Public Consultation on Draft IFC/MIGA
Independent Accountability Mechanism (CAO) Policy
Middle East and North Africa
CONSULTATION

Virtual Stakeholder Meeting April 28, 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 Arab speaking countries on April 28,
2021 at 8:00 a.m. Cairo 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). Consultation sessions were organized
to accommodate a maximum of twenty-five people to ensure an effective dialogue among stakeholders
in a plenary discussion. In the event of increased interest and a high number of registrations for any
given session, the session was adapted to include break-out rooms to facilitate discussion among asmaller number of stakeholders. Fifteen stakeholders attended the meeting.
The session was conducted in Arabic by a team of professional facilitators, with support from notetakers and Arabic-English interpreters. Members of the CAO/IFC/MIGA Working Group responsiblefor 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 1. Stakeholders were asked toprovide their input and questions on the topics they wished to focus on. This rep ort covers thecomments and questions from stakeholders and summarizes answers from members of the Working
Group. The agenda for the session is attached as Annex I.

1 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II.

STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK AND QUESTIONSUsing an anonymous Zoom poll, Stakeholders 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) DisputeResolution; 6) Compliance; 7) Advisory; 8) Threats and Reprisals; 9) Outreach; and 10) Access toInformation and Disclosure.
The topics prioritized by the Stakeholders were:• Access to Information and Disclosure (71 percent).
• Governance (57 percent)• Assessment (57 percent)• Dispute Resolution (57 percent)•

Threats and Reprisals (57 percent)••••Compliance (43 percent)Outreach (29 percent)Purpose, Mandate and Functions, and core Principles (29 percent)Advisory (14 percent)For each of the selected topics, a 15-minute space was opened to listen to stakeholder input andquestions. Since Stakeholders had different levels of knowledge of , and exposure to CAO, for mostpart, the conversation followed a question-and-answer format. While the focus was on the selected
topics, related issues were also raised in the subsequent questions and inputs from stakeholders.

Discussion of Prioritized Topic:
Access to Information and Disclosure (71 percent):
Stakeholders stated that it is difficult for the complainants to obtain information and data. They
expressed concern over the lack of responsiveness from IFC to such requests. Consequently, thecomplainants are unable to access the results of the environmental impact study and any information
related to the compliance of the company and its performance. They also attributed such difficulties
to accessing information to the absence of technical skills and lack of familiarity of the complainantswith international regulations. Stakeholders requested that the IFC make available EIA / ESIA inArabic.
The Working Group indicated that project related information along with Environmental and Social
Review Summary, when applicable, is disclosed on IFC website in accordance with its Access toInformation Policy.
Governance (57 percent)
Stakeholders stated that past complaints related to an IFC funded project should serve as an exampleof unpopular policies that ought to be reviewed and avoided in future projects. They explained that theviolations that occurred and the way they were dealt with led to negative results such as thecomplainant being unable to obtain their rights and that some complainant may have passed away
before any action has taken place. They also reported that the complainants were not informed about
the IFC exit from a project and raised concerns about how to ensure IFC accountability post exit.
Accordingly, the stakeholders expressed their desire to discuss this particular complaint in detail.

2

The Working Group answered that IFC/MIGA are taking these concerns very seriously and areworking on this issue in the context of the workstream on enabling remedial solutions, includingdefining responsible exit principles.
Assessment (57 percent):
Stakeholders asked whether the responses of the company to questions regarding the negative impactof its expansion plans for the factory be made available to the complainant.
The Working Groupresponded that the policy provides for the client response is published together
with the assessment report.
Dispute Resolution (57 percent)
Stakeholders requested that they be consulted on the selection and approval of the mediator(s). They
believe this will increase the parties’ confidence in the process.
The Working Group acknowledged this comment and indicated that it would be considered in
finalizing the policy for submission to the Board.
Threats and Reprisals (57 percent)
Stakeholders expressed their concerns on matters related to local politics and its impact on thecomplainants safety and the fear of reprisal by the State. They explained that when the process moves
from conflict resolution to compliance there seems to be a requirement that the complainant approvethe move and consequently has to disclose their identity. Stakeholders went on to explain that at thisstage the complainant is exposed to great risks. They would like to inquire on the feasibility of
combining all steps in one to mitigate the risk of exposure.
Sstakeholders also suggested the possibility of protecting the identity of the complainant by expediting
the investigation process, because it would reduce the risks of the complainant's exposure to pressures,
threats, loss of livelihood and bringing attention to areas of weaknesses. Should this happen, they fearthat the complainant might decide to withdraw from the process, revoke the complaint, or hide forsecurity reasons. In their opinion, the real protection is in justice being acted upon swiftly.
Stakeholders also recommended that there be zero-tolerance policy for a party that poses a threat tothe complainant. They added that the advantages of automatic transfer to compliance (when the disputesettlement process fails) provides the opportunity for the investigative process to continue without any
reprisals for the weaker party.
The Working Group confirmed that there are institutional position statements regarding threats andreprisals and links to the respective statements was shared in the chat with the group.
IFC Link: https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/ade6a8c3-12a7-43c7-b34ef73e5ad6a5c8/EN_IFC_Reprisals_Statement_201810.pdf?MOD=AJPERESMIGA Link: https://www.miga.org/miga-position-statement-retaliation-against-civil-society-andproject-stakeholders
Compliance (43 percent)
Stakeholders were interested in understanding the following issues as they related to the compliance
process. For example:• What happens if the complainant disagrees about their complaint going to compliance andmade it clear that there were many other complaints/issues that have not been negotiated yet?

3The Working Group noted that a CAO dispute resolution process is voluntary and requires
participation of the project operator and the complainants.
•What mechanisms are in place to ensure that the company complies with the environmental
and social impact issues that have been stated in the complaint?
In response, the Working Group noted that their regular supervision structure is designed to ensurecompliance with the E&S requirements. The Working Group outlined the CAO compliance
process leading to a management action plan and subsequent monitoring.
Stakeholders also indicated that they wanted to:• Ensure that all issues are recognized by CAO (especially when violations by the company
persist and there is hesitation by those affected to submit a compliant).
• Understand whether these violations will be referred to CAO and how they will be dealtwith.
• Understand the rationale behind the automatic transfer of the cases to compliance.
• Highlight the negative impact of the delayed completion of the compliance process(timeframe) on the complainant.
• Express concerns over the types of external pressures that the complainants may be subject
to which ultimately weakens the complainant’s position and resulted in the process ending
prematurely and unfairly.
• Bring attention to the impact of delays on the effectiveness of CAO complaint handlingprocesses.
The Working Group acknowledged that impacts of delays in the CAO process and noted thatthe new policy includes clearer time frames for case handling.
Outreach (29 percent)
Stakeholders complained that reports are only accessible in English and not in the native language ofthe complainant, i.e., Arabic. They believe such actions affect the rights of the complainants andimpedes their access to information. They recommended that all reports be translated into Arabic toallow direct access to data, encourage transparency, and promote dialogue.
The Working Group indicated commitment that all reports are translated into the language of thecomplainants.
Purpose, Mandate and Functions, and core Principles (29 percent)
Stakeholders inquired about the independence of CAO and inquired about the types of guarantees thatcurrently exist to ensure its independence. They also would like to know about the period allocated for
the Board review of the policies and whether they will have a chance to review the draft before it isapproved.
The Working Group indicated that the process for consultation as planned will collect feedback andreflect any needed changes to the Policy that will be submitted to the Board for target approval date ofJune 30, 2021, and then the final policy will be posted with no further consultations. The Working
Group reiterated the other channels to send inputs till May 19 on the draft policy and the links to thewebsite and email were shared in the chat.
Additional Comments:
Stakeholders inquired about the period allocated for complainants to reach out to the IFC, and the roleof CAO in overseeing the process. They believe that the response to this question will allow them to4

assess the seriousness of institution in considering their grievances and issues. Stakeholders also
requested that all complaints, regardless of them meeting eligibility criteria by CAO, be made publicby CAO.
III.

NEXT STEPSThe Working Group closed the meeting reflecting on the issues raised and thanking Stakeholders fortheir contributions. In terms of next steps, the Working Group will incorporate 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 disclosing a summary reportfrom each regional and global consultation meeting, the Working Group will release a consolidated
consultation report that summarizes feedback received during the public consultation period andindicates how feedback was addressed in the final CAO policy.

5ANNEX I: AGENDA
Agenda for Public Consultation Meetings on Draft IFC/MIGA
Independent Accountability Mechanism (CAO) Policy
Cairo, April 28, 2021 – 8:00 AM (EST time)
TIME
30 MINUTES

TOPIC• Welcome, background and purpose of the meeting• Overview of cycle to complete new Policy and key changes to
CAO's Operations brought about by the new Draft Policy.

15 MINUTES• General Comments

60 MINUTES• Comments and Questions from Stakeholders on Draft CAO Policy

10 MINUTES• Update on IFC/MIGA efforts on non-policy actions and enabling
remedial solutions.

5 MINUTES• Closing remarks and Next Steps

6