We invite funders, researchers, advocates, and campaigners who will be in New York to join us for a hands-on demonstration of our methodology and open data tools that reveal the lenders, shareholders, buyers, and development finance institutions behind harmful investment projects.

For the past decade, Inclusive Development International has conducted hundreds of Follow the Money investigations of large-scale investment projects and developed innovative tools to support frontline human rights and environmental defenders to identify hidden pressure points to prevent or redress harms. 

The workshop will include our an overview of the Follow the Money theory of change and insights from our experience deploying this strategy to advance climate justice and corporate accountability from our Executive Director David Pred, Research Director Dustin Roasa, and Senior Legal & Policy Associate Coleen Scott. Attendees will learn how this methodology has helped disrupt capital flows to fossil fuels and other harmful investments, and how advocates around the world can use these tools to strengthen accountability, support frontline communities, and advance a just energy transition.

The workshop is open to the public and will be held at the London Room at Jay Conference Bryant Park on Wednesday, September 23rd at 1:00 p.m. EDT. Register: https://luma.com/0uf31i74

The post A Climate Week NYC Event appeared first on Inclusive Development International.

The lawsuit challenges the Ministry of Environment’s decision to approve a new environmental permit for the Chinese-owned mine after Indonesia’s Supreme Court ordered the government to revoke approval for the same project in 2024.

The permit for the mine was initially revoked due to concerns over the potential for the mine’s tailings dam to collapse, which could unleash more than 1 million tons of mud and toxic waste on surrounding communities. The threat of collapse has been verified by independent geotechnical experts due to its location in one of Indonesia’s most earthquake-prone regions. An expert report on the project’s risks concluded in 2020 that seismic activity, combined with the area’s heavy annual rainfall, would lead to the collapse of a tailings dam at the site “within a few decades” of the mine’s closure, sending “a wave of liquid mud downstream to the north.” Tailings dam collapses in other areas of the world—even without such high earthquake risk—have destroyed villages, killed hundreds of people, and poisoned the environment for generations. More than 11,000 people, most of them Indigenous, live in villages near or downstream from the proposed Dairi mine.

The Ministry of Environment re-approved the mine after Dairi Prima Mineral drew up new plans, which replaced the planned tailings dam with a plan to backfill 100% of the tailings the mine produces–something many experts say is impossible.

Prof. David Williams, Emeritus Professor of Geotechnical Engineering and Specialist Consultant in Tailings and Mine Waste Management and Mine Closure from The University of Queensland, Australia, stated that it’s likely DPM would only be able to backfill a maximum of 50% of the tailings, adding, “If DPM were allowed to start, a large tailings dam would be inevitable, and in Dairi, the consequences and likelihood of a collapse would be extreme.”

Inclusive Development International has been working with Dairi communities to stop the mine and hold Dairi Prima Mineral accountable since 2019, alongside our Indonesian partners. The case is not only critical for communities whose land and health are most immediately at risk, but it is also an important litmus test for whether the Indonesian government is committed to holding mining companies accountable for their environmental and human rights impacts, especially as Indonesia is positioning itself as a global climate leader.

Inclusive Development International’s senior legal and policy director Natalie Bugalski stated, “The Indonesian government’s re-approval of a mine that poses such grave risks for surrounding communities, including Indigenous People who oppose the mine, is deeply disheartening. As the race for minerals to be used in the energy transition intensifies, it is imperative that we do not trample on the rights of communities who have been living on resource-rich land to extract as much as possible, as quickly as possible, with no regard to the risks to human life and security involved.”

While there have been previous cases in Indonesia where mining companies have sought ways around court decisions, the Dairi case represents a significant escalation. For the first time, communities say a final and binding Supreme Court ruling has been followed by a new approval from the Ministry of Environment that does not address the underlying spatial planning issues at the heart of the Court’s decision. The dispute therefore goes beyond one mining project—it raises fundamental questions about the balance of power between Indonesia’s judiciary, which is responsible for upholding the law, and the government ministries responsible for implementing environmental policy. In addition to the future of the mine being at stake, the strength of legal protections and democratic accountability in Indonesia’s rapidly expanding mining sector is too. The lawsuit is a test of whether judicial decisions can effectively constrain government action and whether Indonesia’s environmental laws can be enforced when major mining interests are involved.

Despite the setback, communities are nowhere near giving up. Ms. Rainim Purba from Pandiangan Village, said “we will fight this. DPM again proposed a mine that will kill us. I and others, however, know what DPM is up to. We will fight this mine until we die.”

Inclusive Development International is proud to have long supported these communities who have been tenaciously defending their land and lives against what is truly an irresponsible project.

The post Indonesian communities sue government over re-approval of controversial zinc mine appeared first on Inclusive Development International.

In January 2025, the DFC’s Independent Accountability Mechanism (IAM) completed a Compliance Investigation that found that OPIC (DFC’s predecessor agency) was aware of the presence of child abuse risks at the schools and failed to take any action to address or mitigate the risks. The report also made recommendations focused on how the DFC should support survivors to rebuild their lives, which DFC completely ignored in its Management Response to the investigation, published in April 2026. 

We are concerned that DFC’s dismissal of these independent findings and recommendations represent an attempt to conceal its complicity in a child sexual abuse scandal. In the letter, we call on Committee Chairs Sen. James Risch and Rep. Brian Mast to urgently engage with the DFC Board and Management and ensure that DFC responds to all recommendations issued in the investigation report, including by exploring remedial actions that meet the needs of the survivors. 

Read the full letter: https://www.inclusivedevelopment.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/DFC-MAP-Congressional-Letter_FINAL.pdf 

The post Open letter to Congressional leaders demanding accountability for child sexual abuse at DFC-financed schools appeared first on Inclusive Development International.

The recent decision by the World Bank Group Board of Directors to invalidate the IFC Compliance Advisor Ombudsman’s (CAO) investigation of IFC’s microfinance investments in Cambodia is unprecedented. As a result of the Board’s actions, CAO Director General Janine Ferretti resigned. Not only does the Board’s decision undermine trust in the World Bank Group’s accountability system, it also undermines the work of all independent accountability mechanisms (IAMs). If institutions’ Boards can disrupt pre-established (and Board-approved) accountability processes on an ad-hoc basis, stakeholders can’t trust or rely upon the legitimacy or predictability of IAMs. And we have seen time and again that these scenarios can easily become a race to the bottom on accountability, as other institutions follow suit. As the network of IAMs, IAMnet must use its collective power to push back on this encroachment on accountability; otherwise, all of your work is at stake.

As civil society organizations who advocate for accountability in international finance and have interacted with IAMnet for many years, we call on IAMNet to:

• Immediately issue a public statement condemning the World Bank Group Board’s decision and discussing the broad implications for development accountability. We refer you to this public statement from 103 civil society organisations and experts on the harms of the decision; and
• Suspend CAO’s IAMNet membership until assurances can be made concerning its independence. Operational independence is a criterion for IAMnet membership. Through the actions of the World Bank Group Board, CAO is not currently operationally independent as evidenced by the directive from the Board that restricts CAO’s ability to process existing and future microfinance complaints according to the CAO policy.

Your action or inaction during this time will speak volumes and will indicate to us whether and how we should continue our engagement with the network. We welcome a conversation to discuss how to protect communities’ access to IAMs during this time.

Sincerely,

Accountability Counsel

African Law Foundation (AFRILAW)

Arab Watch Coalition

Bank Information Center

Buliisa Initiative for Rural Development Organisation (BIRUDO)

CEE Bankwatch Network

Green Advocates International

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives

Asia Pacific Jamaa Resource Initiatives

Inclusive Development International

Recourse

Society for WOmen Rights and Development (SWoRD) Pakistan

Sustentarse

Urgewald

CC: African Development Bank – Independent Recourse Mechanism Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank – Project Affected People’s Mechanism KfW Development Bank – KfW Central Complaints Office Black Sea Trade and Development (BSTD) – Complaints Mechanism Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) – Projects Complaints Mechanism, the Office of Integrity Compliance and Accountability European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) – Independent Project Accountability Mechanism (IPAM) European Investment Bank (EIB) – Complaints Mechanism (EIB-CM) FinDev Canada – Independent Accountability Mechanism French Development Agency (AFD) – Environmental and Social Complaints Mechanism German Development Bank (DEG), Netherlands Development Finance Company (FMO), & Proparco – Independent Complaint Mechanism Green Climate Fund (GCF)- Independent Redress Mechanism Inter-American Development Bank Group (IDB) – Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) International Finance Corporation/Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (IFC/MIGA) – Compliance Advisor Ombudsman Internationale Klimaschutzinitiative (IKI) – Office of the independent complaint mechanism (IKI ICM) Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) – Office of Examiner for Environmental Guidelines Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) – Examiner for the Guidelines Nippon Export and Investment Insurance (NEXI) – NEXI Objection Procedures on Environmental Guidelines Nordic Investment Bank (NIB) – Office of the Chief Compliance Officer U.S. International Development Financial Corporation (DFC) – Independent Accountability Mechanism United Nations Development Program (UNDP) – Social and Environmental Compliance Review and Stakeholder Response Mechanism World Bank – Inspection Panel and Dispute Resolution Service

The post Joint letter to IAMnet regarding the World Bank Board’s invalidation of CAO investigation into IFC microfinance investments appeared first on Inclusive Development International.

A CAO investigation found that IFC violated its own Sustainability Framework’s requirements in its investments in six banks providing microfinance in Cambodia, and this noncompliance contributed to predatory lending practices that have led to the loss of land and livelihoods, hunger, increased suicide risks, and threats of retaliation against the very communities that are supposed to benefit from microfinance programs.

The harms caused by the microfinance industry in Cambodia are well documented and were confirmed by CAO. However, in an unprecedented fashion, the World Bank Group Board rejected CAO’s noncompliance findings and recommendations to address the harm from its investments. In direct contradiction to the CAO investigation, and without any evidence, the Board published a statement on June 24th declaring that, ”there has been no policy noncompliance under IFC’s Policy on Environmental and Social Sustainability.” Although required by the Board-approved CAO policy, IFC refused to develop and submit to the Board a management action plan with time-bound commitments to address the noncompliance. Instead, it has promised piecemeal actions in a “Special Management Action Plan” that do not address most of CAO’s recommendations. Furthermore, according to unofficial reports, IFC has suggested that victims of predatory micro-finance lending or other consumers harmed by IFC-financed products will no longer have access to recourse through CAO. This is completely unacceptable.

It is not the role of the Board to determine whether or not IFC Management has acted in compliance with its Sustainability Framework. CAO was established to serve as an independent arbiter and hold the institution accountable to the policy commitments made by IFC’s shareholders. If the Board can reject CAO’s policy on a case-by-case basis, then it means that CAO is no longer a reliable and predictable mechanism and can no longer credibly shield IFC from legal liability.

This decision sets a dangerous precedent for accountability at the World Bank Group. It comes at a time when the Board has already shaken the public’s confidence in its accountability architecture by approving a hasty merger of the institution’s public and private sector accountability mechanisms. At this point, the only conclusion we can reach is that the Board prioritizes its investment portfolio over environmental and social protections.

We call upon the Board to:

1. Meet with us to explain how they reached this decision.
2. Publish the voting record of each member of the Board.
3. Require IFC to accept CAO’s findings and develop an effective Management Action Plan in consultation with the complainants.
4. Disclose how any other current and future cases to CAO alleging environmental and social harms stemming from its microfinance portfolio will be handled fairly and predictably.
5. Explain who will be leading CAO following Janine Ferretti’s departure and before the new mechanism is established, and how this leadership vacuum will not further undermine accountability on other CAO cases.
6. Commit to a transparent and inclusive leadership selection process, which includes civil society participation on the selection committee, to ensure the independence and integrity of the new World Bank Group accountability mechanism. Despite the Board’s assertion that a transparent recruitment process has been underway since June 9th, the job posting, terms of reference, and recruitment process have not been publicly disclosed.
7. Reaffirm its commitment to strong due diligence and supervision to ensure that the costs of economic development do not fall disproportionately on poor or vulnerable people.
8. Reaffirm its commitment to strong accountability and ensure that the institution’s new independent accountability mechanism is equipped to do its work effectively.

Signatories

Organizations

1. AbibiNsroma Foundation – Ghana
2. Accountability Counsel – International
3. ATGL – Tunisia
4. Al-Hayat Center – RASED – Jordan
5. Alternative Law Collective – Pakistan
6. Arab Watch Coalition – United States
7. Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE) – Philippines
8. ASOCIACIÓN AMBIENTE Y SOCIEDAD – Colombia
9. Asociación unión de talleres 11 de septiembre – Bolivia
10. Association for Farmers Rights Defense, AFRD – Georgia
11. Bank Climate Advocates – United States
12. Bank Information Center – United States
13. BankTrack – The Netherlands
14. Both ENDS – The Netherlands
15. Bretton Woods Project – United Kingdom
16. CEE Bankwatch Network – Czech Republic 2
17. Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) – Global
18. Centre de développement de la région de Tensift – Morocco
19. Centre for Environmental Justice- Sri Lanka – Sri Lanka
20. Centre for Human Rights and Development – Mongolia
21. Cohesión Comunitaria e Innovación Social – Mexico
22. Colectivo Voces Diversas – El Salvador
23. Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network (CEMSOJ) – Nepal
24. Crude Accountability – United States
25. Deep Sea Mining Campaign – United Kingdom
26. Derecho, ambiente y recursos naturales (DAR) – Peru
27. Dibeen for Environmental Development – Jordan
28. Equitable Cambodia – Cambodia
29. ESPOD (Arab Watch Coalition Association) – Morocco
30. FIAN Germany – Germany
31. Fundación Acue – Chile
32. Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (FARN) – Argentina
33. Fundación CAUCE: Cultura Ambiental – Causa Ecologista – Argentina
34. Fundación Libera contra la Trata de Personas y la Esclavitud en Todas sus Formas – Chile
35. Fundeps – Argentina
36. Germanwatch – Germany
37. Green Advocates International – Liberia
38. Growthwatch – India
39. HRM “Bir Duino -Kyrgyzstan” – Kyrgyzstan
40. Human Rights Law Centre – Australia
41. Inclusive Development International – United States
42. Indigenous Peoples Alliance Of the archipelagos Chapter Sumbawa (AMAN SUMBAWA) – Indonesia
43. Indigenous Peoples Rights International-IPRI – Philippines/Global
44. Inisiasi Masyarakat Adat (IMA) – Indonesia
45. International Accountability Project – Global
46. International Rivers – United States
47. International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs – Denmark
48. Jamaa Resource Initiatives – Kenya
49. Just Finance International – The Netherlands
50. Just Ground – United States
51. Kapaeeng Foundation – Bangladesh
52. KTNC Watch – Republic of Korea
53. Liberia Artisanal Fishermen Association LAFA – Liberia
54. Manushya Foundation – Thailand
55. Mekong Watch – Japan
56. MenaFem Movement for Economic, Development And Ecological Justice – SWANA/Morocco
57. MiningWatch Canada – Canada 3
58. Nash Vek PF – Kyrgyzstan
59. OEARSE – Democratic Republic of the Congo
60. Oil Workers’ Rights Protection Organization Public Union – Azerbaijan
61. Oxfam International – United States
62. Oyu Tolgoi Watch – Mongolia
63. Pakaid – Pakistan
64. Peace Point Development Foundation -PPDF – Nigeria
65. People Ecology Network – India
66. PFAA – Iraq
67. Phenix Center – Jordan
68. Philippine Movement for Climate Justice – Philippines
69. Psychological Responsiveness NGO – Mongolia
70. Recourse – International
71. RimbaWatch – Malaysia
72. Rivers & Rights – Southeast Asia (Regional)
73. Rivers without Boundaries – International
74. Rivers without Boundaries Coalition – Mongolia
75. Sinergia Animal – Global South
76. Society For Women Rights & Development ( SWoRD) – Pakistan
77. Studies and Economic Media Center – Yemen
78. Surge Africa Organisation – Nigeria
79. Sustentarse – Chile
80. SynDev – Senegal
81. The William Gomes Podcast – United Kingdom
82. Transparentem – United States
83. Trend Asia – Indonesia
84. Uganda Consortium on Corporate Accountability – Uganda
85. Urgewald – Germany
86. WEED – World Economy, Ecology & Development – Germany
87. Wemos – The Netherlands
88. Wedyan Association For Society Development – Yemen
89. Witness Radio – Uganda
90. Yemeni Observatory for Human Rights – Yemen
91. Uzbek Forum for Human Rights – Uzbekistan/Germany

Individuals

92. Dr. Guljakhon Amanova – Uzbekistan
93. Ms. Sophia Cramer – Independent Researcher and Policy Advisor
94. Ms. Fiona Faye, University of Kassel, Afrique-Europe-Interact
95. Prof. Daniel D. Bradlow, University of Pretoria
96. Prof. Arntraud Hartmann, SAIS Europe Johns Hopkins University
97. Prof. David Hunter, Peregrine Environmental Consulting, LLC
98. Prof. Emeritus Shin Imai, Osgoode Hall Law School
99. Prof. Aram Ziai, University of Kassel and Global Partnership Network

The post World Bank Board Denies Recourse to Millions of Victims of Predatory Lending, Sets a Dangerous Accountability Precedent appeared first on Inclusive Development International.

Protecting independence: The Policy must be truly independent and impartial. We’re calling for stronger authority, clear conflict-of-interest rules, and “cooling-off” periods to prevent undue influence. 

Strengthening Board oversight: The EIB Board of Directors should play a clearer role in overseeing how complaints are handled. Regular updates and stronger supervision are needed to ensure action plans are properly implemented and disputes are addressed fairly. 

Make the advisory function meaningful: The EIB Group should actively use recommendations from complaints in its decision-making. Accountability only works if failures lead to institutional change. 

Read the full comments here.

The post Joint Civil Society Recommendations on improving the European Investment Bank Group’s new Complaints Mechanism appeared first on Inclusive Development International.

To demonstrate for automakers what better practices can look like in the real world, Lead the Charge members have published a series of case studies, including one from Inclusive Development International focused on how car companies that source from Guinea’s largest bauxite mine, Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinée (CBG), should be engaging with and supporting communities who are at risk from the planned expansion of CBG’s mining operations—an expansion that is being driven in part by demand for aluminum for use in electric vehicles and batteries.  

The study pulls from our recent report, “I Will Do Anything to Stay Here”: What a Just Energy Transition Means to Communities at Risk from Bauxite Mining in Guinea, presenting perspectives from these communities and a list of their specific requests for CBG and its buyers, including that mining should proceed only once there has been a true dialogue and affected communities have agreed to the terms on which the project can proceed. As our case study explains, companies that use CBG bauxite in their products—including the car companies Audi, BMW, Ford, GM, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche and Toyota—have a role to play supporting communities in the proposed agreement-making process. They can do this by, among other things: 

• Engaging directly with CBG to express their expectation that CBG earn broad community support through agreement making for the expansion of the mine  

• Providing pooled resources to enable communities to access technical and legal advisers who can support them in the agreement-making process, including through generating options for avoiding harm and designing development benefits 

• Instituting material consequences if the company fails to respect its responsibilities or agreements with local communities 

• Enabling or contributing to remedy if harms occur   

The Lead the Charge Leaderboard report serves both as an incentive for automakers to do better, and a tool to help them assess and improve their supply chain due diligence practices. This case study, along with our Policy Proposal to Advance a Just Energy Transition for Project-Affected Communities set out what it takes in practice to ensure that at-risk communities have agency in decision making about how mining projects proceed. The six-measures in our policy proposal lay out a road map for automakers and their suppliers to fulfill their human rights due diligence responsibilities and promote a just energy transition for project-affected people, as they seek to bring renewable energy technologies to scale.  

Read the case study here.

The post The role of automakers in pursuing a rights-based and community-centered approach to bauxite mining in Guinea appeared first on Inclusive Development International.

Building on recommendations we jointly submitted earlier this year, alongside more than 30 other civil society organizations, our latest submission urges the IFC to incorporate a new client-focused Broad Sustainability Support requirement in the updated Performance Standards. Our submission highlights extensive evidence showing that projects that fail to secure community support often face costly delays, conflict, litigation, reputational damage, and, in some cases, violence. Research across the mining, infrastructure, agribusiness, and other sectors demonstrates that meaningful engagement with affected communities is not only a human rights imperative but also a sound business strategy. 

Ultimately, up-front investment in communities saves money and would help ensure the IFC projects meet their development objectives.  In that context, we welcome the IFC’s proposal to develop a new, standalone Performance Standard on Stakeholder Engagement, and we urge leadership to ensure this new standard includes a requirement for clients to secure and maintain Broad Community Support. Our policy proposal to advance a just energy transition outlines six core principles to engaging project-affected people, including through early engagement, equitable negotiations, and enforceable community benefit agreements. The new Broad Community Support requirement should incorporate these principles and must go well beyond the IFC’s current consultation requirements, which have not proven effective. 

Our submission also calls on the IFC to ensure that the Broad Community Support requirement is met before financing is approved and disbursed (i.e., when IFC leverage is highest) and to take steps to ensure that Broad Community Support is maintained throughout the project lifecycle. 

Everyone loses when development projects create social conflict, and there is already broad agreement that up-front investment in communities is the best and most cost-effective solution. It is time for the IFC Performance Standards to reflect that reality.  

Read the full comments: https://www.inclusivedevelopment.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Stakeholder-Engagement-and-Broad-Community-Support-May-15-2026-1.pdf

The post The IFC should require its clients to demonstrate community support for all high-risk projects appeared first on Inclusive Development International.

Yesterday, Inclusive Development International supported ten affected individuals, alongside the non-governmental organizations FIAN, Misereor and Watch Indonesia, to file a complaint under the German Supply Chain Act against Heidelberg Materials over its plans to build a limestone mine and cement factory in the middle of the Kendeng Mountains of Central Java.  The complaint was submitted to Germany’s Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control (BAFA) ahead of Heidelberg Material’s annual general meeting today. It alleges that the company violated its corporate due diligence obligations under the Act by failing to properly assess or develop plans to mitigate serious environmental and human rights risks posed by the project to affected communities, including the Samin people, who self-identify as an Indigenous.   

“If the project is implemented, we face an ecological catastrophe, impoverishment, and violations of our human rights,” said Bambang Sutikyo, one of the complainants who lives in the affected region.  

The complaint cites several scientific studies and a 2017 study commissioned by the Indonesian presidential office that point to the significant risks of mining in the region, which is characterized by a complex and fragile underground aquifer system that has long sustained local people and agriculture, and that is of vital spiritual significance to the Samin. It also acts as a natural carbon sink. Implementation of the cement project plans would irrevocably impair water availability and soil quality, threatening to cause serious consequences for the livelihoods, food security, and health of between 35,000 and 200,000 people, including Indigenous people and farmers, in the Kendeng region. “We are losing our livelihoods, such as our land and agriculture, which allow us to feed our families, meet our daily food needs, and pay for our children’s schooling,” complainant Bambang Sutikyo continued.  

Heidelberg Materials AG, one of the world’s largest building materials companies, has been aware of the human rights risks for years, yet is sticking to its plans. “The Supply Chain Act obliges Heidelberg Materials to comprehensively investigate the risks and prevent negative impacts. This is only possible by halting the project,” explains Insa Heinke of FIAN. “We expect the Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control (BAFA) to order appropriate measures and, if necessary, impose fines to enforce them.” 

“If Heidelberg Materials wants to position itself as a responsible business leader that follows the law, it cannot move forward with a project that poses such severe risks to the Samin People, including their vital water sources and sacred sites, without their agreement,” said Natalie Bugalski, Senior Legal and Policy Director at Inclusive Development International.  “They have never meaningfully engaged with affected communities about whether this project should proceed, which is why we brought this legal action today.” 

The post German Supply Chain Act complaint filed against Heidelberg Materials appeared first on Inclusive Development International.

We welcome the Boards’ decision to commission this review, and we appreciate many of the draft recommendations, including regarding increased transparency and accountability throughout complaint processes, and the importance of sending a clear and consistent message about preventing harm in the first place. Additionally, we fully endorse their recommendation that the policy be reviewed every 5 years.  

But there are also suggestions that, as an organization that has accompanied numerous communities in their engagement with CAO, we believe should be avoided or treated with caution, including: 

• Any codification of dispute resolution timelines. We worry that this recommendation, as written in the draft, runs the risk of promoting a complaint analysis process that overly focuses on the length of time of a given case, rather than the likelihood of successful resolution. 

• Further defining what it means for a complaint to be “within scope” or what constitutes a “material link”. There is a lot at stake for affected communities if any new definitions narrow financial intermediary eligibility narrows the scope of eligible complaints. 

• Any non-transparent, closed-door processes for developing any new definitions related to eligibility criteria.  

 
Most importantly, any policy changes should be led by the CAO and go through a formal and robust public consultation process. Read more: https://www.inclusivedevelopment.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/May-2026-CAO-Targeted-Review-comments.pdf

The post Civil Society Organizations Respond to CAO Targeted Policy Review appeared first on Inclusive Development International.