A new microscope being applied to international financial institutions is making it possible for the first time to see their information disclosure policies in high definition.
A 255-item matrix, focused on 10 institutions, is making possible the most sophisticated comparison ever of transparency policies.
The preliminary findings indicate many common weaknesses – few open meetings, the delayed release of many documents, the confidentiality of many documents, and no clear procedures to request information. Looking at the contrasts, indicates that there are some areas where one or more institution has moved ahead, such as the fact that the Asian Development Bank and the African Development Bank are the only institutions to release certain environmental information 120 days prior to project approval for both public and private sector lending.
The use of the matrix to draw comparisons came recently when the Bank Information Center used the matrix to analyze new disclosure policy proposals advanced by the Inter-American Development Bank. BIC was able to point out where and how the IDB proposal lagged other institutions.
While none of the banks stands out across all the transparency categories, the World Bank has the highest disclosure standards.
The matrix project is a joint effort by the Bank Information Center and freedominfo.org, and a full report is expected out this summer.
General Observations from Matrix Results
The “presumption” of disclosure, claimed by many institutions as cornerstones of their policies, is seriously undercut by a plethora of exceptions, according to the preliminary conclusions drawn from the matrix. Most institutions’ disclosure policies are undercut by numerous specific exceptions and constraints.
Nor are there procedural avenues for those who feel access has been unfairly denied. The policies are not tested on any scale for balancing the legitimate need for confidentiality with the public interest in transparency.
The disclosure policies also appear to reflect substantial deference to private corporations. Also, the meetings of the major decision-making policies are uniformly held in private.
Among other general conclusions being drawn: there is little coherence in the transparency of institution-wide policy development; disclosure tends to come after decisions have been made; little information is released during project implementation; financial intermediary lending is generally exempt from disclosure rules; translation policies are lacking; and some dissemination efforts lack procedures.
More Specific Preliminary Conclusions
The matrix includes 13 broad categories, beginning with “general institutional information” and ending with “web sites.” The matrix also tracks the stages of policy-making within the institutions, indicating whether documents produced are available or not.
Beginning with the first area, the study indicates that basic institutional information is consistently released, but that the institutions are generally weak when it comes to giving the public specific information on how to contact directors or staff members.
The governing bodies are almost completely closed to public scrutiny, with no minutes, voting records or transcripts available. Post-meeting announcements come in different forms and levels of specificity.
The IFIs do not have clear procedures regarding the transparency of their policy review and development processes. Among other things, none of the institutions releases external comments made during a policy review. Nor are drafts of proposed policies made available consistently before board action.
Financial statements and audits are generally available, but more specific reporting on evaluations is often not disclosed.
Most IFIs disclose the final economic reports or analyses for specific countries, but the preparation of them is largely untransparent.
As for project lending, none of the IFIs release draft reports to the boards on potential projects, and background feasibility and technical studies are difficult to obtain. Policies on the release of environmental information vary. Project implementation and supervision is arguably the most secretive phase of the project cycle.
The lending activities of financial intermediaries are subject to a much lower standard of disclosure.
Only a few institutions have accountability mechanisms — the systems that may allow IFI employees or outsiders to raise grievances – and few live up to the most transparent mechanism, that of the World Bank.
All the IFIs have disclosure policies, but the IFIs generally do not have process guarantees – such as clear standards on what should be disclosed, a promise of timely response, or a right of appeal.
None of the IFIs have an institution-wide, binding translation policy.
Many of the IFIs have archive policies with timelines for declassifying materials. The ADB is the most progressive, with a five-year declassification period, but disclosure is still subject to government consent.
This article, written by Toby McIntosh, is a summary of a working paper prepared by Abigail Parish, Jennifer Kalafut and Graham Saul.
Filed under: IFTI Watch