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

Two dead as Siaya protests against gold mining firm turn tragic

Published

1 week ago

on

April 7, 2026

By

Ikolomani residents protesting against eviction plan to pave space for British mining company Shanta Gold on November 12, 2025. Two people died in similar protests in Gem, Siaya County.  Isaac Wale | Nation Media Group

Two people were shot dead on Monday in Gem–Ramula, Siaya County, after villagers staged a protest over an alleged eviction they linked to Shanta Gold Kenya Limited.

Area police boss Charles Wafula confirmed the incident, stating that the victims were among a group alleged to have attacked a police post after the officers moved in to disperse the demonstrators.

According to Mr Wafula, the demonstrators, angered by what they described as an illegal resettlement by the company, stormed the station during the protest, prompting officers to intervene.

“The individuals had organised a demonstration but they did not notify the police. Our officers moved in to contain the situation, but the group began attacking both officers and Ramula Police Post, damaging several items, including vehicles,” Mr Wafula said.

However, a local rights organisation has sharply contested the police account, portraying the killings as unlawful and unprovoked.

In a statement, the Community Initiative Action Group Kenya said the two victims identified as Henry Otieno and Jack Omenda were part of a peaceful protest against what they termed a forced eviction from their ancestral land.

“The community had gathered peacefully to demonstrate against Shanta Gold Limited’s attempt to relocate them without their consent,” said the lobby’s Executive Director Chris Owalla.

The group further alleged that police officers opened fire without warning following a confrontation with residents at Ramula Market.

“Witnesses state there was an exchange between the community and police after which officers opened fire, killing Henry and Jack on the spot,” Mr Owalla said.

The rights group also accused senior police officers including Mr Wafula and Charles Emodo of Directorate of Criminal Investigation, of disregarding a court order that had halted evictions and mining operations in the area.

According to Mr Owalla, the Environment and Land Court in Siaya had, on February 5, 2026, issued conservatory orders barring any involuntary resettlement of residents in Ramula and its environs, pending the hearing of a petition.

The organisation is now calling for investigations by the Independent Policing Oversight Authority and the the Director of Public Prosecutions, alongside an independent autopsy on the victims.

Fear of evictions

The unrest is rooted in long-standing tensions over planned gold mining operations by Shanta Gold in the region. The company is seeking to establish a large-scale extraction project – one that residents fear could uproot communities and erode livelihoods carefully built over generations.

Similar scenes of unrest were reported in November 2025 in Ikolomani, where locals protested against possible relocations linked to the same company.

Shanta Gold has previously signalled its intention to invest in a multi-billion-shilling project in western Kenya, targeting high-grade gold deposits expected to yield significant output over several years.

Source: nation.africa

Related posts:

State Power: Army Used Expired Mining license to Forcefully Evict 120,000 Families Off Gold-Rich Land Amidst Failed US Sanctions, the Indigenous Pay the Price for Nicaragua’s Gold Rush DR Congo oil palm company bankrolled by development banks unleashes wave of violence against villagers after peaceful protests Artisanal gold miners defy government on mercury use Njuba’s Gold Mine victims: A violent Eviction that Opened Wounds That May Never Heal Forever
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Tanzania: Commissions call for mass eviction of Indigenous Maasai from world-famous tourist destinations.

Published

4 weeks ago

on

March 19, 2026

By

Two presidential commissions have recommended the mass eviction of Maasai people from some of East Africa’s most iconic conservation areas and tourist destinations.

The commissions were established by Tanzania’s President Samia Suluhu Hassan following previous evictions of Maasai pastoralists from parts of the world-famous Serengeti ecosystem, and large-scale protests in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in 2024.

Now, despite a global outcry at the earlier evictions, the two Commissions have:

  • Backed the previous evictions and called for them to continue, including in the UNESCO World Heritage Sites of Ngorongoro and neighboring Lake Natron.
  • Described the long-standing Maasai presence in the area as an “environmental pressure” that needs to be reduced.
  • Threatened local NGOs that support the Maasai, accusing them of “spreading misinformation or propaganda” because they “conflict with government interests.”
  • Called for the “relocation” of all “non-conservation activities” [in other words, Maasai occupancy of the land] outside the conservation areas.
  • Called for existing recognition of the Maasai people’s right to live in the Ngorongoro area to be removed.

An anonymous Maasai spokesperson said today: “We are blamed for environmental degradation while the unchecked expansion of tourism is ignored. Forced relocation, disguised as policy, has deprived our people of basic rights and dignity. We reject any continuation of these measures and condemn the Commission’s failure to reflect the voices, realities, and rights of our people.”

Still from a video showing the Maasai protesting the violent evictions from their ancestral lands, 2022.

The authorities maintain that these are “voluntary relocations.” However, the Maasai have overwhelmingly rejected being moved.

The Ngorongoro Conservation Area is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. When it was established, the ancestral right of the Maasai to live there with their cattle was explicitly acknowledged. But UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee has backed the so-called “voluntary relocations”, and UNESCO endorses the “fortress conservation” model that underpins Tanzania’s approach.

Survival International Director Caroline Pearce said today, “These commissions were a sham, a gimmick designed to give Tanzania’s violent persecution of the Maasai a veneer of respectability. It was widely predicted that they’d back further evictions: the whole saga just confirms that colonial-style fortress conservation is alive and well in Tanzania today, and enthusiastically endorsed by UNESCO.

“These recommendations give the green light to more evictions, in Ngorongoro and beyond. And while the Maasai are robbed of their lands and livelihood, the government, tour operators and so-called conservationists will enrich themselves from a landscape emptied of its original owners.”

Source: survivalinternational.org

Related posts:

Sham Presidential Commissions Rubber Stamp Tanzanian Government’s Efforts to Evict Indigenous Maasai from Ngorongoro Conservation Area The Oakland Institute Calls on the Tanzanian Presidential Land Commissions to Respect & Ensure Rights of Maasai Living in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Call to Sever Ties with Tanzanian Government Over Latest Human Rights Abuses Against the Maasai Worldwide Condemnation Over Violence against the Maasai by Tanzania Security Forces US Luxury Safari Operator Tightens Stranglehold Over Maasai Land in Tanzania
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Sham Presidential Commissions Rubber Stamp Tanzanian Government’s Efforts to Evict Indigenous Maasai from Ngorongoro Conservation Area

Published

4 weeks ago

on

March 18, 2026

By

  • March 12, 2026, Presidential commissions’ reports recommend dismantling longstanding Maasai rights in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) – rubber-stamping the Tanzanian government’s plans for widespread evictions to expand tourism.
  • President Hassan pursues a so-called “voluntary” relocation program, despite extensive evidence that communities are being forced to leave through the withdrawal of essential services and livelihood restrictions.
  • The government announced a crackdown on civil society groups critical of its plans, raising concerns of further repression of land defenders and NGOs speaking out against forced displacement.
  • Maasai communities remain steadfast in the defense of their land, livelihoods, and way of life, vowing to continue resistance against attempts to force them from their ancestral territories.

Oakland, CA – In reports submitted on March 12, 2026 to Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu Hassan, commissions tasked to assess land disputes in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) and review resettlement plans, dismissed rights of the Indigenous Maasai to their ancestral lands. They instead advance recommendations that further marginalize their rights in order to expand safari tourism.

“The commissions’ recommendations are based on outright lies about the environmental impacts of the Maasai, while completely ignoring the real damage caused by rapid tourism expansion,” said a Maasai elder. 1 “If these extremely biased and reckless recommendations are implemented, it will be the end of our people in Ngorongoro.”

Immediately after the reports were submitted, park rangers started harassment of residents in the grazing areas of Ndutu with the intent to force them to leave for tourism expansion. Three community members were reportedly beaten and arrested while others received notices to vacate.

Recommendations are a crafty attempt at changing 1959 legislation that created the NCA as a multiple land use area – explicitly enshrining the right of the Maasai to live and graze cattle in the area. The Maasai were promised that “should there be any conflict between the interests of the game [animals] and the human inhabitants, those of the latter must take precedence.”

The President has accepted the recommendations and stated she “will act on them” – a decision that will have a catastrophic impact on Maasai communities. The government has signaled its intention to drastically reduce Maasai presence in the NCA and relocate what it calls “non-conservation activities” outside the area. Towards this goal, the President has indicated an expansion of the “voluntary” relocation program.

For years, the Oakland Institute has shattered government myths about “voluntary” resettlement –exposing serious flaws with relocation plans that are being forced upon communities. To pressure residents to leave, the government has stopped basic medical, education, and water services while restricting access to grazing land for pastoralists. Massive mobilizations by the Maasai against this forced resettlement expose the government’s lie that people are leaving willingly.

Beyond the NCA, the commissions also recommend further restrictions on livelihoods, threatening the future eviction of Maasai communities living near Lake Natron and Loliondo. “These sham findings are the latest attempt by the government to rapidly expand its brutal fortress conservation model across the country, threatening hundreds of thousands of Indigenous lives in blind pursuit of tourism dollars that have failed to trickle down to improve the lives of the poor Tanzanians and the local communities,” said Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute.

In another alarming development, the government is attempting to silence local NGOs by reviewing their registration status and monitoring their activities to force them to operate “in alignment with national conservation objectives.” The move reflects the regime’s ongoing persecution of civil society and broader crackdown on dissent, carried out through state violence and arbitrary detention. Major opposition parties remain outlawed in Tanzania, while government critics have routinely disappeared. Following the rigged October 2025 national elections, the government violently suppressed pro-democracy protests and state security forces killed thousands of civilians.

As previously warned by the Oakland Institute, both commissions lacked independence given they were dominated by government personnel and had very limited Maasai representation. The commissions’ reports – which have not been made public – were orally presented to the government nearly one year after they were due to provide findings.

“These commissions have no credibility. From the start, they were tasked with rubber stamping the government’s plans to evict the Indigenous Maasai so their land can be a safari and hunting playground for the rich foreign tourists. One cannot be fooled by their “findings” and international solidarity must be mobilized to uphold Maasai’s rights to their ancestral land,” warned Mittal.

Source: oaklandinstitute.org

Related posts:

The Oakland Institute Calls on the Tanzanian Presidential Land Commissions to Respect & Ensure Rights of Maasai Living in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Tanzanian Government’s Sustained Campaign Against the Maasai in Loliondo and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area URGENT ALERT: Tanzanian Government on a Rampage Against Indigenous People Tanzanian Government Continues Violent Repression of the Maasai in Loliondo Despite Worldwide Condemnation Call to Sever Ties with Tanzanian Government Over Latest Human Rights Abuses Against the Maasai
Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter