Development Without Remedy? What Ghana Reveals About Accountability Gaps in International Finance

On 29-30 January 2026, Accountability Counsel and the Bank Information Center, at the invitation of the Strategic Youth Network for Development (SYND), trained youth and environmental justice advocates in Ghana on how to engage international financial institutions and use Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs) such as the World Bank’s Accountability Mechanism and the African Development Bank’s Independent Recourse Mechanism (IRM) to seek remedy when development projects cause harm.

In preparing for the session, one striking observation emerged.

High investment, minimal recourse

Ghana has received significant development financing over the past decades. The World Bank alone has committed roughly US $16 billion across more than 200 projects spanning energy, transport, agriculture, and public service delivery. The African Development Bank also maintains a substantial presence, with an active portfolio of about US $850 million across more than 20 projects as of 2024, supporting infrastructure, governance, and economic development priorities.

The World Bank’s Inspection Panel has registered only two cases from Ghana, both filed in 2007 and 2008. The AfDB’s IRM has no registered cases from Ghana.

There are possible explanations. Projects may have complied with safeguard standards. Domestic grievance channels may have addressed some disputes.

But given the scale and complexity of development investments globally, the near absence of IAM engagement raises a deeper question: if accountability mechanisms are intended to be accessible and protective, why are they not being used?

Sometimes the most revealing data point is not how many complaints are filed but whether communities know they can file them at all.

Awareness as a precondition for remedy

During the training, participants were largely unaware that the World Bank’s Accountability Mechanism or the AfDB’s IRM existed prior to the session.

This is significant. IAMs depend on affected communities knowing that independent recourse options are available. If organized youth and environmental justice leaders are unfamiliar with these mechanisms, it raises questions about how effectively information is reaching communities directly affected by projects.

Availability in policy documents does not guarantee accessibility in practice.

Ongoing impacts, absent complaints

Participants in the training described an ongoing AfDB-financed road project where surrounding communities are experiencing severe dust pollution. According to their accounts, heavy dust has made it difficult to breathe and move safely in affected areas, yet families continue to live alongside the construction corridor. No complaint has been filed with the IRM.

This example does not establish non-compliance. But it illustrates a broader accountability gap: impacts are experienced and discussed locally, yet they do not translate into engagement with formal recourse mechanisms.

If accountability mechanisms are intended to serve as pathways to remedy when harms arise, the disconnect between lived experience and formal complaint processes warrants scrutiny.

Structural and cultural barriers

Limited awareness is only part of the picture.

Participants also reflected on broader cultural dynamics shaped by Ghana’s history of political instability and coups. In that context, public confrontation - particularly with powerful institutions - has not always been perceived as safe. Silence can be interpreted as stability. Non-confrontation can be seen as prudence.

This historical context may influence how communities assess risk when considering whether to challenge large projects financed by powerful actors.

Other structural barriers compound the issue:

• Filing complaints requires coordination, literacy, and time.
• Rural communities may lack internet access or technical know-how.
• Accountability processes can appear distant, technical, and slow.
• Concerns about retaliation, whether explicit or implicit, may deter engagement.

When these factors converge, underutilization becomes less surprising.

From formal mechanisms to effective accountability

Independent Accountability Mechanisms were created in response to past failures in development finance. Their mandates are grounded in commitments to transparency, participation, and access to remedy.

If these commitments are meaningful, mechanisms must be more than formally available. They must be visible, understandable, and trusted.

Low complaint numbers should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of successful project implementation. In high-investment contexts, sustained absence of complaints may also signal informational, structural, or cultural barriers to access.

Ghana as a signal for expanding climate and infrastructure finance

Ghana’s experience offers a timely reflection point as development finance expands, particularly in infrastructure, climate adaptation, and energy transition.

As financing accelerates to meet growth and climate objectives, projects are becoming larger and more complex. The legitimacy of this expansion depends not only on safeguard frameworks, but on credible systems of remedy.

If accountability mechanisms remain peripheral to community awareness in high-investment countries, development finance risks advancing faster than its accountability architecture. An accountability system that functions only when civil society intermediaries intervene is not yet fully embedded in development practice.

Closing the gap

The goal is not to increase complaints as a performance metric. The goal is to ensure that when harm occurs, communities know their rights and can pursue remedy safely and effectively.

That requires:

• Proactive, localized outreach by accountability mechanisms and project implementers;
• Clear disclosure of recourse pathways alongside environmental and social plans;
• Strong anti-retaliation safeguards and visible enforcement;
• Engagement strategies that account for cultural and historical dynamics influencing public participation.

Development without accessible accountability risks becoming development without remedy.

Ghana’s case does not prove systemic failure. But it invites a necessary question: are accountability systems positioned to function in practice, or only in principle?

Ensuring that remedy is visible, usable, and safe is not peripheral to development. It is central to its credibility.