New bank policy to improve access to information but not transparency

By Atieno Ndomo

In late September, the World Bank suspended its support to two multi-million shilling projects – the Kenya Education Sector Support Programme and the Western Kenya Community-Driven Development and Flood Mitigation Project — over alleged fraud involving bank and Government officials.

This announcement must have surprised many, especially because beyond general news headlines announcing loans or grants, details on its projects are typically shrouded in secrecy. Doubtless, a stronger public information disclosure regime and more transparent execution of these projects would minimise fraud.

Ahead of the enactment of the Freedom of Information legislation, perhaps we can look to invoking the provisions of the upcoming revised Disclosure Policy to demand better transparency of World Bank financed projects. The policy outlines the linkage between openness, better public engagement, and improved development outcomes.

Due for deliberation by the bank’s executive board in mid-November, Toward Greater Transparency Through Access to Information: The World Bank’s Disclosure Policy is a policy which has resulted from years of calls for improved transparency and information disclosure.

Other aspects of improvement cover the timing and scope of information released, instituting a mechanism for processing requests for information, and the establishment of an independent appeals body to deal with public interest claims for disclosure.

The essence of timely access to bank documents, and decision-making cannot be over emphasised since the bank implements projects that have far-reaching impacts on communities. The secrecy that typically surrounds its projects fundamentally limits meaningful participation in the design and implementation of policies. Key documents are kept confidential or released only after binding commitments have been made.

This closes off the possibility of interactive deliberations that incorporate alternative proposals, ahead of decision making on bank operations.

To use the Bank’s Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) as an example, what value would be derived from merely releasing to the public an already approved CAS? A more beneficial approach would have the draft CAS being publicly disclosed, to enable critical engagement with the document, which defines the scope of the bank’s work in a country over a three to five year period.

The revised policy commits to "routinely make available to the public as much information as practical" and to "expand the categories of information that it routinely discloses". Obviously, this provision would be stronger if it ensured the public release of documents was not subject to country agreement.

The automatic and timely disclosure of documents of public interest such as the draft Country Assistance/Partnership Strategies should be upheld to strengthen stakeholder involvement, participatory decision-making, accountability and ownership.

Beyond information posted on its website (albeit on an ad hoc basis) and through its Public Information Centers, the bank should, through the Disclosure Policy, strengthen the free and broad dissemination of information on its country and project work, finances, structures and policies and decision-making procedures.

A lot of lending documents as well as advisory and analytical information are presently classified. Concerns remain that the revised policy is inadequate.

The fact that it overrides national laws on access to information limits the possibility of public access to information such as statements made by country representatives at official bank meetings.

The bank’s board meetings remain closed. The veto power left to countries and contractors (on the release of information they present to the bank) will severely limit the release of critical information, which they provide to the Bank.

The argument against such veto is premised on the need to uphold public interest. The policy should outline a clear procedure for requesting information and accompanying commitment to assist such requests.

This is critical bearing in mind that there is a general low awareness of the operations of the bank.

Critics insist that though the revised policy advances some positive principles around ownership, participation and oversight, it falls short of recognising the fundamental human right to access information held by public or private actors such as the Bank.

_The writer ([email protected]) is a social and economic policy analyst