Public Consultation on
Proposed IFC/MIGA Approach to Remedial Action andDraft IFC Responsible Exit Principles
Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) consultation session
Online meeting 23 March 2023

Following the release of the proposed IFC/MIGA Approach to Remedial Action; and the IFCs draft
Responsible Exit Principles in February 2023, IFC/MIGA launched a global public consultation
process to elicit comments and submissions on both documents.
The consultation period began with a hybrid Informational Session on 28 February 2023, and willconclude on 20 April 2023 after nine further virtual consultation sessions covering all global timezones. Submissions can also be made by email to accountabilityconsultation@worldbankgroup.org.
All details appear on the dedicated consultation webpage.

Facilitator´s Summary Report: FINALIntroduction:
This Summary Report presents questions, inputs and comments received during a consultation
meeting for Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) held on 23 March 2023 at 9:00 AM Washington DCtime. The session was attended by 26 participants and conducted in English without interpretation.
The session was conducted by a team of professional facilitators. IFC and MIGA representativesprovided presentations on the process to date, which covered background to the process, thedocuments themselves, and next steps towards finalising the documents for consideration by theCommittee on Development Effectiveness (CODE) of the IFC/MIGA Board of Directors. The goal wasto collect as many comments, questions, reflections and recommendations from participants aspossible.
This Summary is based on comprehensive notes taken during the meeting by a team of Note-takers.
It is divided into themes, some of which may overlap, and inputs intersect. The final Report, at theend of the consultation period, will elaborate on the key points.
The session was divided into two parts: the proposed IFC/MIGA Approach to Remedial Action;
followed by the draft IFC Responsible Exit Principles.
A.

APPROACH TO REMEDIAL ACTION

1. Scope of the Approach to Remedial Action●A general comment from a number of participants on the draft Approach was that they findit lacking sufficient substance to comment on, and that participants hoped to see more
substance and detail on the Approach in a next draft.

●A participant commented that it is not clear from the Approach what the process would
really look like, and what would change from the existing IFC approach. Because of that, it is
not clear why such a long consultation and drafting period would be necessary with such
limited proposed changes. The participant expressed the hope that the next draft of thisdocument will include a lot more substance on what the Approach entails.

●A participant asked that IFC/MIGA clarify whether this draft Approach is only forward
looking; and that it will not address the harm caused by legacy or previous IFC investments,
many of which have caused harm that will be experienced by communities in perpetuity.
The participant noted that, in some legacy projects, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman(CAO) has already implicated the IFC regarding failures in its supervision and/or due
diligence. The participant further commented that a next draft should include proposals on
dealing with legacy cases.

●

One participant enquired whether governance would be included as part of Environmental,Social and Governance (ESG) standards.

●

Another participant enquired why the Approach proposed such a long pilot period when theApproach has such limited content.

●One participant requested clarification on the matter of litigation risk as raised in theApproach, as this was not clear.

2. Roles and responsibilities in the Remedy ecosystem●One participant said that they would like to see more IFC involvement in developing
solutions, bringing its technical expertise to bear.

●A participant suggested that there may be potential to explore arbitration in the Dispute
Resolution (DR) context despite its possible challenges, as this could offer communities
another avenue to achieve redress in the case of harm. The participant suggested thatIFC/MIGA work with stakeholders to see if they could come up with some suggestions
around how third-party arbitration could work in the context of remedial actions.

●One participant commented that IFC/MIGA need to look beyond short-term goals (profits),
and instead reimagine and reform the institution.

●

A comment was shared that there is no example in the Approach of a company-level
Grievance Mechanisms (GMs) able to handle issues deeper than the everyday, and that
GMs often result in compensation discrepancies.

3. Preparation for Remedial Action●

A participant commented on the need to refer to existing standards, including the OHCHR
report Remedy in Development Finance, that has clear arguments for having contingency
funds, while the Approach’s analysis regarding contingency funds is limited. The participant
wanted such a fund/funds to be considered for the Approach, citing several cases (such as
Karot in Pakistan) where the investigation of a complaint was only finalized after completionof the project, making remedy almost impossible. The participant further suggested that

IFC/MIGA should ensure that the Approach makes provision for quick action and findingsolutions as well as strict timelines.
●One participant expressed frustration at the lack of affirmative commitment by IFC/MIGA in
the Approach document. The participant commented that there may be some good ideas interms of additional contractual requirements but was dismayed by IFC/MIGA’s reticence tobe bolder in committing to using these contractual requirements as the de facto standard.
The participant would like to see much bolder commitments to a standard that confirms thatif you contribute to harm you should contribute to remedy.

●A participant commented that there should be a contractual requirement in every financing
agreement that requires client-funded remedy.

4. Access to Remedial Action●On the role of Stakeholder Grievance Response (SGR), a participant commented that theprocesses are not transparent enough. The participant asked whether changes to the SGRrole will include establishing guidelines and procedures for engaging with communities, andmanaging complaints, and whether the process of developing such guidelines will be atransparent and consultative process.

5. Facilitate and Support Remedial Action●A participant commented that existing Compliance and Dispute Resolution processes take
too long, leading to frustration and to harm not being effectively resolved. The same
participant also said that more needs to be done to prevent harm.

●One participant also commented that IFC/MIGA teams are unwilling to engage once a CAO
case is filed.

●

Several participants commented on the need to prevent harm and proposed that more bedone to invest in prevention.

●

Several participants commented that more investment and more work need to be done onbuilding the capacity of project teams in social expertise, and providing or encouraging
training in relation to implementing IFC/MIGA Performance Standards.

●

Several participants shared the view that communities should be encouraged to try toresolve issues locally in cooperation with the client. Financial institutions working withprivate sector companies also lack capacity in terms of E&S standards and efforts should bemade to build their capacity.

●In relation to technical expertise, a participant commented that IFC/MIGA are not doing
enough to support clients or communities, and that the Approach should expand thesupporting role of IFC/MIGA. Views were expressed that IFC/MIGA could get involved muchearlier in dispute resolution processes to support successful resolution as, in their view, GMs
are generally not able to handle the type of widespread problems and harms faced bycommunities, as the GMs are only equipped to solve ‘household’ issues.

●One participant commented that the Approach rejects the idea of new instruments because
there are existing processes that could be enhanced, yet the Approach does not provide

analysis on whether those existing instruments serve the purpose of ensuring that there arefunds available for remedial action.
●A participant made the point that enhanced or shortened timelines alone will not mean thatharms are remedied where they are complex, widespread, and deep. The participant
commented that IFC/MIGA need to do more to provide the technical support necessary toensure that harmful impacts are remedied as quickly as possible. In their view that, incombination with use of leverage, is what will speed up DR processes and support positive
outcomes.

●One participant used a recent example of a case where sufficient remedial action had notbeen taken and where remedial action is still necessary. They would like IFC/MIGA toprovide confirmation that a review of cases where harm has occurred will be conducted.
They would also like details on how IFC/MIGA will approach a case-by-case analysis: what
factors will be considered; how these factors will be weighed; whether IFC/MIGA will financeremedy for these cases, who will be involved in decision-making and further detail.

B.

RESPONSIBLE EXIT PRINCIPLES●A participant asked if there is a more detailed document on the Responsible Exit Principles
that provides the rationale to this document and commented that if there is, it would be
extremely important to disclose it and consult on it. The participant commented thattransparency with IFC decision-making should be part of a principle or a stand-alone
principle.

●

Several participants commented that they found it disheartening that community
engagement is relegated to “additional guidance” rather than being one of the principles. In
their view, this should be one of the most important principles and should be underlying
everything IFC does when considering exit.

●A participant remarked, from a trade union perspective, that it would be helpful if theResponsible Exit Principles aligned with OECD Guidelines for multinational enterprises,
notably the obligation to include trade unions or workers representatives in any changes
that would have a major effect on employment. The participant cited an example where IFC
may be planning an exit, and the company is not able to find new investment: how can theimpact on jobs be mitigated? In their view, the Responsible Exit Principles should require IFC
and clients to provide sufficient notice and to cooperate with labour representatives indeveloping plans and programmes to reduce such impacts.

●A participant emphasized the links between remedy and responsible exit. They commented
that there should not be any exit if there is no effective remedy offered, or if there is an
ongoing case with CAO involvement. These links should in their view be made explicit in theResponsible Exit Principles.