2026: A critical year for upholding rights in public finance

International financial institutions (IFIs) are playing an increasingly influential role in the development landscape, as lenders, standard-setters and vehicles for climate finance. But for communities across Asia, Africa and Latin America, the IFIs’ reputation precedes them. Decades of structural adjustment, environmental harms and rights abuses by public financiers like the World Bank Group remain unaddressed while communities are left without remedy.

For organisations like Recourse – that work to make IFIs more accountable to the communities impacted by their investments – this year brings opportunities to make change.

2026 will see several independent accountability mechanisms (IAMs – the watchdogs of IFIs) review their policies and procedures, including at the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the African Development Bank (AfDB), the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).

The World Bank Group (WBG) is considering a merger of its various accountability mechanisms. Its private sector arm, the IFC, is reviewing its ‘access to information’ and safeguards policies, with potentially huge impact in shaping standards across the financial sector. Meanwhile, communities who have raised complaints of harm await answers.

Taken together, the outcome of these processes could have important implications for these communities and for future development projects. It will determine, for years to come, which avenues affected peoples have to hold IFIs to account when projects go wrong.

This article outlines the key opportunities for upholding rights in public finance in 2026, and how civil society groups can get involved.

How and why IFIs must be held accountable

At a time when IFIs are ramping up their investments in renewables and minerals mining for the energy transition, it is vital that these institutions recognise that a just transition must be based on accountability and social justice.

As Recourse has highlighted, all too often IFIs have financed energy projects without properly consulting local communities, often in breach of their own environmental and social standards. This has led to harm and has failed to deliver benefits to people locally. As technologies and energy sources change, publicly-financed IFIs should update and strengthen their standards to prevent harms, be accountable in implementing their standards, and be quick to rectify harms if and when they occur. Complaints submitted to independent accountability mechanisms (IAMs) are a crucial way in which IFIs can learn from these mistakes, to ensure that future funding does not cause further harm or replicate extractivist approaches.

The IAMs are intended to be impartial complaints mechanisms for those impacted by IFI-financed projects. They are one avenue through which people – individuals, communities and organisations – can hold IFIs to account for violating their commitments, demand remedy, and draw attention to the risks of IFI investments, such as big infrastructure projects.

Significant policy changes at IFIs have come about as a result of community complaints. For example, in response to the Barillas dam case in Guatemala – where the IFC sought to dodge its responsibility for providing remedy to affected Indigenous communities by exiting the project early – the IFC put in place a Responsible Exit strategy. Similarly, the RCBC case in the Philippines has led to the IFC introducing its Green Equity Approach which encourages financial intermediary clients to stop funding new coal plants. While these forward-looking policy wins are hugely important for preventing future harms, however, IFIs are still not delivering remedyto those harmed by existing projects.

Independent Accountability Mechanism reviews in 2026

Some IAMs can have high bars for entry, rendering them inaccessible to most complainants – for example, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)’s mechanism has yet to accept a single eligible complaint, despite consistent efforts by communities. IAMs, and the IFIs in which they are based, must do more to reduce barriers to accessing the mechanisms.

Furthermore, when taken as a whole, the IAM system is failing to deliver remedy where it is due. Data from Accountability Counsel suggests that remedial action has only been taken for 7% of complaints submitted to IAMs. Numerous longstanding cases at the WBG, such as the Tata Mundra and RCBC cases relating to the IFC backing coal expansion in India and the Philippines, have yet to see any concrete remedies delivered to communities despite years of engagement through the IAMs.

2026 could be the year that this changes. With so many IAM policies up for review at the same time, there is a chance to drive a race to the top and increase standards across the board.

A consultation on the EIB’s Complaints Mechanism has just opened, and the AfDB is preparing to launch a review of its Independent Recourse Mechanism. Meanwhile, reviews of the ADB’s Accountability Mechanism and the EBRD’s Independent Project Accountability Mechanism are ongoing. Civil society organisations play a vital role in engaging in consultations and submitting recommendations for how these policies should look.

Accountability and safeguards reviews at the World Bank Group

Two ongoing processes at the most renowned IFI, the World Bank Group, offer another opportunity for improvements.

As well as a targeted policy review of the IFC’s accountability mechanism, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), the WBG is exploring a potential merger of some, or possibly all, of the functions of its three accountability mechanisms (the CAO, Dispute Resolution Service and Inspection Panel). This ‘integration’ is designed to bring more coherence and alignment between the World Bank’s different institutions to apply a ‘One World Bank Group’ approach to accountability.

This has the potential to benefit complainants as it creates the prospect of the WBG being able to use all of its leverage, political influence and resources to implement remedial actions, rather than relying on one institution alone. While such an outcome is far from a given – and must be fought for – the IFC’s introduction of a Draft Approach to Remedial Action in 2025is a positive signal.

That being said, prevention is usually better than cure. It would be far better for communities and ecosystems never to suffer harm in the first place. That’s where one hugely important policy process comes in. In late 2026, we expect to see the first draft of IFC’s updated Sustainability Framework. This set of environmental and social safeguards applies to almost all of IFC’s investments (it committed $70 billion of new money in 2025) as well as influencing the policies of 130 commercial banks signed up to the Equator Principles. Concrete wins in this review could help to drive up standards worldwide and prevent many harms from happening in the first place.

Civil society engagement: How to get involved

Civil society organisations around the world are working together to campaign for stronger IFC safeguards and more effective accountability mechanisms that put people’s rights and remedy first. Get in touch with Recourse if you’d like to learn more and join the networks.

Together, we can hold these highly influential, multi-billion dollar banks accountable – to their own standards, and to the communities they claim to serve.

Photo by the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice. This article was first published on Linkedin in March 2026.