Compilation of IFC/MIGA Consultation Summary Reports

The document presents a compilation of quotes from various stakeholder groups—including Development Finance Institutions (DFIs), IFC clients, Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs), and civil society—who collectively argue that the IFC/MIGA's proposed Approach to Remedial Action and Responsible Exit Principles fails to provide new commitments or sufficient clarity. Stakeholders emphasize that the IFC/MIGA should take a more active role in remediating harm, align with international human rights standards, and establish a dedicated remedy fund. There is a strong consensus that the current approach ignores 'legacy' cases and fails to adequately address the risks to project-affected people and the environment, particularly during the process of 'responsible exit'.

• Stakeholders across all four key groups—DFIs, IFC clients, IAMs, and civil society—consistently viewed the proposed Approach to Remedial Action as failing to meet expectations and offering virtually no new commitments beyond existing requirements in the IFC's Sustainability Framework.
• The proposed framework is criticized for being vague and lacking clarity regarding the implementation of remedy, specifically concerning the definition of 'remedy', the assignment of roles and responsibilities for financing, and the process for managing cases already lodged with the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO).
• Stakeholders argue that IFC/MIGA should move beyond an advisory or facilitating role and take direct responsibility for remediating harm, especially when the institution's own non-compliance with Performance Standards or lack of supervision contributed to the harm.
• There is a strong demand for the establishment of a dedicated remedy fund or contingency fund to ensure funds are available for remedial actions, as stakeholders believe relying on case-by-case fundraising is insufficient.
• The document highlights a critical need for the Approach to address 'legacy' cases (specifically 37 cases) and the risks to project-affected people and the environment, noting that ignoring these creates significant reputational risk for IFC/MIGA.
• The 'Responsible Exit Principles' are viewed as too vague, with stakeholders calling for clearer definitions of 'responsible exit', better guidance on E&S staffing during exit, and protections against reprisals for communities post-exit.

APA

Center for International Environmental Law (2023). Compilation of IFC/MIGA Consultation Summary Reports. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Compilation-of-IFC_MIGA-Consultation-Summary-Reports-for-CODE-Aug-2023.pdf

Chicago

Center for International Environmental Law. Compilation of IFC/MIGA Consultation Summary Reports. 2023. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Compilation-of-IFC_MIGA-Consultation-Summary-Reports-for-CODE-Aug-2023.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=Compilation of IFC/MIGA Consultation Summary Reports |date=16 August 2023 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Compilation-of-IFC_MIGA-Consultation-Summary-Reports-for-CODE-Aug-2023.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centerforinternationalenvironmentallaw2023compilation, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{Compilation of IFC/MIGA Consultation Summary Reports}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2023}, month = aug, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Compilation-of-IFC_MIGA-Consultation-Summary-Reports-for-CODE-Aug-2023.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }