https://re-course.org/newsupdates/aiib-new-accountability-mechanism-policy/
As the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) new accountability mechanism policy launches, doubts remain over its commitment to community rights and accessibility. A group of civil society organisations have written to the mechanism, calling for the new policy to be interpreted as favourably as possible towards complainants.
Why was the policy reviewed?
The AIIB’s accountability mechanism, the Project-affected People’s Mechanism (PPM), is exceptional among those of the major multilateral development banks, in that it has yet to accept a single complaint.
In 2026, the AIIB is celebrating 10 years of existence, but despite over $70 billion invested in 364 projects around the world, including in major infrastructure projects which have displaced communities, and despite 24 complaints to the PPM and 51 complaints about AIIB projects to co-financiers, not a single complaint has been heard by the PPM.
This was all supposed to change under a review of the PPM that has taken place during the last two years (2024–2025). The bank’s Board members were embarrassed at this record, and civil society groups argued that environmental and social standards were not worth the paper they were printed on if the bank could not be held accountable to them.
The review largely followed good practice for consultations – issuing a draft for comment with changes clearly marked up, holding multiple consultations in regions and countries both virtually and in person, contracting an external consultant to make recommendations – but what ultimately counted was the end result.
The external consultant contracted by the bank made eight recommendations to bring the PPM up to standard with other accountability mechanisms. The new PPM policy ignores five out of eight of these recommendations. Most worryingly, the most restrictive requirements remain in place – for ‘good faith’ efforts (for complainants to approach both the project-level Grievance Redress Mechanism and bank management before the PPM); for complaints to be filed by two or more people (except in the case of gender-based violence); and for co-financed projects to be excluded. The latter alone rules out around half of all AIIB-funded projects. The policy also ignores further recommendations made by civil society groups in September 2025.
In January 2026, Recourse joined Accountability Counsel and other civil society organisations in writing to the PPM on the launch of its new policy, calling on the PPM to interpret the policy as favourably as possible towards complainants and assuring the mechanism that we would be monitoring the PPM’s case registry in coming months. Read the letter here (or download it under ‘related documents’).
What has changed and what gaps remain in the new policy?
- Good faith requirement time bound: Communities raising complaints are still required to make efforts to resolve their issues with two levels of internal grievances—borrowers and AIIB management–before accessing the independent mechanism, a high barrier that does not exist at any other multilateral development bank. As an improvement, exceptions to this rule have been expanded and prior engagement with management is now time bound to 45 days. This should help prevent a situation where communities spend months and years trying to resolve their concerns and are still denied access. However, there is not a similar time limit on the requirement for engagement with borrowers.
- Independent verification by PPM: The mechanism now has the ability to independently verify implementation of actions taken by management to address non-compliance and resolve concerns, but this can only be triggered in exceptional cases and with Board approval. It is also unclear whether this will include site visits.
- Learning lessons in co-financed cases: In co-financed projects where access to the PPM is barred, if a co-financer’s independent accountability mechanism makes a finding of non-compliance, management will report to the Board on the implications for AIIB and the opportunities for institutional learning resulting from that mechanism’s findings. While the reporting represents a minor improvement, AIIB will continue to take a completely hands-off approach in the majority of co-financed projects.
- Possible review every five years: Every five years, the leadership of the PPM can assess the need for a policy review and initiate such a review. But there is no guarantee that the policy will be reviewed every five years.
- Parallel proceedings no longer automatic bar: While parallel judicial or arbitral proceedings are no longer an automatic bar on eligibility for compliance review, the PPM can “consider their implications on processing of the submission.”
A more detailed list of changes can be found in the letter.
What are civil society’s ask for the AIIB?
We are calling on the PPM and AIIB leadership to interpret the policy in a flexible manner that takes into account the challenges and risks communities undertake in raising grievances.
The PPM and AIIB should ensure that communities at project sites are adequately informed about the mechanism and their rights, via consultation sessions and signage at the project site.
We are also calling for a new Managing Director to be appointed to the Complaints-resolution, Evaluation and Integrity Unit (CEIU), to ensure full-time and continuous leadership as the new policy is implemented.
