MANILA, 7 October 2026 — On the eve of the World Bank Group Annual Meetings in Bangkok, a new analysis reveals the International Financial Corporation (IFC) and its Capitalization Fund made an estimated US$39 million in total return from its investment in a Philippine bank, whose financing of coal-fired power plants left a trail of destruction affecting more than 120,000 people. 

“Our people continue to bear the devastating consequences of IFC’s profiteering,” said Aaron Pedrosa, complainant representative and legal counsel of the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ). “While the bank amassed millions, frontline communities in the Philippines were forced from their lands, suffered respiratory diseases, and faced violence and intimidation for speaking out. Fisherfolk, farmers, and Indigenous Peoples have lost their livelihoods and local ecosystems have been destroyed. The bank to this day has not spent a single dollar for much-needed remedies as impacts continue to be lived realities for affected communities throughout the Philippines. The bank can afford to fund community-level interventions to address livelihood, environmental and health impacts. It has chosen to do nothing.” 

The analysis published today uncovers a calculated commercial strategy. Between 2011 and 2013, the IFC and the IFC Capitalization Fund acquired a significant stake in Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC), investing nearly US$148 million. It held shares for 13 years, earning more than US$25 million in dividends from RCBC’s earnings. Despite holding a designated seat on RCBC’s Board of Directors, the IFC stood by as its client bankrolled new coal-fired power plants. The IFC sold shares in 2015 and again in 2025, generating nearly US$14 million in capital gains. This brought the IFC’s total return to an estimated US$39 million. 

PMCJ, IDI and Recourse are calling on the World Bank Board of Directors to surrender the IFC’s multi-million-dollar windfall to those who were harmed by the RCBC investments by contributing to a dedicated fund for the coal-affected communities. 

“This case is the ultimate test of the World Bank’s institutional integrity,” said David Pred, executive director of Inclusive Development International (IDI). “The IFC cannot treat human suffering as a profit-making strategy. While IFC has made a financial killing, thousands of Filipino farmers and fisherfolk are paying the price with their health, livelihoods, and environment. IFC’s Remedial Action Framework exists precisely for these moments – to enable remedy throughout the project cycle and to step in and address harms directly when its clients are unable or unwilling to do so. The World Bank Board must reject the IFC’s excuses and uphold its development mandate by redirecting the returns it earned from the RCBC investment to alleviate the suffering of the impacted communities.” 

Approved by the Board in 2025, the IFC’s Interim Remedial Action Framework (RAF) provides a structured approach to addressing harm arising from IFC investments. Under the framework, IFC can make contributions to remedial action on a case-by-case basis.  

Following an investigation into IFC’s investment in RCBC prompted by a 2017 complaint, the IFC’s independent accountability mechanism, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), found that the IFC had contributed to environmental, social and climate-related harms associated with the RCBC-backed coal plants and concluded the IFC should contribute to remedying those harms.  

Under its Board-approved Management Action Plan, IFC commissioned an independent gap analysis, which confirmed that many of the community-reported harms could be attributed to the power plants and provided 186 recommendations to address the issues. However, following objections from RCBC to the findings, progress has stalled. IFC claims that it has exhausted all options and has refused to publicly disclose the gap analysis reports.  

“Communities across the Philippines are relying on the Board to reject IFC’s total abdication of its responsibilities and restore the integrity of the World Bank on the ground,” said Daniel Willis, Upholding Rights Lead at Recourse. “The independent gap analysis provided 186 clear solutions to fix the harms. Yet, the moment RCBC objected, the IFC folded, hid the findings behind a wall of corporate secrecy, and refused to disclose them to the public. It is a travesty for the IFC to claim its hands are tied while its bank accounts swell with millions from this investment.” 

As the coal plants continue to operate, affected people have demanded that the World Bank Group’s leadership not allow their communities to become sacrifice zones.  

“The IFC made money from funding these coal plants. Now they made money again for selling its shares. That profit was made from our backs,” said Derek Cabe, complainant community member. “That money should go back to us and our communities that the IFC harmed. If the World Bank is serious about being a faster, simpler, bolder, and more efficient bank, there is no better way to prove it than paying for remedies.”  

For more about this case, see here: https://www.inclusivedevelopment.net/cases/philippines-climate-change-and-ifc-lending/  

Read Inclusive Development International’s analysis: “How the International Finance Corporation made an estimated total return of $39 million from its equity investment in Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation” 

The post Philippine Communities Demand World Bank reinvest $39 Million of Toxic Returns in Remedy for Affected People  appeared first on Inclusive Development International.

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.

Four principles to guide the IFC/MIGA Sustainability Framework review

We are writing to you on behalf of 116 civil society organizations (CSOs) that have been engaging IFC and MIGA, since 2024, on the review of their Sustainability Framework (SF). 

As IFC and MIGA prepare to provide you with the first draft of the revised SF, ahead of the public disclosure of the policy and the launch of consultations in the coming months, we feel this is an important time to reaffirm with you several core principles that are essential to ensuring the SF is fit for purpose, up to date, and effectively protects affected communities from harm. 

These principles are:

1. Alignment with international best practice and human rights norms
2. Non-regression from the existing policies of the SF 
3. Improved implementation of the SF
4. Open and meaningful consultation of those most impacted by IFC and MIGA projects

While these cross-cutting principles inform all of our engagement with IFC/MIGA on the SF review, CSOs have also produced many technical recommendations on how to improve specific Performance Standards and the Access to Information Policy, or address important themes during the review. All of the submissions sent by CSOs to IFC/MIGA can be found here. 

We hope the following proves useful for your engagement with IFC on the draft policy, and look forward to discussing this further with you in the coming months.

1. Alignment of the IFC/MIGA Sustainability Framework with best available practice and human rights norms

It has been almost 15 years since the SF was last updated. Although the 2012 SF and Performance Standards were an important step forward, and in some cases represented a gold standard in environmental and social sustainability at the time, there have since been many developments in human rights norms and approaches which mean that the IFC/MIGA safeguards are no longer the leading standards they used to be. 

This point is echoed in the recent Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) assessment of the 2012 SF, which found that it is “less up to date than some peer frameworks in selected areas” as institutions like the World Bank, Asian Development Bank (ADB) and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development have “introduced additional standards to address areas not explicitly covered in IFC’s framework” such as “financial intermediaries, stakeholder engagement and information disclosure, and selected emerging risks”. 

Furthermore, as many investigations by civil society and the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) attest to, the current safeguards are not preventing harms to affected communities. As such, there is an urgent need to update and improve the existing SF; to prevent harms, minimise reputational risks for IFC/MIGA, bring IFC/MIGA into alignment with the best available practice (including at peer institutions), and regain IFC/MIGA’s leadership role in the field.

Over the years, consensus has grown around the private sector and companies’ responsibilities to respect human rights. An increasing number of companies are now conducting human rights due diligence in line with corporate responsibilities to respect human rights under international standards like the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct. IFC/MIGA’s SF should be fully aligned with the UNGPs and its member states’ human rights, climate change, and environmental review obligations under customary international law. The SF should be further aligned with IFC/MIGA member states’ same obligations under treaties such as (but not limited to) the Aarhus Convention, Kyiv Protocol, Escazú Agreement, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement. 

By aligning their policy and practice with international norms and obligations, we expect IFC and MIGA to adopt an approach that best ensures their projects do no harm to people, animals or the planet. This requires adopting the highest standards of environmental, social and animal welfare impact assessment, that make use of the best available science and methods to assess and prevent harms arising from all types of projects. Consistent with the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement, the revised SF should include explicit, enforceable requirements to assess and disclose climate-related risks and lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions before approval, and to evaluate alternatives and mitigation measures using best available science and methods. Finally, we hope that IFC/MIGA will make a clear commitment to the presumption of disclosure, in alignment with the World Bank, and to more meaningful consultation with project-affected peoples that ensures Broad Community Support and genuine benefits to affected communities. 

We are hopeful that the Board will support our efforts to ensure that the SF is fit for purpose for the current moment, and a genuine gold standard in E&S sustainability. 

2. Non-regression from the existing policies of the IFC/MIGA Sustainability Framework

Alongside a commitment to improving the existing SF and bringing it into line with international best practice, we urge the Board to also ensure that the review does not result in any weakening of the existing safeguards. 

We find it concerning that, in previous CSO consultations on the SF update, IFC management has made reference to aiming for no “net” regression of the policy. This suggests that some areas of the policy will get weaker. In particular, we are concerned that IFC’s policy on Free, Prior and Informed Consent for Indigenous Peoples may be amended to limit its application.

Neither the desire to harmonise standards with peer institutions, nor the push for IFC and MIGA to rapidly grow their portfolios, can justify any attempt to water down the existing safeguards. This would only undermine the global influence and credibility of the Performance Standards, and would create additional reputational risks (and CAO cases) by permitting further harms to be perpetrated against affected communities. 

We strongly urge Board members to adopt, at the very minimum, a policy of non-regression when reviewing the draft SF, and to reject any attempts to introduce de facto policy regression. However, as stated above, a policy of non-regression alone is insufficient to prevent the continuation of social and environmental harms suffered as a result of WBG projects. 

3. Improved implementation of the IFC/MIGA Sustainability Framework

Strong policies on paper do not always lead to better practices on the ground. CSO analysis and complaints to the CAO have highlighted many times that the implementation of IFC/MIGA’s SF has been inconsistent, often leading to severe harms to affected communities. Some of those cases are documented here. 

IFC and MIGA therefore need to focus on improving the implementation of their sustainability commitments in practice. This is something that has been acknowledged by the Board on numerous occasions through the approval of IFC Management Action Plans (MAPs) designed to address harms arising from poor implementation of the SF. The IEG report on the SF also cites implementation as an issue, and recommends that it can be improvised by “expanding hands-on E&S support to clients in higher risk and complex operations and by improving the transparency of its E&S performance and disclosures”. 

The IFC and MIGA can also improve implementation by creating and deepening an internal culture of accountability among staff. This includes better incentivizing strong E&S performance and introducing a system that discourages non-compliance with E&S requirements. Staff performance and promotion metrics should be aligned to their respective impacts in effectively implementing the IFC/MIGA SF. This includes IFC/MIGA staff involved in E&S performance across all types of financial products and services throughout their entire lifecycle, including after project closure. 

It is also important for the requirements of the SF to be applied more consistently and comprehensively across the many project types (e.g. trade finance, capital markets transactions, microfinance, guarantees and financial intermediary investments) and financial instruments (debt, equity, quasi-equity, private equity, corporate finance, syndicated loans, trade finance, bonds, etc.) that IFC and MIGA engage in. Requirements should apply throughout the investment lifecycle and should cover the client’s subproject portfolios, with proactive disclosure of the end uses and activities supported. Environmental and social risk assessment should also be extended to include cumulative and indirect impacts, associated facilities, material supply-chain impacts and the wider activities materially enabled by an investment. Together, these measures, and appropriate disclosure, would ensure more effective implementation of the SF’s requirements down the investment chain and throughout project cycles. 

IFC and MIGA must also carefully consider how to increase their leverage with clients (particularly financial intermediary clients) throughout the project cycle to ensure strong E&S compliance, and to make better use of their existing leverage. The independent Review Team working on the 2026 Targeted Review of CAO’s policy made several recommendations on how IFC can better use leverage to implement MAPs. CAO has also provided useful recommendations for how IFC could maintain leverage throughout an investment cycle, for example by tying disbursements to E&S outcomes, by building client capacity to implement E&S requirements or by using new investments with existing clients as a point of leverage with which to ensure E&S management systems are being properly implemented. 

While some of these issues pertain more to IFC’s internal practice than to the policy of the SF per se, updates to IFC’s Sustainability Policy do provide an opportunity to think about client relationships, leverage and E&S implementation more concretely. We urge you to bear this in mind when reviewing the draft policy.

4. Open and meaningful consultation of those most impacted by IFC and MIGA projects

As CSOs highlighted to IFC/MIGA at the start of the review, it is vital that consultations on the draft SF are conducted in an open, transparent, accessible, and meaningful way, that enables those most impacted by IFC/MIGA projects to contribute to improving the safeguards. This is the best way to increase trust that IFC and MIGA are committed to improving E&S outcomes. 

IFC’s engagement with CSOs during the pre-consultation phase has been, for the most part, positive and constructive. However, we currently have concerns on two fronts. Firstly, Indigenous Peoples’ organisations requested on multiple occasions that IFC establish an autonomous Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group (IPAG) to engage on the SF update (as ADB did during its recent Safeguard Policy review and has continued for its current Accountability Mechanism Policy review). However, despite many meetings and considerable work done by Indigenous Peoples’ organisations to begin developing a framework for such a body, IFC did not demonstrate good faith and trust towards the Indigenous Peoples’ organisations, who have therefore withdrawn from the process.  

Similarly, CSOs requesting consultation on the implications of the SF review for IFC’s health portfolio, given the numerous reports of harm within it, were also effectively ignored. 

CSOs also requested that IFC and MIGA engage project-affected persons and communities during the SF review, which they have now committed to do during the public consultation phase. However, plans on how this will be done are currently unclear, as IFC and MIGA have yet to publish or share any details of the Stakeholder Engagement Plan for public consultations.  

The details of this plan are vital. Project-affected communities and Indigenous Peoples Organizations are best placed to inform IFC and MIGA of how environmental and social safeguards are likely to impact Indigenous Peoples and other affected communities, and how best to engage them. But consultation must be meaningful and not just a tick-box exercise. 

We expect that consultations will not just be held in country capitals or in IFC offices, but will see IFC staff make efforts to go and meet project-affected communities where they are, in locations accessible to communities and all project-affected persons. We expect consultations to be conducted in local languages, with independent facilitation and translation provided, and consultation documents disclosed well ahead of time. We trust that these expectations are shared by the Board, and welcome your support in scrutinising IFC and MIGA’s Stakeholder Engagement Plan, when disclosed, to ensure that they are reflected in the Plan’s approach. 

Thank you for considering these principles for the update of IFC/MIGA’s Sustainability Framework. We look forward to discussing this with you further during the Annual Meetings in Bangkok. 

Yours sincerely,

1. AbibiNsroma Foundation 
2. Accountability Counsel 
3. Actions Féministes pour le Développement Durable en Guinée
4. Aid Life Learn Environment 
5. AIDL International Foundation 
6. Alliance Sud 
7. Alternative Law Collective 
8. Arab Watch Coalition 
9. Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy 
10. Association for Farmers Rights Defense
11. Association pour l’Amélioration de l’Alimentation de la Mère et de l’Enfant au Sud Kivu/AMEKI-RDC 
12. Association Tunisienne de Droit de Développement
13. ATGL 
14. Bank Climate Advocates 
15. Bank Information Center 
16. BankTrack 
17. Batani Foundation 
18. Both ENDS 
19. Bretton Woods Project 
20. CAN Morocco 
21. CEE Bankwatch Network 
22. Centre de développement de la région de Tensift 
23. Centre for Community Mobilization and Support NGO 
24. Centre for Financial Accountability 
25. Children Advocacy Forum Sierra Leone 
26. Christian Aid
27. Community Climate and Energy Shield Initiative (CCESI) Uganda 
28. Community Empowerment and Social Justice Network 
29. Compassion in World Farming International 
30. Cultural Survival 
31. Debt Justice Norway 
32. Deep Sea Mining Campaign 
33. Derecho Ambiente y Recursos Naturales 
34. Dibeen for Environmental Development 
35. Earthworks 
36. Environment Governance Institute Uganda 
37. European Network on Debt and Development, Eurodad 
38. Fair Finance International 
39. Femimpact 
40. Femmes-Santé-Développement (FESADE)
41. FORED – PNG
42. Friends of the Earth Japan 
43. Friends of the Earth US 
44. Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (FARN) 
45. Fundación CAUCE: Cultura Ambiental – Causa Ecologista 
46. Fundeps 
47. Germanwatch 
48. Global Surgery Umbrella
49. Green Advocates International 
50. Hermetica International LLC 
51. Inclusive Development International 
52. Industrious Labs 
53. Inisiasi Masyarakat Adat 
54. International Trade Union Confederation  
55. Jamaa Resource Initiatives 
56. Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES) 
57. Jewel Environmental Initiative 
58. JUHUDI Community Support Center 
59. Just Ground 
60. Lawyers’ Association for Human Rights of Nepalese Indigenous Peoples (LAHURNIP) 
61. Malaria & NTDs Youth Corps Guinea 
62. Maurisante 
63. MenaFem Movement for Economic Development and Ecological Justice 
64. MiningWatch Canada 
65. Mouvement d’Action des Jeunes de l’Association Centrafricaine pour le Bien-être Familiale 
66. Nigerian Women Agro Allied Farmers Association 
67. OECD Watch 
68. Oil Change International 
69. Open Society Platform The Gambia 
70. Oxfam 
71. Oyu Tolgoi Watch 
72. Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum 
73. Participatory Research & Action Network
74. Peace Point Development Foundation
75. Phenix Center 
76. Philippine Movement for Climate Justice 
77. Power Shift Africa 
78. PowerShift e.V. 
79. Protección Internacional Mesoamérica 
80. Quest For Growth and Development Foundation 
81. Rainforest Action Network 
82. Razom We Stand 
83. Recherche Sans Frontières 
84. Recourse
85. Reporter Brasil 
86. Fédération Intègre pour la Reconstruction et le Développement 
87. Rivers & Rights 
88. Sierra Leone Alliance Against Hunger and Malnutrition 
89. Sinergia Animal 
90. SIRGE Coalition 
91. Social Justice Platform 
92. Southern Initiatives, Myanmar 
93. Stop Financing Factory Farming Coalition 
94. Strategic Response on Environmental Conservation
95. Strategic Youth Network for Development
96. Sukaar Welfare Organization
97. SUN Civil Society Alliance of Liberia
98. Sustentarse (Chile) 
99. SynDev 
100. Tallgrass Institute 
101. Tanzania Institute of the Blind
102. The Common Initiative
103. Transparentem 
104. Trend Asia 
105. Urgewald 
106. Uzbek Forum for Human Rights
107. WaterAid 
108. Wedyan Association For Society Development 
109. Wemos 
110. World Animal Protection 
111. World Economy, Ecology & Development
112. World Food Forum Rwanda
113. Wote Youth Development Projects CBO 
114. Yemeni Observatory for Human Rights
115. Youth in Agroecology and Restoration Network 
116. Zimbabwe Civil Society Organisations Scaling Up Nutrition Alliance  

The post Joint Letter Calling on the Board of the World Bank Group to Support Stronger Environmental and Social Safeguards for IFC and MIGA Projects 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.