Scoop: Emails reveal accountability standoff at AIIB over evictions

A leaked email exchange between the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and a civil society watchdog group over alleged human rights abuses at a tourism development project in Indonesia is shedding light on how the Beijing-based lender handles complaints — just as critics warn its revamped accountability mechanism may still fall short. The correspondence, which took place last month and was shared exclusively with Devex, documents repeated requests by the watchdog group and Indigenous community representatives for in-person public consultations, disclosure of land and resettlement records, and an on-the-ground fact-finding mission to the Mandalika Urban and Tourism Infrastructure Project on Lombok Island in Indonesia. The project, which is in its eighth year, is a plan to develop infrastructure for tourism in a coastal town called Ebunut. AIIB approved a $248.4 million loan to the Indonesia Tourism Development Corporation, or ITDC, to develop infrastructure for the Mandalika region in Lombok. This represents 78.5% of the total $316.5 million project cost. But locals, international NGOs, and United Nations experts have said that it is forcing more than 150 households that rely on fishing or livestock-based incomes to leave the coast for the mountains. It has also involved the deployment of Indonesian security forces to carry out violent evictions, according to the watchdog organization representing locals. The leaked email exchange shows the bank refusing several requests to visit the town and traditional sites that are being impacted by the development plans. The back-and-forth culminated in an agreement for an in-person meeting with five representatives of the villages and two AIIB consultants, but no consensus on where it would take place. The bank maintained that it “has not refused to meet members of the community” and is “always open to dialogue.” “We have been making efforts to engage constructively over the past years,” AIIB said. “The Bank has been actively working with the [civil society organizations] to identify appropriate dates and places to meet.” Forced evictions United Nations experts have repeatedly expressed concern about forced evictions in the region, most recently in August 2025. In a memo from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the experts said that “more than 700 security forces, including personnel from a private security company have destroyed personal belongings, property and homes, and confiscated land from local communities. No adequate notice has been given, and no suitable alternative housing or resettlement has been provided.” They recorded this as the second series of forced evictions, with the first taking place between 2019 and 2021. Some of these evictions were to make way for the MotoGP project — a race track circuit similar to that used in Formula One races. The circuit, which was finished in 2021, is on one part of the Mandalika project grounds and was constructed by AIIB’s client ITDC. AIIB has repeatedly said that it is not involved in the circuit project. Beyond the MotoGP project, AIIB denied any accusation of forced evictions in a comment to Devex. “To date, AIIB has not found any evidence of forced evictions in relation to the Mandalika Urban and Tourism Infrastructure Project financed by AIIB.” However, in an official 2018 document from AIIB entitled “Resettlement Action Plan Mandalika Urban and Tourism Infrastructure Project,” the authors explicitly stated that locals will lose “the places where they have lived for years.” They added that “the farmers will also [lose] their primary or secondary income since they leave their crops behind and will not be able to farm on the land anymore.” The document also included the plan for the MotoGP in its original conception and showed a separate map of the MotoGP project with the distribution of residences around the circuit area. Legally, the document emphasized that the residents of the region “do not have land title or other legal bases to occupy the land where they currently live.” It added that, “Actually, the land is legally under ITDC control … therefore, there will be no land-ownership loss due to the resettlement.” The bank’s official statements stressed compliance with its environmental and social framework and highlighted project benefits and ongoing grievance resolution efforts. To Devex, the bank said that they are “aware of the allegations” and “has conducted due diligence through missions, meeting and field visits.” The bank also stated that under its own requirements for broad community support based on free, prior, and informed consent, it has achieved the necessary consultations and approvals. AIIB’s standards have generally been viewed as more flexible and streamlined than the more stringent Free, Prior and Informed Consent, or FPIC, standards preferred by many human rights organizations and sometimes applied by other multilateral development banks. Avoiding the accountability mechanism Advocates told Devex that they have not submitted a complaint to the bank’s official accountability mechanism, opting instead to directly engage with AIIB’s management. AIIB’s accountability mechanism has not found a single complaint filed to be eligible for compliance review since it was established in 2019. The watchdog organization told Devex that it sees the accountability mechanism as a last resort, in part because it requires the victims of the situation to provide proof. In this case, the watchdog organization told Devex that the bank never publicly disclosed the land audit it claims to have conducted in 2019, nor detailed the monitoring reports on compensation and resettlement. “You’re required to prove harm without being given the documents that would allow you to prove it,” said one coalition member familiar with the exchanges. “That’s not meaningful access to justice.” “The project may be nearing completion,” said one advocate from the watchdog organization. “But accountability can’t be retrofitted at the end. If AIIB’s new mechanism can’t handle a case like this, it raises serious questions about who it’s really designed for.”