For members of the Indigenous Sasak community on the Indonesian island of Lombok, the conflict over their land is not over.
For them, a tourism and infrastructure project co-financed by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is a source of frustration, as they believe it has led to the expropriation of their land and destruction of their livelihoods.
In late September, they officially filed a complaint with the bank. It remains unclear whether this complaint will lead to an independent investigation.
The AIIB, which finances major infrastructure projects across Asia, has a mechanism in place to deal with such complaints.
Individuals who suffer adverse effects from the bank-financed projects may, under certain conditions, file a complaint with the institution.
However, access to this process — known as the Project Complaints Mechanism (PPM) — remains controversial.
According to a report by The Diplomat, a magazine that covers political and economic developments in Asia, 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," but it stressed that it is "only part of the story."
The AIIB emphasized that not every issue needs to be resolved through this mechanism.
The PPM is "only one part of AIIB's grievance redress ecosystem," the Beijing-based bank said in response to a query from DW.
Those affected should first attempt to resolve concerns directly with the project team at the local level, it said.
According to the bank, "twelve complaints were in fact resolved at the project level — as a direct result of AIIB's follow-up and intervention — and one was resolved through domestic courts."
But critics see this as a major weakness.
"The mechanism must be easily accessible," said Arntraud Hartmann, a development economist at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS Europe) in Bologna, Italy.
She argued that people affected by the projects, for instance, are required to document potential violations of environmental and social standards from the start. "How is the affected party supposed to know which standards might have been violated?" she questioned.
The AIIB disputes this claim. "In terms of accessibility, we have made the submission form simpler and translated it into 12 languages," it said, adding that complaints can be submitted online, by phone, or by email.
Urgewald, a German environmental NGO, cites another problem with AIIB-financed projects.
For many of them, information on environmental impacts and resettlements is either missing or published late, it noted.
For 2024, the NGO found that 11 of the 16 projects it examined lacked complete environmental and social impact assessments. In many cases, information on the potential number of displaced residents was also missing, it added.
"The information published on the bank's website is often insufficient and inconsistent. Particularly important documents, such as environmental impact assessments or resettlement plans, vary widely or are missing entirely," said Nora Sausmikat, a China expert at Urgewald.
The lack of information makes it difficult for those affected to respond in a timely manner and report violations early on, she underscored, adding that the situation is particularly difficult for people without formal land titles.
Christoph Steinert, a political scientist at the University of Konstanz, said the mere existence of such grievance redressal mechanisms "is not enough."
Particularly vulnerable groups often know little about their rights, he said, adding that information should be available in local languages and targeted outreach directed at affected communities.
Criticism of the AIIB's procedures is not new.
A 2023 report by international aid organizations, including Recourse, Accountability Counsel, and Inclusive Development International, revealed that the AIIB's grievance mechanism had failed to accept a single complaint since its 2019 inception.
The study highlighted that 101 of the 219 AIIB-financed projects, or 46% of of the total projects at the time, were ineligible for review due to co-financing exemptions.
The AIIB typically provides funding without leading projects, a standard practice in development finance. When complaints arise, it directs complainants to the lead lender. As a result, nine of the 45 complaints fell outside its jurisdiction.
For Sausmikat, this is part of the problem. "The AIIB, however, decided against revising this requirement and established a mechanism that is very difficult to access," she said.
As of January 1, 2026, following two years of external consultations, the AIIB reformed its complaints mechanism. Under certain conditions, complaints can now be filed even while legal proceedings are ongoing.
But Sausmikat stressed that the changes are insufficient. Of the eight key recommendations made by an independent expert, only three were adopted, she underlined. "The revision did not remove the actual obstacles."
The AIIB stated that the reforms are intended to make the mechanism "more accessible and responsive."
The new rules have been in effect for only ten months, and their implementation is being closely monitored, the bank said.
Steinert said fear of reprisals poses another fundamental challenge to such procedures.
Documented cases from Latin America, for instance, show that complainants have faced administrative or legal problems, and in some cases even violence.
Such risks could deter others from filing complaints, Steinert said.
However, his research does not specifically address AIIB projects.
The bank said that it "does not tolerate retaliation against anyone who raises concerns."
"Requestors may ask for confidentiality, and the revised PPM policy strengthens protection against reprisals," it added.
Sausmikat said Germany — as a co-founder and the fourth-largest shareholder of the AIIB — could also play a role, working with other member states to push for changes.
Hartmann also stressed that the bank's shareholders bear responsibility and urged the AIIB's Board of Directors to amend the rules governing the grievance mechanism. "We need a policy based on good-practice standards."
