abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

这页面没有简体中文版本,现以English显示

文章

2023年4月20日

作者:
Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR)

Submission by Danish Institute for Human Rights to consultation on IFC/MIGA remedial action approach

'Response to Draft IFC/MIGA Approach to Remedial Action and IFC Responsible Exit Principles'

The Institute appreciates IFC/MIGA’s past leadership in the sustainability space and their ambition to maintain that leadership. We recognise and congratulate IFC/MIGA for developing a draft Approach to Remedial Action (the draft Approach) in response to the “External Review of IFC/ MIGA Environmental Social (E&S) Accountability, including CAO’s Role and Effectiveness” (the External Review). While the draft Approach offers a useful state of play, we expected that IFC’s ambition to maintain its leadership would translate into a more robust approach to remedial action, including more specific actions to respond to adverse impacts, a broader approach covering more situations and a more forward-looking proposal to advance IFC’s mandate to improves the lives of people, especially the poor and vulnerable.

There are several useful points in the draft Approach, starting with the important recognition that remedial action is a core part of IFC’s mission and mandate. We also welcome the recognition that remedial actions can be strengthened throughout the project cycle – before, during and after concerns have been raised, with an emphasis on early action.

However, neither the draft Approach on Remedial Action nor the draft Principles on Responsible Exit are sufficient to address the evidence of the increasingly recognised “remedy gap” between commitments to “do no harm” and what happens on the ground. The draft Approach does not recognise nor provide any analysis of the gap in policy or practice around unresolved harms in IFC-finance projects as a starting basis.

The 30-year anniversary of the World Bank Inspection Panel and more than 20 years of the CAO are a testament to the World Bank Group’s recognition that accountability to those affected by its projects is important. This recognition should be the starting point for a discussion on remedy – in other words, it is not something new but rather deeply rooted in the institutions. This earlier leadership role on accountability in prompting other DFIs to establish independent accountability mechanisms is playing out again: other DFIs are waiting to see where IFC goes with this initiative. Given IFC’s past leadership, its enhanced leverage, resources, reputational advantages, and convening power, its failure to play a leading role at this critical moment has implications not only IFC but for the wider DFI community as its current approach is likely to discourage necessary and more appropriate responses to the remedy gap by others.

The draft Approach on Remedial Action is also missing important framing within broader trends. It could be usefully contextualized in the trends of sustainable finance and ESG (environmental-social-governance) that are prompting other DFIs and a far wider range of private sector financial institutions around the world to address environmental, social and human rights impacts more seriously. The draft Approach to Remedial Action also, surprisingly, misses the opportunity to make a clear link to its development mandate: It makes no mention of the positive development outcomes of remediating harms. There can be no “offsetting” of human rights, as there is with carbon credits or biodiversity offsets. Reducing and redressing adverse impacts of projects – whether on the environment or human rights – is the baseline on which positive impacts can be built.

Finally, when thinking about the draft Approach overall, it is useful to frame the roles of the different actors: IFC and its clients are voluntary risk takers; communities and workers are involuntary risk bearers. This should guide thinking about which are the most appropriate parties to be actively involved in enabling remedy if and when things go wrong. The costs and impacts of development should not fall on the shoulders of those least able to bear them.

[...]

时间线

隐私资讯

本网站使用 cookie 和其他网络存储技术。您可以在下方设置您的隐私选项。您所作的更改将立即生效。

有关我们使用网络存储的更多信息,请参阅我们的 数据使用和 Cookie 政策

Strictly necessary storage

ON
OFF

Necessary storage enables core site functionality. This site cannot function without it, so it can only be disabled by changing settings in your browser.

分析 cookie

ON
OFF

您浏览本网页时我们将以Google Analytics收集信息。接受此cookie将有助我们理解您的浏览资讯,并协助我们改善呈现资讯的方法。所有分析资讯都以匿名方式收集,我们并不能用相关资讯得到您的个人信息。谷歌在所有主要浏览器中都提供退出Google Analytics的添加应用程式。

市场营销cookies

ON
OFF

我们从第三方网站获得企业责任资讯,当中包括社交媒体和搜寻引擎。这些cookie协助我们理解相关浏览数据。

您在此网站上的隐私选项

本网站使用cookie和其他网络存储技术来增强您在必要核心功能之外的体验。