Compilation of IFC/MIGA Consultation Summary Reports

This document is a compilation of quotations from consultation summary reports regarding the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) proposed Approach to Remedial Action and Responsible Exit Principles. Prepared by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and other civil society organizations, the document highlights a consensus among four key stakeholder groups—Development Finance Institutions (DFIs), IFC clients, Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs), and civil society—that the proposed Approach is insufficient, lacks new commitments, and fails to meet expectations for providing remedy to project-affected people.

• Stakeholders across all four key groups (DFIs, IFC clients, IAMs, and civil society) agree that the proposed Approach to Remedial Action fails to meet the expectations set by the External Review and lacks new commitments, with much of the content already required by the IFC’s Sustainability Framework.
• The proposed Approach is criticized for being vague and unclear, particularly regarding the roles and responsibilities for financing and implementing remedy, the definition of "remedy," and the process for managing cases already lodged with the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO).
• Stakeholders argue that IFC/MIGA should take a more active and direct role in remediating harm rather than acting merely as a facilitator, asserting that the institutions bear responsibility when non-compliance with Performance Standards contributes to harm.
• There is a strong recommendation for the establishment of a dedicated fund for remedial action, with stakeholders noting that the fear of litigation should not prevent the creation of such a mechanism.
• Stakeholders emphasize that the failure to address "legacy" harms—specifically 37 cases in the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO)—creates significant reputational and litigation risks for IFC/MIGA.
• The Responsible Exit Principles are viewed as too vague and lacking detail, with calls for clearer guidance on "passive exit," the risk of reprisals against communities post-exit, and the management of exits during ongoing dispute resolution processes.
• Stakeholders call for a human rights-based approach to remedial action, specifically citing the need to align with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OHCHR study on Remedy in Development Finance.
• There is a demand for improved stakeholder engagement and information disclosure, ensuring that project-affected communities have a direct role in the planning and decision-making of remedial actions.

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} }