Civil society groups and experts in rights and public accountability have hit out at the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) for failing to meet international standards in its latest accountability policy.
Published shortly after the AIIB’s annual meeting in Beijing (24–26 June), the revised draft policy for the bank’s independent accountability mechanism (IAM), the Project-affected People's Mechanism (PPM), shows major gaps in visibility, accessibility and effectiveness, say groups.1
After six years of operating, the PPM— where communities harmed by AIIB projects can file complaints and seek redress—has yet to accept a single complaint. This has left communities across Asia in situations of worsened poverty, pollution, and vulnerability.2
The PPM Policy review was heralded as an opportunity for the AIIB to address its accountability crisis and to put in practice its claimed “unyielding commitment to integrity, transparency, inclusiveness.”3 As the bank enters its new decade and postures as a leading institution in international development, experts say that without a PPM that is “fit for purpose”, it will simply continue evading accountability for harming frontline communities in Asia and around the world.
Review timeline
- December 2023: The head of the PPM, the Managing Director, Complaints-resolution, Evaluation and Integrity Unit (MD-CEIU) committed to reviewing the PPM Policy through an independent and transparent process based on broad consultation—a first for any AIIB policy review.
- June 2024: The external reviewer hired by the MD-CEIU recommended sweeping changes to the PPM Policy.
- July 2024: Civil society groups provided detailed recommendations on ways to improve the PPM Policy based on the experiences of communities impacted by AIIB’s financing and international good practice at other Multilateral Development Banks..
- September 2024: AIIB Board directed MD-CEIU to get “consensus” with management on proposed policy changes.
- 1 July 2025: AIIB published the draft revised PPM Policy for 90 days’ consultation that ignored 5 out of 8 recommendations made by the external review report.
- December 2025: AIIB’s Board aims to approve the new PPM Policy.
What is missing and what does it mean for affected communities?
Major blocks to communities accessing accountability still remain in the new policy, such as not being able to file a complaint directly to the PPM, but having to engage first with project-level grievance mechanisms and then bank management. This ‘good faith’ test has been the reason for earlier complaints to be rejected. Communities who are affected by certain types of AIIB projects—when they are co-financed with another bank, or through capital markets —are simply excluded from access to the PPM, despite the high risks associated with these. For example, there have been 41 complaints across 10 projects that have been filed to co-financiers’ IAMs and yet AIIB will still play no role in facilitating remedial action for communities. Experts had pointed out that many of the countries in which the AIIB operates do not have social and political freedoms for local communities to express their views about projects. Therefore, it would be vital for the PPM to be able to trigger complaints on its own and for stronger measures to guard against retaliation to be put in place. Neither demand was met. Finally, the commitment to automatically trigger a policy review in five years has been diluted and will now require both a recommendation from the MD-CEIU and authorization from the Board. Under these circumstances, this version of the PPM Policy, that is far out of step with international good practice, may be locked in for a long time.
Reactions from rights and accountability experts:
"Although the PPM Review process is to be commended and has resulted in several positive changes to the Policy, some important recommendations of the External Review have not been considered. It is hoped that they will be taken into account in the next round of consultations."
- Dr. Zeinab Bashir El Bakri, External Reviewer for the PPM Policy
“The overall scope of the PPM remains woefully narrow with billions of dollars still outside its purview. This means that so many of its investments, even if they violate environmental/social safeguards and climate commitments, remain blind to the PPM. This signals the lack of real commitment from the AIIB for an accountability mechanism which is pro-people and planet.”
- Rayyan Hassan, NGO Forum on ADB
“The revised PPM policy remains blind to the realities communities face on the ground. While it promises confidentiality and reprisal risks as an exception to directly approach the mechanism, these are bare minimum measures to ensure that communities’ concerns are safely heard. The bank’s past exposures to reprisals (such as in the case of the Mandalika Urban and Tourism Infrastructure and the Bhola IPP gas plant) should have served as a warning and enough reason for the bank to include stronger protocols to assess, mitigate, prevent and address retaliation risks.”
- Tala Batangan, Coalition for Human Rights in Development
“The AIIB is shooting itself in the foot by blocking its option of triggering an investigation by the PPM. In cases where communities are at serious risk of retaliation, where the AIIB’s reputation is in jeopardy, or when the bank could learn valuable lessons, self-initiating complaints can be a valuable tool—which many other mechanisms use. What is the AIIB so scared of hearing?”
- Kate Geary, Recourse
“If the AIIB’s policy review of its accountability mechanism fails, it will confirm criticisms of the last 10 years: the Board is unwilling or unable to provide effective oversight. This failure would not only betray communities but also undermine public trust in multilateral development banks. Stronger leadership must urgently ensure this policy review is credible and meaningful. If the Board won’t act, parliaments in shareholder countries must intervene to ensure taxpayer money does not cause harm but enables positive development impact and access to remedy.”
- Dustin Schaefer, Urgewald
“There is a real risk that AIIB’s PPM policy may not be reviewed again for a long time. This would mean that the revised draft policy, with its major accessibility and effectiveness gaps, may be locked in and the ability to hold AIIB accountable for the harms caused by its financing will remain a pipe dream.”
- Radhika Goyal, Accountability Counsel
Notes:
(1) AIIB Policy on the Project-affected People’s Mechanism, https://www.aiib.org/en/how-we-work/public-consultations/project-affected-people-mechanism-policy-review/_common/_download/2_AIIB-PPM-policy-2018-w-proposed-revisions_14.04.2025_Track-Changes_circulated.pdf
(2) For example, the AIIB-backed Bhola IPP gas plant in Bangladesh has displaced local communities and severely disrupted farming livelihoods. The affected people, who were not adequately informed about the project in advance, face ongoing retaliation from coercive middlemen. For more details on the complaint brought to—and rejected by—the PPM, see: https://www.forum-adb.org/post/aiib-under-fire-damning-complaint-unveils-shocking-transgressions-in-bhola-ipp-project
Annual Meeting Opening Remarks by AIIB President, https://www.aiib.org/en/news-events/news/2025/2025-annual-meeting-opening-remarks-by-aiib-president-jin-liqun.html
