- 19.09.2025
- Array
- Array
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank’s accountability mechanism, the Project affected People’s Mechanism (PPM), is currently being reviewed and comments on the new draft policy are being sought until 30 September 2025.
Recourse joined Accountability Counsel and other organisations in a critique of the proposed new policy, which does nothing to remove existing blocks to accessing justice and accountability.
The PPM has rejected all cases filed to it so far — this must change.
The current consultation is the last chance for the AIIB Board to effect meaningful change to the PPM Policy, before seeking to approve it.
The submission from civil society groups sets out the following most important policy recommendations to ensure that the current accessibility challenges are meaningfully addressed:
1. Prior engagement with Management and project-level grievance redress mechanisms (GRMs) should only be optional.
As of now, the PPM has the disappointing track record of zero eligible cases in the past seven years of functioning, primarily due to its high eligibility barriers. However, the draft of the revised PPM Policy still requires two levels of prior engagement. Maintaining such a high initial entry barrier and creating a list of exceptions that is open to subjective interpretation will only create a lack of predictability and enable undue discretion in eligibility determinations. Eliminating this requirement altogether would bring the PPM in line with international good practice.
2. The PPM’s verification mandate should be strengthened.
The PPM’s monitoring mandate should not be limited to exceptional circumstances, nor require prior Board approval as there should be independent oversight over whether a Management Action Plan (MAP) is implemented in all cases where non-compliance by the management has been found. To that end, the PPM should also be required to submit its verification reports to the Board and disclose it on its complaints registry.
3. Management’s obligations when complaints are filed to the accountability mechanism of a co-financier should be strengthened.
The PPM should be able to accept complaints in all co-financed projects. However, even the proposed revisions to PPM Policy regarding AIIB management’s obligations in cases where a co-financier’s mechanism finds non-compliance, do not sufficiently outline the AIIB’s responsibilities towards affected communities.
AIIB management’s report to its Board should include both opportunities for institutional learning and remediation of harm for project-affected communities. The PPM should also have an opportunity to comment on this report before it is finalised. The report and PPM’s comments should be presented to the AIIB Board and disclosed in the complaints registry.
4. The AIIB Board should be actively involved in the hiring of the Managing Director of the Complaints-resolution, Evaluation and Integrity Unit (MD-CEIU) and resourcing of the PPM.
The PPM’s ability to carry out its oversight function in an unfettered, impartial and effective way, with integrity, in the face of pressure by internal and external stakeholders, relies on its independence from Management. Such independence must be enshrined in its Policy and implemented in practice. It can be strengthened through increased Board involvement and external stakeholder-involvement in the hiring of the MD-CEIU and resourcing of the PPM team, which would help legitimise the process and build trust with external stakeholders.
5. The PPM Policy should be reviewed every five years.
The PPM policy must be regularly reviewed and updated to keep pace with the prevailing practices in development finance and be fit for purpose. The PPM must therefore have the authority to initiate its own review at regular intervals rather than requiring Board endorsement, which would risk the policy not being reviewed again for multiple five-year cycles.
For more information and expert perspectives on the AIIB accountability mechanism review process, read this press release (July 2025).
Share
