Participants were asked to provide their input and questions on thetopics they wished to focus on. This report covers the comments and questions from participants andsummarizes answers from members of the Working Group. The agenda for the session is attached as
Annex I.
II.

STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK AND QUESTIONSUsing an anonymous Zoom poll, participants were asked to select the order in which they wished todiscuss the different sections of the draft policy: 1) Purpose, Mandate, Functions and Core Principles(including Remedy); 2) Governance; 3) Eligibility of Complaints; 4) Assessment; 5) Dispute

1 The city corresponds to the location where the session would have taken place if it had been held in person rather than virtually.
2 The presentation can be found and downloaded here. IFC/MIGA also presented on other actions they are developing to strengthen

environmental and social accountability as well as on their work program on enabling remedial solutions.

1Resolution; 6) Compliance; 7) Advisory; 8) Threats and Reprisals; 9) Outreach; and 10) Access toInformation and Disclosure.
The order of topics prioritized by the participants were:• Compliance (64%)• Purpose, Mandate & Functions, Core Principles (including Remedy) (57%)• Assessment (57%)• Dispute Resolution (57%)• Eligibility of Complaints (50%)• Governance (43%)• Outreach (43%)• Access to Information & Disclosure (43%)• Threats & Reprisals (21%)• Advisory (14%)
For each of the selected topics, a 15-minute space was opened to listen to stakeholder input andquestions. Since participants had different levels of knowledge of, and exposure to the CAO, for mostpart, the conversation followed a question and answer format. Though the focus was on the selected
topics, related issues were also raised in the subsequent questions and inputs from stakeholders.
Compliance
Efficiency. A stakeholder commented that the Compliance section is very well drafted as it verifies
the integrity, authenticity, and genuineness of the complaint and this will result in the efficiency of thecompliance process.
National laws and Performance Standards. A comment was made that, with regard to human rights
of indigenous people, government policies and laws may not align and are often in conflict withIFC/MIGA’s performance standards (including PS1 and PS2) and asked how this conflict can be
resolved in the compliance audit of private sector financed projects. Another stakeholder added that
contextual risk assessment is imperative as each area has its own local conditions which need to betaken into consideration, citing the example of North East India.
Draft Investigation Report. A stakeholder wanted to know if the full draft investigation report,
including findings, reasoning, recommendations, and conclusions, will be shared with IFC/MIGA andthe Client. The Working Group confirmed that the full draft report will be shared with IFC/MIGA, theclient and the complainant, with commitments from parties to protect its confidentiality.
Purpose, Mandate & Functions, Core Principles (including Remedy)
Human Rights and local norms. While appreciating that the core principles are very complete, astakeholder asked if there has been any drawing from local wisdom and human rights while
formulating these principles. The Working Group responded that the principles are reflective ofinternational best practice with regards to the obligations of businesses in terms of human rights andaligned with international human rights norms. They added that while engaging in dispute resolution,
CAO respects local norms and culture of the country. CAO often works with mediator consultants who
have local knowledge of the affected communities or are from the region and who are also aware of
traditional ways of dealing with conflict. Dispute Resolution processes are driven by affectedcommunities and are in accordance with their normal way of dealing with conflict.

2

Governance. A stakeholder commented that, as potentially affected people in industrial zones may
not be aware of environmental and social impacts, it would be good to have a governance policy forindustry to examine these impacts and work to increase public awareness in this regard.
GeneralA stakeholder expressed appreciation for the public consultation process before finalizing the draft
policy and highlighted the importance of keeping parties in the loop, allowing them to participate in
the process, and providing them with information and clarification.
III.

NEXT STEPSThe Working Group closed the meeting reflecting on the issues raised and thanking participants fortheir contributions. In terms of next steps, the Working Group will carefully consider written and verbal
feedback received during the consultation period as they finalize the draft CAO policy for consideration
and approval by the IFC and MIGA Boards in June 2021. In addition to a summary report from eachregional and global consultation meeting, a consolidated consultation report that summarizes feedback
received during the public consultation period and indicates how feedback was addressed in the finalCAO policy will be released.

3ANNEX I: AGENDA
Agenda for Public Consultation Meetings on Draft IFC/MIGA
Independent Accountability Mechanism (CAO) Policy
New Delhi, May 4, 2021 – 9:00 AMTIMETOPIC
Welcome, background and purpose of the meeting

30 MINUTES

Overview of cycle to complete new Policy and key changes to
CAO's Operations brought about by the new Draft Policy
Update on IFC/MIGA efforts on non-policy actions and enabling
remedial solutions

85 MINUTES

Comments and Questions from Participants on Draft CAO Policy

5 MINUTES

Closing remarks and Next Steps4