Table of Contents
For members of the Indigenous Sasak community on the Indonesian island of Lombok, a tourism and infrastructure project co-financed by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) has led to land expropriation and the destruction of livelihoods. Despite officially filing a complaint with the bank in late September, it remains unclear whether the institution will launch an independent investigation.
Concerns Over Accessibility and Eligibility
The AIIB operates a Project Complaints Mechanism (PPM) that allows individuals suffering adverse effects from bank-financed projects to file complaints under certain conditions. However, according to a report by The Diplomat cited by Deutsche Welle, none of the 45 complaints listed on the AIIB’s website had been deemed admissible as of mid-September. The bank acknowledged that no cases have passed the PPM’s eligibility assessment, while stressing that this is only part of the story.
The Beijing-based bank stated that the PPM is only one part of its grievance redress ecosystem and that affected individuals should first attempt to resolve concerns locally with the project team. The bank reported that 12 complaints were resolved at the project level through its follow-up and intervention, while one was settled through domestic courts.
Critics, nevertheless, view the system as deeply flawed. Development economist Arntraud Hartmann from the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS Europe) in Bologna, Italy, argued that the mechanism must be easily accessible and pointed out the difficulty for affected parties in documenting technical violations of environmental and social standards from the start. In response, the AIIB noted that it has simplified the submission form, translated it into 12 languages, and enabled submissions online, by phone, or by email.
German environmental NGO Urgewald highlighted further issues regarding missing or late information on environmental impacts and resettlements. Nora Sausmikat, a China expert at Urgewald, noted that 11 of the 16 examined projects for 2024 lacked complete environmental and social impact assessments, leaving displaced resident data missing and making timely responses particularly difficult for individuals without formal land titles.
Historical Criticism and Recent Reforms
Political scientist Christoph Steinert from the University of Konstanz emphasized that the mere existence of grievance redress mechanisms is insufficient, noting that vulnerable groups often lack awareness of their rights and require targeted outreach in local languages.
Criticism of these procedures is longstanding. A 2023 study by international aid organizations including Recourse, Accountability Counsel, and Inclusive Development International revealed that the mechanism had failed to accept a single complaint since its 2019 inception, with nearly half of all projects ineligible due to co-financing exemptions where the AIIB directs complainants to lead lenders.
Following external consultations, the AIIB reformed its complaints mechanism, allowing filings during ongoing legal proceedings starting January 1, 2026. However, Sausmikat pointed out that only three of eight key expert recommendations were adopted, leaving actual obstacles in place. The AIIB maintained that the reforms aim to make the process more accessible and responsive, and noted that the new rules are being closely monitored after ten months of implementation.
Reprisal Risks and Shareholder Responsibility
Steinert also identified the fear of reprisals as another fundamental challenge, pointing to documented cases in Latin America where complainants faced administrative, legal problems, or violence, though his research did not specifically cover AIIB projects. The AIIB responded that it does not tolerate retaliation, allows requests for confidentiality, and strengthens protection against reprisals in its revised policy.
Sausmikat suggested that Germany, as a co-founder and the fourth-largest shareholder, could collaborate with other member states to advocate for further changes. Hartmann similarly urged the AIIB’s Board of Directors and shareholders to amend the governance rules to establish a policy aligned with good-practice standards.
This article was originally written in German.
