Washington, DC — Today, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) Director of People, Land, and Resources, Carla García Zendejas responded to the US Supreme Court’s decision to reject Petitioners’ writ for certiorari in Budha Ismail Jam, et al v. IFC. Previously, the US Supreme Court in this case found that the International Finance Corporation (IFC) was not immune from suit and since then plaintiffs have continued to seek remedy in US courts. The case involves an Indian fishing community’s decision to seek remedy for harm following the International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) $450 million financing of a coal-fired power plant. The case is the first time that communities affected by a World Bank IFC-financed project have pursued legal action in US Courts.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to not hear Jam v. IFC is extremely regrettable for the community, but it does not mean that communities affected by projects backed by Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) should stop their pursuit of remedy and justice. When DFIs cause harm, they should not be able to act with impunity. And they have an obligation to ensure that — whether in Gujarat, India, the Cajón del Maipo in Chile, or any other community around the world — access to remedy is fully realized.
“It has been fourteen years since the IFC first provided $450 million in financing to construct Tata Mundra. Since then, DFIs have recognized devastating failures and tried to improve policies and operations as a result. Existing institutions have also undergone reforms, including the World Bank’s Inspection Panel and the IFC’s Compliance Advisor Ombudsman, which were established to provide accountability for communities facing impacts and harms from development projects. Yet institutions without the power to address harms and provide effective remedy are insufficient. DFIs must shoulder their responsibility by fully committing to addressing harms that their projects cause after hearing directly from affected communities, so that remedy, on the communities’ own terms, is realized. Until then, DFIs will continue to face legal challenges similar to Jam v. IFC in courts around the world.”
###
Notes for Editors
CIEL submitted amicus curiae briefs in support of the plaintiffs on three occasions: twice before the Supreme Court of the United States and once before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Those amicus briefs are available here: 2018, 2021, and 2022.
In light of the Jam v. IFC case and other situations where DFIs have failed to provide remedy to communities who have been harmed, CIEL is advocating for banks like the IFC to commit to providing remedy and to adopt remedial action frameworks. As part of these efforts, the organization recently published a typology: Remedying Harm: Lessons from International Law for Development Finance.
Posted on April 26, 2022