Public Consultation onDraft IFC/MIGA Approach to Remedial Action andIFC Draft Responsible Exit Principles
Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) consultation session
Online meeting 28 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 a total of ten 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.

Introduction:

Facilitators’ Summary Report

This Summary Report presents questions, inputs and comments received during a consultation
meeting for Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) held on 28 March 2023 at 11pm Washington DC time.
The session was attended by 9 participants and conducted in English without interpretation.
The session was conducted by a team of professional facilitators. IFC and MIGA representatives
provided 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 participant commented that they are not able to comment properly or understand theApproach properly at this time. They wanted IFC/MIGA to provide more on the reasoning
behind how it was shaped. The participant felt that Remedy and Responsible Exit areinterlinked and cannot be looked at separately, and that a holistic approach was needed.

●A participant noted that the Approach refers only to existing harm and new cases where“exceptional circumstances” pertain. The participant asked how “exceptional circumstances”

are defined and criteria determined by IFC/MIGA in line with international standards.
Another participant commented that they remain unclear as to the meaning of “exceptionalcircumstances”, even after this meeting.
●Several participants commented that the idea that Remedial Action would only apply to newand future projects was not acceptable. They proposed that a second draft should atminimum include a strong commitment to remedy, provision of remedy in Compliance
Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) “legacy” cases (37 cases) and should commit clients and/orIFC/MIGA to implementing these agreements.

●The comment on legacy cases was reiterated by another participant, stating that they too
believe that this document does not reflect the recommendations of the External Review. In
their view, the Approach should be applied retroactively for the same reasons mentioned
before, and there must be a detailed plan for the types of remedy IFC/MIGA would provide.
The participant commented that any delay in implementing remedy causes or exacerbates
actual harm on the ground.

●A participant commented that financing is extremely important to CSOs, that the issue
should be clarified, and that the Approach should be forward-looking.

●Another participant expressed their disappointment that the Approach will only apply to
new projects. They commented that it will leave a massive gap in relation to existing andhistorical harm. The participant also raised the matter of the risk of reprisals against
community members and proposed further consultation on this. They felt that the Approach
only mentions this briefly, without addressing or proposing particular protocols. Thisparticipant also described a gap in terms of considering specific sensitives around remedy,
including gender sensitive remedial actions in the Approach.

●Regarding exceptional circumstances, a participant commented that legacy cases could or
should be considered to fall within the definition of exceptional circumstances. In their view,
excluding legacy cases from the scope of the Approach is going back on the commitment
towards remedy. The participant noted that the document itself does not explain
exceptional circumstances, and asked: What would this include? When people arecompletely destroyed and left with no option and have been engaging with CAO for morethan a decade, would that be included in exceptional circumstances?

●A participant commented that clients need to be held more accountable, that monitoring
and review of projects should be enhanced and should include stakeholder engagement, themobilization of CSOs, evidence and case documentation. The participant also commented
that legal remedy is important.

2. Roles and responsibilities in the Remedy ecosystem●A participant proposed that certain projects need to disclose detailed reports to assist theproject affected people, specifically indigenous people.

●With respect to scope and roles and responsibilities, a participant commented that theExternal Review recommendations said that two funds should be established: a contingency
fund from the client, and an IFC/MIGA remedy fund. In their opinion the Approach unfairly
puts the burden on the client, and does not go as far on the issue of setting up contingency

financing. It was mentioned there was a need to have stronger commitment on IFC/MIGA
provision of remedy.
3. Preparation for Remedial Action●A participant expressed their disappointment and surprise, and commented that theApproach is not a systematic remedy framework and does not address therecommendations of the External Review. According to the participant a case-by-caseapproach is important, as remedy needs to be tailored. They felt that the Approach ismeaningless without a commitment to Remedy.

●A participant commented that communities they work with have been negatively affectedby IFC/MIGA project finance and are worse off as a result. Some have been left without asource of livelihoods, and to them an Approach to Remedial Action is very important.

●A participant proposed that IFC/MIGA should apply direct financing to the 37 CAO cases
under investigation.

4. Access to Remedial Action●A participant made specific reference to page 7 of the Approach document (onstrengthening the assessment process), where it states “IFC/MIGA would also advise Clientson how to provide stakeholders with information to access remedy, . . . IFC/MIGA would also
assess the capacity and commitment of any relevant third parties,” and asked what “relevantthird parties” means in this context. In their view, there seems to be a lack of emphasis inthe Approach on ensuring rights holders have capacity to access remedy.

●A participant raised issues in relation to disclosure of information to project affected
communities. They commented that locals who are project affected do not get any project
information and cannot access that information. Because communities are not adequately
informed about projects they are unable to access the potential benefits of a project orpotential Remedy.

●In relation to Performance Standards (PSs), a participant commented that there is a lack ofcapacity amongst consultants advising clients, and this results in failures in theimplementation of the PSs, especially PS5 and PS7. According to the participant, there
should be independent verification on the implementation of these standards.

●A participant wished to see communities placed at the center of concern. The participant
hopes to see a second draft of the Approach that puts communities central to the entire
process, whether looking at constraints, process itself or steps to be taken.

5. Facilitate and Support Remedial Action●Participants commented that the Approach does not provide sufficient guidance on ensuring
meaningful engagement with people who are potentially or actually impacted and lacks
detail on how community engagement will be supported by clients or IFC, or verified by IFC.

6. Process●

Regarding the consultation process, several participants raised the issue of languages.
Participants commented that documentation and consultation should be available in major
Asian languages.

●Participants requested to be consulted on a second draft of the Approach.

7. Other Comments●B.

A participant echoed the comments that existing commitments in the Sustainability
Framework are not being implemented. The Approach and Responsible Exit Principles
should consider that the existing approach is not enough and also not implemented
adequately. The participant commented that a claim that the existing Sustainability
Framework approach is sufficient is not reflective of practice.
RESPONSIBLE EXIT PRINCIPLES●A participant commented that more information should be provided on divestment, .e.g.,
timelines, reasons for divestment. The participant raised the risk of reprisals, and proposedthat IFC should provide support for persons with disabilities and vulnerabilities so that
consultation can be more inclusive. The participant also urged IFC to include consultation
with affected communities and not just with clients.

●A participant described the Responsible Exit Principles as very vague. According to theparticipant, the Responsible Exit Principles do not provide the sufficient detail formeaningful consultation. The participant would like a greater emphasis on the disclosure of
information to communities, and a clear exclusion of cases where there are active CAO
complaints or where there are existing complaints from exit.

●A participant commented that Remedy and Responsible Exit cannot be consideredseparately as they are interlinked, and that it is not possible to have Responsible Exit withouta robust remedial approach. A holistic approach is required.

●Regarding Financial Intermediaries (FIs), a participant asked whether they are or will be
included or integrated into the Responsible Exit Principles. Several participants commented
that the Approach and Responsible Exit Principles should apply to FI funded projects.

●A participant asked when IFC will disclose information about the current pilot project. The
participant would like to know the identity of the project(s) involved, and whether thelessons learned and documented are going to be disclosed. This participant hopes andexpects that there will be a second draft of the Responsible Exit Principles with wider
consultation. The participant reflected that there are specific questions from theirmembership about whether the Responsible Exit Principles will be applied to IFC funded
projects set for retirement under early retirement mechanisms.

●According to a participant, limitations on IFC’s ability to disclose information should in itself
be considered as an additional ground of harm to communities, and this should beaddressed as part of remedial action when exiting.

●A participant proposed that remedial actions should be provided in all responsible exit cases.