Public Consultation on Draft IFC/MIGA
Independent Accountability Mechanism (CAO) Policy
LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN REGION
BOGOTA1 CONSULTATION

Virtual Stakeholder Meeting April 26, 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 Latin American and Caribbean Spanishspeaking countries on April 26, 2021 at 9:00 Bogotá time. The session was designed to obtain feedback
from community members, civil society, private sector, and representatives of international financeinstitutions (IFIs) including their respective independent accountability mechanisms (IAMs). Twentyseven participants attended the meeting.
The session was conducted in Spanish by a team of professional facilitators, with support from notetakers and Spanish-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 2. Participants were asked to provide
their input and questions on the topics they wished to focus on. This report covers the comments andquestions from participants and summarizes answers from members of the Working Group. The
agenda for the session is attached as Annex I.

II.

STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK AND QUESTIONS1 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

Using 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) 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:• Purpose, Mandate, Functions and Core Principles (including Remedy) (67%);• Eligibility of Complaints (67%);• Access to Information and Disclosure (53%);• Dispute Resolution (47%).
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. While the focus was on the selected topics,
related issues were also raised in the subsequent questions and inputs from stakeholders.
Purpose, Mandate, Functions and Core Principles
CAO Accessibility. Stakeholders commented on the importance of CAO being accessible to anyone
who can be impacted by an IFC/MIGA project and noted that accessibility is directly linked to anoutreach challenge: how to let communities know that a project is supported by IFC/MIGA and that
CAO is available to receive complaints. Specific recommendations were offered to strengthen CAO’s
connection with project-affected communities, such as mandating clients and contractors to placebanners at the project site, detailing CAO’s contact information (phone number, email, WhatsApp
number, webpage), using spots in local radio stations, or having regional “ambassadors” who could
visit communities on a yearly basis to let them know about CAO’s existence and contact information.
Stakeholders emphasized that accessibility has become even more challenging for communities intimes of the COVID-19 pandemic and asked CAO to instrument the necessary changes to address it.
The Working Group agreed on the importance of the issue and welcomed these suggestions.
Remedy. Stakeholders raised the issue of potential environmental harm, social conflict, and threats
and reprisals that persist and even intensify after IFC/MIGA have exited the project. They asked about
IFC/MIGA’s responsibility in these situations and how remedy can be brought to those who may beaffected by those negative impacts. The Working Group shared that the draft policy would allow, undercertain circumstances, for CAO to accept complaints up to fifteen months after IFC/MIGA’s exit froma project. It also includes a specific section on threats and reprisals based on CAO’s current approachon this issue. At the same time, IFC and MIGA are developing their own remedy framework, which
will also undergo its own consultation process. IFC and MIGA are also working internally on what
responsible exit from projects should look like in environmental and social terms, consideringinternational best practices.
Implementation. A question was also asked regarding how to ensure full implementation of the newPolicy. The Working Group shared that even though the new Policy will bring some important changes
in current CAO operations, it is built on twenty years of experience of effective compliance and dispute
resolution process. Proper budget allocation, competent and committed staff members, and a skilled
network of external consultants have been essential to CAO’s effectiveness.
Eligibility of Complaints

2

Projects not yet approved by the Boards. A comment was shared regarding projects not being
eligible prior to Board approval, as the stakeholder felt that pre-approval would be the appropriate timeto introduce changes in a project that may cause environmental or social harm. Without the possibilityof filing a complaint at an early stage, stakeholders wondered if communities would then be left
without a channel to propose changes to a project. The Working Group explained that early resolutionof complaints before project approval should be pursued with IFC/MIGA who have recently
established an internal unit especially devoted to strengthening IFC/MIGA teams’ capacity to respondto complaints or grievances.
Ongoing judicial processes. In response to a question, the Working Group confirmed that, consistentwith current CAO practice, complaints regarding issues where there are ongoing judicial processes
will continue to be eligible under the new policy. The CAO will consider relevant information about
judicial processes on the issues of the complaint.
Dispute Resolution
IFC/MIGA exit. Stakeholders asked about what happens with the CAO process if IFC/MIGA exit theproject. The Working Group informed them that once a complaint has been declared eligible, CAO’s
work can continue. If the complaint is being addressed by the Dispute Resolution function, the parties
can decide to voluntarily continue with the process. If the complaint is being handled by theCompliance function, it may be complicated to ensure implementation of remedial actions, asIFC/MIGA’s relationship with the client no longer exists.
Access to Information and Disclosure
High-risk sub-projects. A request was made to further spell out the draft policy with regard to accessto detailed information on high-risk sub-projects, as it is sometimes difficult to establish the link
between a sub-project and IFC/MIGA. The Working Group informed participants that the draft policy
does not regulate IFC’s/MIGA’s transparency. IFC (and MIGA) has its own Access to Information
Policy with provisions regarding what should be disseminated on projects of different categories anda commitment to strengthening information regarding sub-projects supported by financialintermediaries.
Environmental and social information. A recommendation was made that the current general rulein favor of disclosure of environmental and social information of a project should be maintained.
Concern was expressed regarding CAO’s limitations to access and disclose client information , which
would be helpful for communities.
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.

3

ANNEX I: AGENDA
Agenda for Public Consultation Meetings on Draft IFC/MIGA
Independent Accountability Mechanism (CAO) Policy
Bogotá, April 26, 2021 – 9:00 AMTIMETOPIC

30 MINUTES• Welcome, background and purpose of the meeting• 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 andenabling remedial solutions.

10 MINUTES

Process Questions from Participants

75 MINUTES

Comments and Questions from Participants on Draft CAO
Policy5 MINUTES

Closing remarks and Next Steps

4