Connect with us

NGO WORK

Joint CSO Statement Calls on IFC and MIGA to Strengthen its New Approach to Remedial Action Policy

Published

3 years ago

on

Accountability Counsel joins an alliance of civil society organizations to assert that a newly released proposal on remedial action by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) falls short of expectations and fails to provide a comprehensive plan for delivering remedy to affected communities. If IFC and MIGA cannot guarantee remedy for project-related harm, they should not be funding development projects in the first place.

IFC and MIGA’s proposed Approach to Remedial Action was supposed to explain how the institutions would address the well-known human rights and environmental harms caused by some of their investments. Instead, IFC and MIGA’s response to the well-documented remedy gap is to publish a short paper that heralds its existing prevention and mitigation practices and does not admit that the institutions have a human rights obligation to remedy harms to which they have contributed. Thankfully, the document is only a proposal subject to public consultations, and we call upon IFC and MIGA to make significant changes.

IFC and MIGA have known for years that some of their investments cause environmental and social harm and that under international human rights standards, those who contribute to harm should contribute to providing remedy. An independent expert review, led by a former IFC president and requested by the World Bank’s board, confirmed this standard and recommended that the institutions contribute to and promote access to remedy for project-related harms. The review deemed IFC and MIGA’s current accountability system inadequate and remedial actions practically nonexistent. We are surprised, therefore, that the Approach to Remedial Action commits to very few new actions.

The proposed Approach includes some necessary elements, including a commitment from IFC and MIGA to facilitate and support clients’ remedial actions, explore and pilot arbitration, and exercise leverage over clients, including through contractual provisions and the use of various financing instruments. IFC and MIGA largely failed to respond to the board’s assignment, however, as they left out the following necessary components:

  1. Types of remedy: Despite “Remedial Action” in its title, the proposed Approach does not provide a plan for delivering any type of remedy. Further, the draft policy does not include any examples of remedy that IFC and MIGA have provided in the past or how IFC and MIGA will contribute to and promote specific types of remedy available in the future. Remedy can take many forms, including compensation, apology, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and commemoration, among others. The Approach must detail how IFC and MIGA are prepared to provide each type of remedy when the circumstances arise.
  2. Financial contribution by IFC and MIGA: Even though it is evident that remedy often costs money, “the Approach does not contemplate a systemic process for the financing of direct contribution to remedial action” (page v). This is a major gap. IFC and MIGA refer vaguely to directly financing remedy in “exceptional circumstances,” but don’t define them. IFC and MIGA don’t even commit to directly remedying the cases in which its accountability mechanism, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), found that projects did not comply with the IFC’s own Sustainability Policy and, as a result, contributed to harm. In line with the recommendations of the external review and per international standards, IFC and MIGA are obligated to financially contribute to remedy when their actions or inactions contribute to harm or when a client cannot provide financial contributions.
  3. Access to remedy after the end of a project: While the proposed Approach to Remedial Action references its draft Responsible Exit Principles, it does not describe specific actions IFC and MIGA will take to provide access to remedy after a project is complete. We expect IFC and MIGA to commit to not exiting a project subject to an ongoing CAO process without the consent of community complainants or until all remedial actions have been delivered to communities, commitments not included in the draft Responsible Exit Principles. This directly contradicts established norms and must be amended accordingly. Further, the proposed Responsible Exit Principles fail to adequately recognize the importance of including impacted communities as full stakeholders in the process. Delivering responsible exit depends on IFC and MIGA’s ability to provide holistic and inclusive remedy in line with communities’ expectations.
  4. Addressing the past: Even though IFC and MIGA’s failure to remedy harm in the past is the impetus for this proposed Approach, the institutions appear to only commit to implementing their remedial obligations going forward, with the document stating that IFC and MIGA would implement this approach to “new” projects. This fails the communities who are currently experiencing harm and need remedy.

The Approach to Remedial Action is risk-averse from an institutional perspective but expects a risk tolerance from rightsholders. Communities adversely affected by development projects have a right to remedy that is co-designed by them. Prioritizing the bottom line over the people these development institutions serve is unacceptable and a missed opportunity.

IFC and MIGA have an opportunity to demonstrate leadership among development finance institutions and the wider financial sector by bringing this proposal in line with prevailing international human rights norms. A failure to do so would mark a concerning precedent and setback for the realization of the right to remedy. We hope that IFC and MIGA provide sufficient opportunities for civil society and project-affected communities to provide feedback on the draft policy, and deliver a revised proposal that meets the moment.

—–

Endorsed by:

  • Accountability Counsel
  • Bank Information Center
  • Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
  • American University Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law
  • Sustentarse (Chile)
  • Association of ESPOD Morocco
  • Inclusive Development International
  • NGO Forum on ADB
  • Recourse
  • ATGL Tunisia
  • Social Justice Platform
  • Studies and Economic Media Center
  • Oxfam
  • Yemeni Observatory for Human Rights
  • Green Development Advocates (GDA)
  • Foundation for Environmental Management and Campaign against Poverty (FEMAPO)
  • Observatory of Food Sovereignty and Environment
  • Observatoire d’Etudes et d’Appuis a la responsabilité Sociale et Environnementale (OEARSE)
  • Centre for Citizens Conserving Environment & Management (CECIC)
  • Centre for Nature Conservation and Development (CNCD)
  • Synaparcam (Synergie Nationale des Paysans et Riverains du Cameroun)
  • Bretton Woods Project
  • TINDZILA
  • Espace de Solidarité et de Coopération de l’Oriental
  • Wedyan Association For Society Development
  • Association Talassemtane for Environment and Development (ATED)
  • Resonate! Yemen
  • Lumière Synergie pour le Développement (LSD)
  • IFI Synergy Group
  • Gender Action
  • urgewald
  • Community Assistance in Development (COMAID)
  • Crude Accountability
  • Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA)
  • Fundeps – Fundación para el Desarrollo de Políticas Sustentables
  • Action Research for Rural Development (RADER)
  • Global Labor Justice-International Labor Rights Forum (GLJ-ILRF)
  • International Trade Union Confederation
  • International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF)
  • Centre for Financial Accountability, (India)
  • Just Ground
  • Util
  • Abna Alnazihein Organization
  • Social Justice Platform
  • Yemeni Observatory for Human Rights

Source: Accountability Counsel

Related posts:

Unfazed: Action Aid Uganda is Committed to Strengthen Struggles For Social Justice Joint statement on the charges against Nicholas Opiyo. #StopEACOP campaign calls on Standard Bank to come clean about its funding of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline UN-Habitat policy statement on the prevention of evictions and relocations during the COVID-19 crisis Press Release – CICDHA: UN Human Rights Committee calls on China for mechanisms to investigate and punish harmful activities of its companies and banks abroad

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Climate wash: The World Bank’s Fresh Offensive on Land Rights

Published

5 days ago

on

November 13, 2025

By

Climate wash: The World Bank’s Fresh Offensive on Land Rights reveals how the Bank is appropriating climate commitments made at the Conference of the Parties (COP) to justify its multibillion-dollar initiative to “formalize” land tenure across the Global South. While the Bank claims that it is necessary “to access land for climate action,” Climatewash uncovers that its true aim is to open lands to agribusiness, mining of “transition minerals,” and false solutions like carbon credits – fueling dispossession and environmental destruction. Alongside plans to spend US$10 billion on land programs, the World Bank has also pledged to double its agribusiness investments to US$9 billion annually by 2030.

This report details how the Bank’s land programs and policy prescriptions to governments dismantle collective land tenure systems and promote individual titling and land markets as the norm, paving the way for private investment and corporate takeover. These reforms, often financed through loans taken by governments, force countries into debt while pushing a “structural transformation” that displaces smallholder farmers, undermines food sovereignty, and prioritizes industrial agriculture and extractive industries.

Drawing on a thorough analysis of World Bank programs from around the world, including case studies from Indonesia, Malawi, Madagascar, the Philippines, and Argentina, Climatewash documents how the Bank’s interventions are already displacing communities and entrenching land inequality. The report debunks the Bank’s climate action rhetoric. It details how the Bank’s efforts to consolidate land for industrial agriculture, mining, and carbon offsetting directly contradict the recommendations of the IPCC, which emphasizes the protection of lands from conversion and overexploitation and promotes practices such as agroecology as crucial climate solutions.

Read full report: Climatewash: The World Bank’s Fresh Offensive on Land Rights

Source: The Oakland Institute

Related posts:

Under Guise of Climate Action, the World Bank Launches Fresh Offensive on Land Rights 30 civil society organizations have written to the World Bank Group demanding to publicly disclose the Africa Energy Approach paper. World Bank’s new scheme to privatize land in the developing world exposed World Bank is backing dozens of new coal projects, despite climate pledges Communities Under Siege: New Report Reveals World Bank Failures in Safeguard Compliance and Human Rights Oversight in Tanzania
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Africa’s Land Is Not Empty: New Report Debunks the Myth of “Unused Land” and Calls for a Just Future for the Continent’s Farmland

Published

5 days ago

on

November 13, 2025

By

A new report challenges one of the most persistent and harmful myths shaping Africa’s development agenda — the idea that the continent holds vast expanses of “unused” or “underutilised” land waiting to be transformed into industrial farms or carbon markets.

Titled Land Availability and Land-Use Changes in Africa (2025), the study exposes how this colonial-era narrative continues to justify large-scale land acquisitions, displacements, and ecological destruction in the name of progress.

Drawing on extensive literature reviews, satellite data, and interviews with farmers in Zambia, Mozambique, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, the report systematically dismantles five false assumptions that underpin the “land abundance” narrative:

  1. That Africa has vast quantities of unused arable land available for cultivation

  2. That modern technology can solve Africa’s food crisis

  3. That smallholder farmers are unproductive and incapable of feeding the continent

  4. That markets and higher yields automatically improve food access and nutrition

  5. That industrial agriculture will generate millions of decent jobs

Each of these claims, the report finds, is deeply flawed. Much of the land labelled as “vacant” is, in reality, used for grazing, shifting cultivation, foraging, or sacred and ecological purposes. These multifunctional landscapes sustain millions of people and are far from empty.

The study also shows that Africa’s food systems are already dominated by small-scale farmers, who produce up to 80% of the continent’s food on 80% of its farmland. Rather than being inefficient, their agroecological practices are more resilient, locally adapted, and socially rooted than the industrial models promoted by external donors and corporations.

Meanwhile, the promise that industrial agriculture will lift millions out of poverty has not materialised. Mechanisation and land consolidation have displaced labour, while dependency on imported seeds and fertilisers has trapped farmers in cycles of debt and dependency.

A Continent Under Pressure

Beyond these myths, the report reveals a growing land squeeze as multiple global agendas compete for Africa’s territory: the expansion of mining for critical minerals, large-scale carbon-offset schemes, deforestation for timber and commodities, rapid urbanisation, and population growth.

Between 2010 and 2020, Africa lost more than 3.9 million hectares of forest annually — the highest deforestation rate in the world. Grasslands, vital carbon sinks and grazing ecosystems, are disappearing at similar speed.

Powerful actors — from African governments and Gulf states to Chinese investors, multinational agribusinesses, and climate-finance institutions — are driving this race for land through opaque deals that sideline local communities and ignore customary tenure rights.

A Call for a New Vision

The report calls for a radical shift away from high-tech, market-driven, land-intensive models toward people-centred, ecologically grounded alternatives. Its key policy recommendations include:

  • Promoting agroecology as a pathway for food sovereignty, ecological regeneration, and rural livelihoods.

  • Reducing pressure on land by improving agroecological productivity, cutting food waste, and prioritising equitable distribution.

  • Rejecting carbon market schemes that commodify land and displace communities.

  • Legally recognising customary land rights, particularly for women and Indigenous peoples.

  • Upholding the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) for all land-based investments.

This report makes it clear: Africa’s land is not “empty” — it is lived on, worked on, and cared for. The future of African land must not be dictated by global capital or outdated development theories, but shaped by the people who depend on it.

Download the Report

Read the full report Land Availability and Land-Use Changes in Africa (2025) to explore the evidence and policy recommendations in detail.

Source: Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA)

Related posts:

Africa Climate Summit 2023 Set to Surrender the Continent to Green Colonialism Financial Institutions from Africa have made a monumental commitment of $100 billion to Africa’s green industrialization, a decision of immense significance that has the potential to shape Africa’s future. Africa adopts the Africa Climate Innovation Compact (ACIC) Declaration to drive the continent towards innovative climate solutions. One in three people sleeps on an empty stomach – World Bank Report. Transforming Africa’s livestock sector is key to food security-Report
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Discover How Foreign Interests and Resource Extraction Continue to Drive Congo’s Crisis

Published

6 days ago

on

November 12, 2025

By

Whereas Donald Trump hailed the “peace” agreement between Rwanda and DRC as marking the end of a deadly three-decade war, a new report from the Oakland Institute, Shafted: The Scramble for Critical Minerals in the DRC, exposes it as the latest US maneuver to control Congolese critical minerals.

Under the Guise of Peace

After three decades of deadly wars and atrocities, the June 2025 “peace” deal between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) lays bare the United States’ role in entrenching the extraction of minerals under the guise of diplomacy. For decades, US backing of Rwanda and Uganda has fueled the violence, which has ripped millions of Congolese lives apart while enabling the looting of the country’s mineral wealth. Today, Washington presents itself as a broker of peace, yet its longstanding support for Rwanda made it possible for M23 to seize territory, capture key mining sites, and forced Kinshasa to the negotiation table with hands tied behind its back. By legitimizing Rwanda’s territorial advances, the US-brokered agreement effectively rewards aggression while sidelining accountability, justice for victims, and the sovereignty of the Congolese people.

The incorporation of “formalized” mineral supply chains from eastern DRC to Rwanda exposes the pact’s true aim: Securing access to and control over minerals under the guise of diplomacy and “regional integration.” Framed as peacemaking, this is part of United States’ broader geopolitical struggle with China for control over critical resources. Far from fostering peace – over a thousand civilians have been killed since the deal was signed while parallel negotiations with Rwanda’s rebel force have collapsed – this arrangement risks deepening Congo’s subjugation. Striking deals with the Trump administration and US firms, the DRC government is surrendering to a new era of exploitation while the raging war continues, driving the unbearable suffering of the Congolese people.

Introduction

The conflict in eastern DRC, which dates back three decades to the aftermath of the 1994 Rwandan genocide and subsequent Congo Wars, has claimed over six million lives, displaced millions more, and inflicted widespread suffering. Since late 2021, Rwanda and its proxy militia, M23, have stormed through mineral-rich lands and regional capitals, inflicting brutal violence and triggering mass displacement. While billions of dollars in natural resources are extracted from the area, Congolese communities toil in extreme poverty.

On June 27, 2025, a “peace” agreement was signed between Rwanda and the DRC under the auspices of the Trump administration, with diplomatic assistance from Qatar.1 The deal included pledges to respect the territorial integrity of both countries, to promote peaceful relations through the disarmament of armed groups, the return of refugees, and the creation of a joint security mechanism. A key clause commits the countries to launch a regional economic integration framework that would entail “mutually beneficial partnerships and investment opportunities,” specifically for the extraction of the DRC’s mineral wealth by US private interests.

Placing the deal in a historical perspective – after three decades of conflict and over seven decades of US chess game around Congolese minerals – this report examines its implications for the Congolese people as well as the interests involved in the plunder of the country’s resources.

The report begins by retracing 30 years of war, fueled by the looting of Congo’s mineral wealth and devastating for the people of eastern DRC. It then examines how US policy in Central Africa, from the Cold War to the present, has been shaped by its interest in Congolese minerals, sustained alliances with Rwanda and Uganda, and a consistent pattern of overlooking atrocities in support of these allies.

The report then analyses the implications of the regional economic integration aspect of the deal, which aims to link mineral supply chains in the DRC and Rwanda with US investors. The last sections examine the prospect for lasting peace and security resulting from the deal and the impact of growing involvement of US private actors in DRC and Rwanda.

Original Source: Oakland Institute

Related posts:

Failed US-Brokered “Peace” Deal Was Never About Peace in DRC Profit off Peace? Meet the Corporations Poised to Benefit from the DRC Peace Deal DR Congo: RIAO-RDC calls for the immediate release of four leaders from the community of Mwingi who were arrested after a peaceful protest against the oil palm plantation company PHC DR Congo oil palm company bankrolled by development banks unleashes wave of violence against villagers after peaceful protests Operations of civil society organizations will continue to be stifled until government understands their work – New Book.
Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter