Public Consultation on Draft IFC/MIGA
Independent Accountability Mechanism (CAO) Policy
EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFICBANGKOK1 CONSULTATION

Virtual Stakeholder Meeting May 3 rd, 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 the CAO’s purpose, mandate and functions; core principles; andgovernance 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 ofthe world. The process also allows for written comments on the draft policy to be shared byemail or using an online feedback form available on the dedicated website for the consultation
process.
This report summarizes the outcomes of the session held for East Asia and the Pacific on May 3, 2021
at 10 am Bangkok time. The session was designed to obtain feedback from community members, civilsociety, private sector, and representatives of international finance institutions (IFIs) including theirrespective independent accountability mechanisms (IAMs). Twenty-one (21) participants attended themeeting.
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 participa nts 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
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(including Remedy); 2) Governance; 3) Eligibility of Complaints; 4) Assessment; 5) DisputeResolution; 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%)• Dispute Resolution (57%)• Purpose, Mandate & Functions, Core Principles (including Remedy) (43%)• Eligibility of Complaints (43%)• Threats & Reprisals (43%)• Access to Information & Disclosure (43%)• Governance (36%)• Outreach (29%)• Assessment (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 CAO, for most part,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.
ComplianceDecision to investigate. A stakeholder wanted to clarify two aspects of the decision to investigate.
While agreeing with the deferral option as a sound approach before proceeding to investigation, thestakeholder commented that Management should be required to present a detailed plan and a remedy
framework to solve issues raised in the complaint within the six -month timeline, including how
community input will be obtained. The stakeholder expressed support for keeping the decision toinvestigate at the discretion of CAO’s DG and asked for clarification on what would constitute“exceptional circumstances” for review by the Board.
The Working Group responded to these two points by emphasizing the importance of considering theviews of complainants before taking a decision on deferral. Other criteria include the severity of harmand Management response. With regards to Board review of the decision to investigate, the WorkingGroup clarified that “exceptional circumstances” are described in the draft policy and the review cansolely be based on specific technical eligibility criteria.
Dispute Resolution
Agreements and Compliance with Performance Standards. While expressing support of thechanges proposed by the Draft Policy, a stakeholder commented that the CAO does not have sufficient
power in the Dispute Resolution process to ensure that IFC clients sign agreements that ensure they
fully meet IFC Performance Standards.
The Working Group responded by clarifying that while the process doesn’t compel IFC/MIGA toparticipate, they may participate as observers or provide expertise on E&S from other projects. IFC orMIGA has never been a party to an agreement reached. The language in the draft policy indicates thatthe CAO will not support agreements contrary to the Performance Standards or national law. The
Dispute Resolution function does not have the authority or mandate to review compliance of projects.
DR processes mostly treat impacts and issues related to projects. If unsolved issues remain and2complainants believe the Performance Standards have not been properly applied, these issues would
be moved to Compliance.
Purpose, Mandate and Functions, Core Principles (including Remedy)
Funding remedial actions. A stakeholder asked if there were new proposals for funding remedialactions included under this section. On the same issue, another stakeholder suggested that remedy beincluded in E&S clauses of lending contracts and that a remedy fund should be available in cases wheresignificant losses have been experienced by affected communities. In this stakeholder’s view, theargument that the remediation fund is too expensive or would entail business losses is unfounded, aspeer institutions such as ADB have similar funds and have shown it can be done.
The Working Group clarified that besides the definition of remedy in CAO’s draft Policy, IFC andMIGA are leading their own process for enabling remedial solutions, which will consider financial andnon-financial options that will consider UNGPs and other frameworks. IFC and MIGA plan to conduct
a separate stakeholder engagement process to finalize its framework. The first stakeholder responded
that they were looking forward to reviewing the options paper.
Coordination of remedial solutions across IAMs. Stakeholders stated the need for coordination andharmonization of remedy frameworks when similar complaints regarding a project are submitted toaccountability mechanisms of different IFIs supporting it. Stakeholders highlighted that lack ofcoordination has resulted in delays and limited remedy and one of them provided the Tata Mundracase as an example.
The Working Group affirmed that the draft policy includes provisions for cooperation with otherIAMs. There is an MOU approach with other IAMs to share information, resources, and coordinate
field visits. In terms of Compliance, IAMs have different standards and policy frameworks, so theinvestigation reports and Management Action Plans are often different. Available options forcooperation are likely to be assessed in IFC’s / MIGA’s “Issues and Options” paper. However, it isimportant to note that as frameworks are different, responses might vary.
Continuous learning. One stakeholder wanted clarity on how the CAO carries out its continuous
learning process. The Working Group explained that the CAO consistently seeks stakeholder feedback
from its cases to learn and enhance its effectiveness. Drawing on the CAO’s experience, the Advisory
function provides advice to IFC/MIGA and the Boards, so that they can systemically improve theirenvironmental and social performance and reduce the risk of harm to people and the environment.
Eligibility of Complaints
Projects not yet approved by the Boards. Stakeholders expressed concern that projects that have
not yet been approved are excluded from eligibility and suggest that the CAO should take pre-approvalcomplaints on the basis that project documents/summaries are already disclosed and valid community
concerns exist. A stakeholder explained that, based on experience in India and Indonesia, whereprojects haven’t started yet but documents have been shared, there is often a mismatch between
documents including the ESRS and what happens on the ground. A complaint would not be a call topause projects, but would provide a basis for the CAO to help clarify issues on the ground. This also
serves as a warning to the IFC / MIGA that issues exist. The stakeholder added that asmediator/facilitator, the CAO is in the best position to do that. A stakeholder asked how not accepting
complaints regarding pre-approval projects would harmonize with other IAMs' practice of accepting
complaints in this stage.
3

Another stakeholder asked for clarification on the process for handling pre-Board approval complaints
and ensuring that Management takes them seriously. A suggestion was made that the Board be
informed of the nature of a pre-approval complaint when the papers go to the Board.
The Working Group responded that the External Review strongly recommended that IFC and MIGA
be more active in responding to complaints. IFC/MIGA have a commitment to Do-No-Harm and now
have a Stakeholder Grievance Response team which is tasked with supporting project teams from theearly stages of project preparation to address any concerns raised b y communities. The External
Review considered the practice of other IAMs in making recommendations and noted thatcomplainants can still approach the CAO if the project is approved and IFC/MIGA’s engagement
efforts have not been sufficient.
Threats and reprisals
A stakeholder expressed support for the draft policy approach to this issue.
Access to Information and Disclosure, and Outreach
For the purpose of clarity these two topics were dealt with together.
A stakeholder had a question as to whether the policy speaks of improving access to information about
the CAO process. The Working Group explained that the CAO collaborates with CSOs and local
stakeholders to hold outreach events. It takes advantage of networks to make the CAO known.
IFC/MIGA works with clients to ensure access to information and outreach at the project level.
Governance
Reporting line. A stakeholder commented that the change in reporting line is one of the major
welcome changes and said that Tata Mundra and other Compliance cases need this change. Anotherstakeholder asked how the Governance policy strengthens the CAO process. The Working Group
responded that the new reporting line will increase the distance from Management. It allows CAO toaccess the highest body of decision makers in the IFC/MIGA. Budget and DG appointment processes
add independence to the CAO compliance process. Oversight of Management Action plans andapprovals would give a greater focus to the process of developing those plans and getting anappropriate response.
DG’s term limit. A stakeholder suggested that the term limit of the DG should be non-renewable toreduce the risk of the perception of overstaying or having incentives to seek extension. This isperceived as good practice of other IAMs like ADB’s mechanism and the Inspection Panel. Necessary
continuity and institutional knowledge is provided by technical staff.
GeneralA stakeholder enquired if the PowerPoint presentation used in the consultation meeting could be madeavailable to participants and was informed that a similar one is available on the dedicated website forthe consultation process.

4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 p olicy 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 final
CAO policy will be released.

5ANNEX I: AGENDA
Agenda for Public Consultation Meetings on Draft IFC/MIGA
Independent Accountability Mechanism (CAO) Policy
Bangkok, May 3, 2021 – 10:00 AMTIME

TOPIC
Welcome, background and purpose of the meeting

30 MINUTES

Overview of cycle to complete new Policy and key changes toCAO'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 Steps

6