Introduction to AIIB’s Project-affected People’s Mechanism (PPM)
The Project-affected People’s Mechanism (PPM) is AIIB’s independent accountability mechanism that receives submissions from Project-affected people who believe they have been or are likely to be adversely affected by AIIB’s failure to implement the Environmental and Social Policy (ESP). The PPM is a complementary part of AIIB’s broader accountability ecosystem that includes local project grievance redress mechanisms and AIIB management’s oversight procedures. The PPM was set up under the PPM Policy approved by AIIB’s Board of Directors on December 7, 2018. This Policy was revised following an extensive review process during 2023-25. The updated policy was approved by the Board on December 18, 2025, and the revision came into effect on January 1, 2026.
AIIB’s Complaints-resolution, Evaluation and Integrity Unit (CEIU) is responsible for the functioning of the PPM.
PPM Functions
Early Problem Solving Function: Through its Early Problem Solving function, the PPM helps Project-affected people obtain rapid resolution of their concerns over simple matters that arise during AIIB’s environmental and social due diligence of a Project and that do not require dispute resolution. These may include inquiries about the consultation process related to a Project or requests to address any environmental nuisance such as dust, noise, or mobility restrictions experienced during Project preparation.
Dispute Resolution Function: In its Dispute Resolution function, the PPM facilitates a dialogue between AIIB, the Project-affected people, and/or Client, with a view to agreeing on actions to mitigate known potential or actual material adverse environmental or social impacts that arise during AIIB’s environmental and social due diligence of a Project or during Project implementation.
Compliance Review Function: Under its Compliance Review function, the PPM investigates allegations by Project-affected people that AIIB has failed to comply with its obligations under the ESP in its environmental and social due diligence of a Project or its oversight of the Project during implementation, thereby causing or being likely to cause material adverse environmental or social impacts on the Project-affected people and, if the allegations are substantiated, to review any action plan proposed by Management to address these impacts.
Confidentiality and Retaliation
The PPM maintains confidentiality upon receipt of a submission, if requested to do so by the Requestors, and makes all reasonable efforts to safeguard this confidentiality. Also, when the PPM acknowledges receipt of a submission, it will remind Requestors (and their Authorized Representative, if applicable) that they have the option to request confidentiality.
If confidentiality becomes an impediment to assessment of submission eligibility or effective resolution of issues raised, the PPM advises the Requestors of these concerns and seeks to agree with the Requestors on how to proceed. Failing such agreement, the PPM may terminate review of the submission.
In reviewing any request for confidentiality, the PPM assesses the risk of retaliation in connection with the submission. If the review identifies a risk of retaliation, the PPM notifies AIIB’s Management and discusses actions Management may take to avoid increasing the risk to the safety of the Requestors, their families, in-country Authorized Representative and other relevant persons.
Good Faith Efforts
The PPM process is available to requestors after they make good-faith efforts to resolve their issues with the Project-level GRM and Management. This approach enables timely resolution of these issues at the Project level using the Client’s GRM, complemented by Management’s support when needed.
If requestors are unable to resolve their issues at these levels, they should present to the PPM the reasons for this. Acceptable reasons would, without limitation, include: (i) the nonexistence or nonfunctioning of the Project-level GRM; (ii) a failure on the part of Management to engage meaningfully with the Requestors within a reasonable period of time following notice to Management to engage with the Requestors; or (iii) a risk of retaliation.
These examples of acceptable reasons are not exhaustive. In determining whether the reasons presented to it are reasonable, the PPM exercises judgment on a case-by-case basis, based on the facts presented.
A determination by the PPM of whether a Project-level GRM is nonexistent or nonfunctioning may be based on a variety of indicators, including, but not limited to: (a) the GRM was never established; (b) accessing the GRM requires use of the internet while Project-affected people have difficulty in accessing the internet; (c) the GRM has no toll-free hotline, physical complaint boxes, or other mechanism for easy access by Requestors; (d) grievances remain unacknowledged for unreasonably long periods of time; (e) the GRM has a recent history of retaliation (e.g., job loss, harassment) for submitting grievances; (f) the GRM’s replies are vague (e.g., “We are looking into it”) with no follow-up; (g) the GRM dismisses environmental and social concerns as being “outside the scope” of GRM’s jurisdiction; and (h) the GRM refuses to provide information to Project-affected people about AIIB’s Project team or the PPM.
An indicator of Management nonresponsiveness would be if there has been no meaningful engagement by Management within forty-five (45) Working Days following notice to Management to engage with the Requestors.
If the PPM determines that there is a credible risk of retaliation from approaching the GRM, Requestors would not be required to make good-faith efforts through the Project-level GRM. Instead, they would normally be referred to Management to resolve issues. Detailed provisions on implementing retaliation risk mitigation measures are set forth in Attachment 3 of the PPM Rules of Procedure.
