Key Points on Remedy and Responsible Exit

The document critiques the February 2023 draft proposals from the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) regarding remedial action and responsible exit. It argues that these drafts do not meet international human rights law standards, as they lack an actionable plan for remedy and fail to apply to existing projects. The briefing highlights that remedy can take various forms beyond financial compensation, such as public apologies and guarantees of non-repetition, and suggests that providing remedy actually reduces legal exposure for the institutions. It calls on the IFC/MIGA Board of Directors to require second drafts that implement the 2020 External Review recommendations and commit to financial contributions when financing has contributed to harm.

• The draft Approach to Remedial Action and Responsible Exit Principles released in February 2023 are considered insufficient because they do not provide a viable path to guarantee remedy for harmed communities and fail to meet international human rights law standards, which require those who contribute to harm to contribute to the remedy.
• The draft Approach is criticized for several specific deficiencies: it relies on existing Sustainability Framework requirements with vague enhancements, applies only to new projects, lacks proof for claimed impediments to remedy, and fails to establish funding mechanisms such as contingent liability funds from clients or funds contributed to by IFC and MIGA.
• Remedy is not limited to financial compensation; it can include restitution, rehabilitation, public apologies, and guarantees of non-repetition. The document cites the Alto Maipo hydroelectric project in Chile as an example where communities sought apologies and recognition of mistakes, and a Titan Cement plant in Egypt where the IFC's exit left residents without compensation for lung disease and property damage.
• The briefing argues that a rights-based commitment to remedy reduces legal liability rather than increasing it, suggesting that the litigation in Jam v. IFC (2019) occurred only because the IFC failed to respond to recommendations regarding the Tata Mundra power plant project.

APA

Center for International Environmental Law (n.d.). Key Points on Remedy and Responsible Exit. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Key-Points-on-Remedy-and-Responsible-Exit.pdf

Chicago

Center for International Environmental Law. Key Points on Remedy and Responsible Exit. n.d. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Key-Points-on-Remedy-and-Responsible-Exit.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=Key Points on Remedy and Responsible Exit |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Key-Points-on-Remedy-and-Responsible-Exit.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centerforinternationalenvironmentallawndkey, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{Key Points on Remedy and Responsible Exit}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Key-Points-on-Remedy-and-Responsible-Exit.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }