Introduction
The Independent Complaints Mechanism (ICM) is a grievance mechanism of three leading European bilateral Development Finance Institutions (DFIs), namely Dutch Nederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden N.V. (FMO), German Deutsche Investitions- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH (DEG), and French Société de Promotion et de Participation pour la Coopération Économique (Proparco). The ICM was established in 2014 by the FMO and DEG, and Proparco later joined in 2019.[1] Between 2022 and 2025, these DFIs undertook a review process to update the 2017 ICM Independent Policy.[2]
The 2017 ICM Policy provided for periodic reviews every four years to ensure its continued relevance and effectiveness.[3] The review process began in 2022 with an independent expert assessment, culminating in a 2023 report identifying key improvement areas.[4] In 2024, stakeholder consultations and a joint working group (including DFIs and the ICM Panel) developed revisions, supported by an independent facilitator, with any unresolved issues being highlighted for further input during public participation.[5] The draft policy was approved for public consultation in July 2025, followed by a public consultation period (August–October 2025) and incorporation of feedback from a broad range of stakeholders.[6] The final updated policy was endorsed in December 2025 and entered into force on 1 March 2026, applying to all complaints submitted thereafter.[7]
This blog appraises the new ICM policy through a brief evaluation of some of the key improvements and changes that the policy introduces, and potential impacts, as well as any initial concerns that remain in relation to the practical implementation. The author acknowledges that the changes in the updated policy represent positive development in respect to access to remedy in bilateral DFIs’ space, where the ICM has been making significant progress, particularly as a model for a joint accountability mechanism and the transparency of the complaints handled through publication of the annual reports on its work. The author does not endeavour to assess the updated policy’s impact and effectiveness, as these can only be determined after a considerable period of its application to complaints filed under it
Comparing the 2017 and the 2026 ICM Policies: an overview
| Theme | 2017 ICM Policy | 2026 ICM Policy | Some implications |
| Scope | Limited to complaints related to the DFIs’ direct clients. | Apply to complaints from direct clients and the DFIs’ with the exclusion of short-term investments or B-loans. | Expanded scope allows complaints from operations of financial intermediaries but excluding B-loans while DFIs employ these mechanisms lead to potential accountability gaps in such situations. |
| Human rights issues | No express reference to human rights | Explicit reference to human rights in defining harms, aligning the ICM with UNGP effectiveness criteria, providing accommodation of PWDs especially those with visual impairments in filing complaints and requiring human rights expertise on the ICM panel. | Human rights scope limited to the E&S policies and client agreements. Visual-impairment-only accommodation risks unequal treatment of other PWDs. Human rights expertise in ICM improves its capacity in human rights–related complaints. |
| The ICM | |||
| Composition | The ICM and the individual DFIs’ complaints offices | ICM as a stand-alone mechanism | Enhanced independence |
| Functions | Compliance Review & Dispute Resolution. | Compliance Review Dispute Resolution, Advisory and outreach functions | Greater institutional value |
| Complaints Admissibility | “Active relationship” of DFI and the Client as the main precondition. | Admissible when no exit has occurred and up to 12 months after exit. | Increases access to remedy even after exit. |
| Dispute Resolution and Compliance Review Procedures | No specific timelines for the processes. Individual DFIs monitor implementation of the outcomes | Specific timelines i.e. 18 months or 24 months (if there is an extension) for Dispute Resolution and not exceeding one year for compliance review The ICM to monitor implementation in both. | Clear timelines and monitoring improve implementation. |
| Deferral Procedures | No provisions for deferral. | Deferral procedure of 2- 6 months | Enables parties to explore early resolution of complaints through engagement. |
| Non-Retaliation | No provision on retaliation. | Include retaliation provisions | Greater protection for complainants as it that acknowledges additional risks faced by the marginalized e.g, children, women etc. |
A Key Concern in the Policy Update and Review Process
On another note, while the ICM Policy 2026 introduces important changes aimed at ensuring that people affected by DEG/FMO/Proparco-financed projects can access remedies, the review process raises questions about its inclusivity. An 8.5-week public participation period of both virtual and two in-person regional meetings in Kenya and the Netherlands was, in my opinion, extremely short.[8] Notably, local communities from DFIs’ focus regions, the actual users of the ICM, are absent from the 51 stakeholders consulted, which included academia, DFIs’ clients, financing institutions, IAMs, experts, CSOs, and intergovernmental organisations.[9]
A quick search of these DFIs’ websites indicates that FMO operates in over 85 countries, Proparco in 115, and DEG in 76.[10] Across these countries, they have regional offices; for example, in Africa alone, Proparco has 14 regional offices, DEG has 3, and FMO has 2.[11] Additionally, from the ICM’s 2023-2025 annual reports, as of the end of the respective years, all the ongoing cases related to projects located in Africa.[12] Complainants in these cases have substantial firsthand experience with ICM procedures, and the process would likely have benefited from the substantive feedback from affected local communities across different regions.
Given DFIs’ global reach and extensive case history, input from only 51 stakeholders indicates very low public participation. Virtual consultations limited or no internet access in rural often affected areas, and short consultation periods likely hindered meaningful participation. Physical visits would have been ideal. This is not to suggest that high numbers alone reflect the effectiveness of the process; rather, it would be helpful if the (project-affected) people who are the main users of the mechanism had meaningful participation and active engagement in the review process. [13]
Concluding remarks
Overall, the final ICM Policy 2026 presents a great improvement over its predecessor.[14] As this is a new Policy, it is too early to determine its real impact. However, it is safe to say that the review process demonstrated a positive step towards the evolution of the role of the ICM towards a rights-based framework. The lack of consensus and compromise on some issues, for example, the need to explicitly include a provision allowing the ICM to consider all other relevant standards on international human rights, demonstrates the broader friction in the development finance governance framework and human rights. [15] The impressive role of the ICM Panel in voicing its concerns and making this proposal shows that there are prospects that it can potentially leverage its additional advisory mandate and ultimately influence DFIs’ environmental, social, and human rights performance. Perhaps, when the DFIs themselves expressly commit to adhering to the international human rights framework together with their Environmental and Social Sustainability Policies, the same will be incorporated into the ICM Policy without any resistance. As it is noted that the DFIs and the Panel have started to develop “internal guidance, outreach materials, and operational adjustments” for transition purposes, we remain hopeful that the ICM achieves its intended objectives in relation to access to remedy.
Acknowledgement
The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Research Foundation–Flanders (FWO) through the FWO Fundamental Research Fellowship (Grant No. 11P9224N) during which this blog was written.
[1] DEG, ‘French Proparco Joins Independent Complaints Mechanism of DEG and FMO’ (26 July 2018) <https://www.deginvest.de/Newsroom/News/News-Details_481024-2.html> accessed 13 May 2026.
[2] DEG, FMO and Proparco, ‘ICM Policy Update Process’ <https://www.deginvest.de/DEG-Documents-in-English/About-us/Responsibility/ICM-Policy-Update-Process.pdf> accessed 29 April 2026; ICM Public Consultation, ‘The ICM Policy Review & Update’ (17 August 2025) <https://icm-consultation.org/review_and_update/> accessed 29 April 2026.
[3] DEG, ‘Independent Complaints Mechanism’ para 3.6 <https://www.deginvest.de/DEG-Documents-in-English/About-us/Responsibility/170101_Independent-Complaints-Mechanism_DEG.pdf> accessed 27 August 2024; FMO, ‘Independent Complaints Mechanism’ para 3.6 <https://www.fmo.nl/l/en/library/download/urn:uuid:851c7e33-6391-49fb-9f0b-009a62a0ebc0/independent+complaints+mechanism+policy_updated.pdf> accessed 27 August 2024; ICM Public Consultation (n 2); Proparco, ‘Independent Complaints Mechanism’ para 3.6 <https://www.proparco.fr/en/ressources/independent-complaints-mechanism-proparco> accessed 27 August 2024.
[4] DEG, FMO and Proparco, ‘ICM Policy Update Process’ (n 2); ICM Public Consultation (n 2).
[5] ICM Public Consultation (n 2).
[6] Samantha Dierckx, ‘Independent Complaints Mechanism Public Consultation on the Draft Policy: Activity Report’ (The Greater Good Consulting Company Limited 2025) 2 <https://icm-consultation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/2025_11_21_-ICM_Public_Consultation_Activity_Summary_Report.pdf> accessed 29 April 2026; ICM Public Consultation (n 2).
[7] DEG, FMO and Proparco, ‘Independent Complaints Mechanism Public Consultation on the Draft Policy: Stakeholder Feedback Report’ (2026) 3 and 22 <https://icm-consultation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026_03_01_ICM_Public_Consultation_Stakeholder_Feedback_Report.pdf> accessed 29 April 2026.
[8] ibid 4; Dierckx (n 6) 2.
[9] DEG, FMO and Proparco, ‘Independent Complaints Mechanism Public Consultation on the Draft Policy: Stakeholder Feedback Report’ (n 9) 6; Dierckx (n 8) 5–6 & 11–12.
[10] DEG, ‘Our Investments’ <https://www.deginvest.de/Unsere-Investitionen/index-2.html> accessed 30 April 2026; FMO, ‘About FMO’ <https://www.fmo.nl/about-fmo> accessed 30 April 2026; Proparco, ‘Financing and Equipping the Private Sector for a More Just and Sustainable World’ <https://www.proparco.fr/en/financing-and-equipping-private-sector-more-just-and-sustainable-world> accessed 16 April 2026.
[11] DEG, ‘Our Locations –Your Contacts’ <https://www.deginvest.de/Über-uns/Unsere-Standorte/index-2.html> accessed 30 April 2026; FMO, ‘Locations’ <https://www.fmo.nl/address> accessed 30 April 2026; Proparco, ‘Our Regional Offices’ <https://www.proparco.fr/en/our-regional-offices> accessed 30 April 2026.
[12] DEG, FMO and Proparco, ‘ICM Annual Report 2025’ (2025) 12 <https://www.proparco.fr/sites/proparco/files/2026-03/independent-complaints-mechanism-annual-report-2025_0.pdf> accessed 30 April 2026; DEG, FMO and Proparco, ‘ICM Annual Report January – December 2023’ (2023) 6; DEG, FMO and Proparco, ‘ICM Annual Report January – December 2024’ (2024) 7 <https://www.proparco.fr/en/ressources/annual-report-independent-complaints-mechanism-degfmoproparco-januarydecember-2024> accessed 24 February 2026.DEG, FMO and Proparco, ‘ICM Annual Report January – December 2023’ 6; DEG, FMO and Proparco, ‘ICM Annual Report January – December 2024’ 7.
[13] Kariuki Muigua, ‘Upholding Human Rights and Meaningful Public Participation in Development Projects’ (2021) 6 Journal of Conflict Management and Sustainable Development 8–9 <https://journalofcmsd.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Upholding-Human-Rights-and-Meaningful-Public-Participation-in-Development-Projects.pdf> accessed 29 April 2026; OECD, OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes (OECD Publishing 2022) 13–15 <https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en> accessed 29 April 2026; UN Declaration on the Right to Development 1986 art 2.
[14] Inclusive Development International, SOMO and Both Ends, ‘Strengthened FMO Complaints Mechanism Is a Step Forward, but Gaps Remain’ <https://www.inclusivedevelopment.net/development-finance/both-ends-strengthened-fmo-complaints-mechanism-is-a-step-forward-but-major-gaps-remain/> accessed 7 May 2026; Gregory Berry, ‘New Independent Complaints Mechanism Policy Provides Helpful Guidance for Shared Accountability Models’ (15 April 2026) <https://www.accountabilitycounsel.org/blog/new-independent-complaints-mechanism-policy-provides-helpful-guidance-for-shared-accountability-models> accessed 1 May 2026.
[15] DEG, FMO and Proparco, ‘Draft ICM Policy for Public Consultation’ para 5 <https://icm-consultation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Official_English_Version_Draft_ICM_Policy_Public_Consultation.pdf> accessed 29 April 2026; DEG, FMO and Proparco, ‘Draft ICM Policy_Changes_Redline’ para 5 <https://icm-consultation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026_03_01_DRAFT_ICM_Policy_Changes_Redline.pdf> accessed 29 April 2026.
