Comment on IFC and MIGA’s proposed Approach to Remedial Action

A coalition of civil society organizations (CSOs) has condemned the proposed Approach to Remedial Action by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). The CSOs argue that the proposal fails to implement recommendations from a 2020 External Review, ignores existing harms by applying only to new projects, and lacks concrete mechanisms to guarantee financial remedy for affected communities.

• The IFC and MIGA's proposed Approach to Remedial Action is condemned by civil society organizations for failing to provide a viable path to guaranteeing remedy for project-affected communities and ignoring the 2020 External Review's recommendations.
• The proposed approach fails to implement four specific recommendations from the 2020 External Review: it rejects systematic contingent liability funds from clients, refuses to establish funds for IFC/MIGA direct contributions to remedy, fails to adopt critical language from the Dutch Banking Sector Agreement, and ignores requirements for contingent liability funding for high-risk investments.
• The proposed remedial framework is criticized for being exclusively forward-looking, as it only applies to new IFC direct investment projects and new MIGA PRI and FI transactions, thereby excluding communities currently experiencing harm.
• The CSOs argue that IFC and MIGA's claims that direct financial contributions to remedy would increase litigation risk and costs are unsupported by evidence and are contradicted by the case of Jam v. IFC, where litigation occurred because the IFC failed to provide remedy.
• The document asserts that international human rights principles, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, require investors to contribute to remedy when they contribute to harm, a standard already adopted by other institutions like the Belgium Investment Company for Developing Countries (BIO) and ANZ.
• The CSOs recommend that IFC and MIGA establish a 'Standing Fund / Reserve Fund' and an 'Environmental and Social Legacy Fund' to ensure that resources are available to remedy both current and past harms.
• The report identifies specific projects where remedy remains outstanding or was inadequate, including the Tata Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project in India, the Alto Maipo Hydroelectric Project in Chile, and the Oyu Tolgoi Project in Mongolia.

APA

Center for International Environmental Law (2023). Comment on IFC and MIGA’s proposed Approach to Remedial Action. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/CSO-Comment-on-IFC-and-MIGAs-proposed-Approach-to-Remedial-Action-April-2023.pdf

Chicago

Center for International Environmental Law. Comment on IFC and MIGA’s proposed Approach to Remedial Action. 2023. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/CSO-Comment-on-IFC-and-MIGAs-proposed-Approach-to-Remedial-Action-April-2023.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=Comment on IFC and MIGA’s proposed Approach to Remedial Action |date=20 April 2023 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/CSO-Comment-on-IFC-and-MIGAs-proposed-Approach-to-Remedial-Action-April-2023.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centerforinternationalenvironmentallaw2023comment, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{Comment on IFC and MIGA’s proposed Approach to Remedial Action}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2023}, month = apr, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/CSO-Comment-on-IFC-and-MIGAs-proposed-Approach-to-Remedial-Action-April-2023.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }