74559 WORLD BANK POLICY ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION EXPERIENCE IN THE FIRST 18 MONTHS OF IMPLEMENTATION LEGAL VICE PRESIDENCY December 19, 2012 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AI Access to Information AIC Access to Information Committee AfDB African Development Bank AsDB Asian Development Bank CAS Country Assistance Strategy CTR Controller’s Vice Presidency DFID Department for International Development, British Government EAP East Asia and Pacific Regional Vice Presidency ESW Economic Sector Work EXT External Affairs Vice Presidency FY Fiscal Year GSD General Services Department GSDCP Corporate Procurement Unit, GSD HRS Human Resources Vice Presidency IADB Inter-American Development Bank IAD Internal Audit Vice Presidency IFIs International Financial Institutions IMF International Monetary Fund IMT Information Management and Technology Vice Presidency INT Institutional Integrity Vice Presidency INTVP Vice President, Institutional Integrity ISR Implementation Status and Results Report LEG Legal Vice Presidency LEGIP Information Policy Unit, LEG LEGVP Senior Vice President and Bank Group General Counsel OPCS Operations Policy and Country Services Vice Presidency PAD Project Appraisal Document PD Program Document PFC Pension Finance Committee PIC Public Information Center SEC Corporate Secretary Vice Presidency USD United States Dollar VPU Vice Presidential Unit Page | ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Legal Vice Presidency (“LEG�), Information Policy Unit (Lisa Lui, Patricia Miranda, Davinia Levy, Karen Jones), prepared this report under the general guidance of Anne-Marie Leroy (Senior Vice President and Bank Group General Counsel) and with key contributions from the following groups: - The Information Management and Technology Vice Presidency (“IMT�), Archives Unit and Solutions Design and Implementation Unit (with special thanks to William Buchman and Jeannette Smith, who both provided much of the data on the public’s requests for and access to information, with the support of the other Archives Unit colleagues); - The Corporate Secretary Vice Presidency (“SEC�), Information Services and Membership Unit and Policy and Operations Unit (with special thanks to Barbara Geiser, who provided data on the disclosure of Board records); - External Affairs Vice Presidency (“EXT�), Operational Communications Unit (with appreciation to Sumir Lal and Hannah George for their helpful suggestions on the Report); - LEG, Finance Unit (with appreciation to Cliff Frazier and Ceri Lawley, for their input on information concerning the World Bank Group pension and other retirement benefit plans); and - The members of the Access to Information Committee (“AIC�), represented by the Operations Policy and Country Services Vice Presidency (Paul Bermingham (AIC Chair), Barbara Lee), the Legal Vice Presidency (Hassane Cisse, Anthony Toft), SEC (Axel Peuker, Elisabetta Marmolo), EXT (Sumir Lal, Jill Wilkins), IMT (Elisa Liberatori Prati, Edward Strudwicke), the General Services Department (Carl Wessmann, Vivek Chaudhry), and the East Asia and Pacific Regional Vice Presidency (Ulrich Zachau, Maria Ionata), which served as the AIC regional representative for FY 2012. This Report is endorsed by the AIC. Page | iii WORLD BANK POLICY ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION EXPERIENCE IN THE FIRST 18 MONTHS OF IMPLEMENTATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................... V I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 II. OVERVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION RESULTS AFTER THE FIRST 18 MONTHS .................................. 2 A. World Bank’s Proactive Disclosures and the Public’s Access ..................................................... 2 B. Public Access Requests................................................................................................................. 3 C. Exercise of the World Bank’s Prerogatives .................................................................................. 5 D. Timeliness of World Bank Responses .......................................................................................... 6 E. Appeals ......................................................................................................................................... 7 III. LESSONS LEARNED AND IMPLEMENTATION ENHANCEMENTS......................................................... 8 A. Additional Monitoring Activities .................................................................................................. 8 B. Follow-up Actions ........................................................................................................................ 8 IV. ASSESSMENT OF THE BANK’S PERFORMANCE BY EXTERNAL PARTIES AND THE AI POLICY’S IMPACT ............................................................................................................................................... 11 A. External Assessments.................................................................................................................. 11 B. Impact of the World Bank’s AI Policy on Access to Information .............................................. 13 V. POLICY ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION – FURTHERING TRANSPARENCY ...................................... 14 VI. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS ........................................................................................................ 15 ANNEX A: COMPARISON OF THE INFORMATION ACCESS POLICIES OF SELECT IFIS ............................ 16 Tables Table 1. Disclosure of Board Records During First 18 Months ………………………...……………….. 3 Table 2. Resolution of Cases Completed in the First 18 Months ……………………............................... 4 Table 3. Requests Fulfilled or Denied or Could Not be Fulfilled in Part in the First 18 Months ……………………………...……………................................................ 4 Table 4. Requests Denied (in whole or in part) and the Reasons for the Denials ……………………….. 5 Page | iv WORLD BANK POLICY ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION EXPERIENCE IN THE FIRST 18 MONTHS OF IMPLEMENTATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. In November 2009, the Board of Executive Directors approved the World Bank Policy on Access to Information (“AI Policy�). The AI Policy, which is a central element of the Bank’s modernization and Open Development agenda, has enabled the Bank to fully commit to the concept of Open Development by actively working to make the Bank’s operations, data and research more accessible, transparent and accountable, including opening up the way the Bank develops its research and knowledge. The goal of the AI Policy is to make the Bank an even more effective partner to developing countries, other international development institutions, and civil society organizations. 2. As part of the proposal for the new AI Policy, management committed to closely monitor its implementation and report to the Board beginning with a first progress report after the end of 2011. In view of the importance of the AI Policy, management went beyond that commitment by providing the Board three progress reports in FY 2011, and one annual report after the first 12 months of implementation. This report (“Report�) provides the Board with a comprehensive overview of the World Bank’s implementation experience from the AI Policy’s effectiveness on July 1, 2010, through December 31, 2011 (“first 18 months�). The Report also discusses the measures that the Bank has taken to strengthen the systems and infrastructure that support the AI Policy, the views of the public on how the Bank has performed, and the impact that the AI Policy has had on the development community. The Report also considers areas of the AI Policy that could be further clarified and developed in view of the Bank’s implementation experiences thus far, and makes recommendations in this respect. 3. Proactive Disclosures and the Public’s Access. Over the first 18 months, the Bank continued its efforts to increase disclosures and support the public’s access to information. In total, for that period, the Bank publicly released close to 24,000 documents and reports, including 458 Board papers, of which 150 Board papers were released before the Board’s consideration. Also for that period, the Bank’s public Documents and Reports database received more than 1.6 million visits. Users viewed approximately 6.8 million pages and downloaded close to 1.3 million documents. 4. Public Access Requests for Information. Additionally, in the first 18 months, the Bank handled 1,060 cases filed by the public to request information. The Bank completed 89.6 percent of the cases by the end of December 30, 2011. Of the requests that were properly addressed to the Bank and that provided adequate information for the Bank to provide a response, the Bank fulfilled, in whole or in part, 91.5 percent of the cases, denying in whole only 8.5 percent. The Bank completed 74 percent of the public access request cases within the normal 20 working day standard. The other cases broadly required internal and/or external consultations which justified the need for additional processing time. 5. Exercise of the Bank’s Prerogatives. The Bank, through the Access to Information Committee (“AIC�), exercised the institution’s prerogative to disclose restricted information in 50 percent of the cases that it considered. With respect to the Bank’s prerogative to restrict Page | v access to information that would normally be disclosed, a review of the Bank’s records management system shows that only about 0.03 percent of the Bank’s records have been restricted on this basis. 6. Appeals. In the first 18 months, 13 appeals were filed before the AIC, which serves to consider first-stage appeals alleging a violation of the AI Policy, and to decide on appeals asserting a public interest case for overriding certain AI Policy exceptions. The AIC: (a) upheld the Bank’s decision to deny access in 12 appeals, including three that were dismissed in part; and (b) dismissed one appeal in whole. The dismissals resulted because either the appeals were not properly placed before the AIC or because they did not provide adequate information for the appeal to be considered. In three of the cases in which the decision to deny access was upheld, the requested information was nonetheless released at least in part: in two cases, the AIC decided to exercise the Bank’s prerogative to disclose the information; and in one case, the member country decided to authorize disclosure of the information that had been provided in confidence. No appeals were filed before the AI Appeals Board. 7. Lessons Learned and Implementation Enhancements. In view of lessons learned, management has taken action in the following areas to enhance and strengthen the business processes and infrastructure that support the AI Policy’s implementation:  Development and dissemination of tools to support units in carrying out and monitoring compliance of records management (completed on March 31, 2012, with on-going support to business units in their improvement of records management results);  Development and dissemination of tools to support units in carrying out monitoring of staff accuracy in classifying information (completed on June 30, 2012, with on-going support to VPUs in their information classification monitoring activities);  Continued development of the Bank’s access to information case tracking system, and the preparation of plans for a future case management system (requirements document completed on March 31, 2012; new case management system development expected to begin October 2012, and deployment expected before the end of FY 2013);  Continued work to integrate the mandatory access to information training in the Bank’s on-boarding process for new staff (completion expected in FY 2013);  Development of options for the integration of relevant Bank databases to streamline the processing of safeguards documents for disclosure (completion expected in FY 2013); and  Alignment of the process for disclosing documents related to recipient-executed activities that are financed by trust funds with the process for disclosing documents related to operations that are financed by the Bank (trust fund business integration initiative begins in FY 2013). 8. External Assessment and Impact of the AI Policy. The AI Policy and the Bank’s performance have been positively assessed by civil society organizations. In 2010, the Center Page | vi for Global Development and the Brookings Institution ranked the Bank the highest-performing donor in aid transparency and learning out of 30 major donors. In 2011, the United Kingdom- based organization, Publish What You Fund, rated the Bank two years in a row as the best performer out of 58 donors in terms of sharing aid information. The Bank’s adoption of the AI Policy has also impacted the broader donor community by influencing other international financial institutions (“IFIs�) in their decisions to adopt similar transparency initiatives. While the assessment of the Bank’s efforts has been positive, some civil society organizations continue to express concerns regarding certain interests that are protected under IFI disclosure policies. The Bank is sensitive to these concerns and will continue to closely monitor its application of the AI Policy exceptions and take action as needed. 9. Based on the Bank’s implementation experience, Bank management has identified several aspects of the AI Policy that can be clarified or further developed. Executive Directors have been consulted and are providing input on the matters. Following the conclusion of the consultations, Management will present recommendations to the Executive Directors for consideration. Page | vii WORLD BANK POLICY ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION EXPERIENCE IN THE FIRST 18 MONTHS OF IMPLEMENTATION I. INTRODUCTION 1. In November 2009, the Board of Executive Directors approved the World Bank Policy on Access to Information (“AI Policy�) to take effect on July 1, 2010. 1 The introduction of the AI Policy has enabled the Bank to fully commit to the concept of Open Development, as part of the Bank’s modernization agenda. Through the participatory and collaborative objective of Open Development, the World Bank is actively working to make its operations, data and research more accessible, transparent and accountable, and is also actively working to open up the way it develops its research and knowledge. A central element of the Bank’s Open Development efforts is the AI Policy, the goal of which is to make the Bank an even more effective partner to developing countries, other international development institutions, and civil society organizations. 2. The AI Policy was formulated with guidance from the Executive Directors, and the feedback received from Bank staff, management, country authorities and a wide range of external stakeholders. 2 The Board’s adoption of the AI Policy has placed the Bank’s disclosure framework in line with the freedom of information legislation of many of its member countries, and has made the Bank a leader amongst international financial institutions in promoting aid transparency and public involvement in development. 3. Commitment to Monitor and Report on the AI Policy’s Progress. In proposing the adoption of the AI Policy, management committed to the Board to closely monitor and to keep the Board informed of the AI Policy’s implementation, beginning with a first progress report after the end of 2011, i.e., after 18 months of the AI Policy’s implementation. In view of the challenges involved and the AI Policy’s importance, management went beyond its original commitment to the Board by issuing three progress reports in FY 2011, and an annual report covering the first 12 months of the AI Policy’s implementation. The first report covered the seven months of preparation that took place prior to the AI Policy’s effectiveness, and the first three months following the AI Policy’s effectiveness. 3 The second and third reports covered the quarterly periods of October through December 2010, and January through March 2011, respectively. 4 The fourth report was the Access to Information Annual Report for FY 2011, 1 See Toward Greater Transparency Through Access to Information – The World Bank Disclosure Policy, dated December 14, 2009 (R2009-0259, IDA/R2009-0273) (hereinafter “2009 Disclosure Policy Board Paper�). The term “World Bank� or “Bank� means the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (“IBRD�) and the International Development Association (“IDA�). The term “World Bank Group� or “Bank Group� means collectively the IBRD, IDA, International Finance Corporation, Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency and the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. 2 After the Bank shared a consultation draft of the proposed policy with member country authorities, the Bank carried out face-to-face meetings in 33 countries and solicited public feedback from a dedicated website in the period of March 12, through June 5, 2009. 3 See World Bank Policy on Access to Information Progress Report – November 2009 through September 2010, issued December 16, 2010 (SecM2010-0678, IDA/SecM2010-0750). 4 See World Bank Policy on Access to Information Progress Report – October through December 2010, issued March 30, 2011 (SecM2011-0200, IDA/SecM2011-0237); and World Bank Policy on Access to Information Progress Report – January through March 2011, issued July 12, 2011 (SecM2011-0368, IDA/SecM2011-0531). which collectively reviewed the first 12 months of the AI Policy’s implementation, covering the period of July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. 5 4. Purpose of this Report. The purpose of this implementation report (“Report�) is to provide the Board with a comprehensive 18-month overview of the World Bank’s experience in implementing the AI Policy from its effectiveness on July 1, 2010, through December 31, 2011 (“first 18 months�). The Report discusses the lessons that have been learned and the additional measures that management has taken to strengthen the systems and infrastructure that support the implementation of the AI Policy. The Report also discusses how external parties have assessed the AI Policy and the Bank’s performance, as well as the impact that the AI Policy has had on the disclosure frameworks of other international financial institutions. Lastly, the Report discusses areas that the Bank is developing in furtherance of transparency. 5. Structure. Section II of this Report provides an overview of the Bank’s performance in implementing specific undertakings of the AI Policy, highlighting the statistics relating to the Bank’s release of information, the public’s access to information requested, and the decisions resulting from the appeals mechanism during the first 18 months. Section III discusses specific lessons learned and the related actions that the Bank has undertaken to enhance the systems and infrastructure that support the implementation of the AI Policy. Section IV discusses the AI Policy and the Bank’s performance as assessed by external parties, and the influence that the Bank’s AI Policy has had since its adoption. Section V discusses the areas that the Bank is further developing in view of its commitment to transparency. II. OVERVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION RESULTS AFTER THE FIRST 18 MONTHS A. World Bank’s Proactive Disclosures and the Public’s Access 6. As part of the implementation plan for the AI Policy, management committed to the Board to carefully monitor the AI Policy and to keep the Board informed of its progress and results. This section of the Report provides a broad overview of the Bank’s performance of the core areas of the AI Policy over the first 18 months. 7. Proactive Disclosures. A dedicated website on the Bank's Access to Information Policy (www.worldbank.org/wbaccess) was launched in July 2010 to provide easy access to Bank documents, data, research, finances, and other useful resources, and to enable users to submit online requests. Through the website and a set of mobile applications, information of the Bank is made easy to search, filter, visualize and share. 8. In the first 18 months, the Bank publicly released close to 24,000 documents and reports through the Bank’s Documents and Reports database. 6 Of these documents and reports, approximately 6,600 are dated before July 1, 2010. The rest – in excess of 17,000 – are recent reports dated within the period of July 1, 2010, and December 31, 2011. In the first 18 months, 5 See Access to Information Annual Report FY 2011 – Moving Forward Transparency and Accountability, issued February 3, 2012 (SecM2012-0039, IDA/SecM2012-0058). 6 The number of documents and reports listed in this paragraph does not include the 34,000+ documents and reports that the Bank released immediately prior to July 1, 2010, in preparation for the AI Policy launch. Page | 2 the Documents and Reports database received more than 1.6 million visits, and users viewed approximately 6.8 million pages and downloaded close to 1.3 million documents. 9. Disclosure of Board Records. Consistent with the Board’s decision to disclose the final decisions and outcomes of its deliberative process, certain records of the Board are routinely disclosed. In the first 18 months, the Bank released 458 Board records as part of the Board’s routine disclosures. Table 1 below indicates the categories and numbers of Board records disclosed. Table 1. Disclosure of Board Records During First 18 Months Type of Board Record Number of Publicly Disclosed Board Records Board Minutes 189 Summings Up 68 Summaries of Discussion 103 Green Sheet Summaries 18 Committee Minutes 75 Committee Annual Reports 5 Total 458 10. Disclosure of Board Papers Before Board Discussion. Under the AI Policy, the Bank may disclose operational policy papers, sector strategy papers, Country Assistance Strategies (“CASs�), Project Appraisal Documents (“PADs�) and Program Documents (“PDs�) before Board discussion (commonly referred to as “simultaneous disclosure�). 7 In the first 18 months, the Bank simultaneously disclosed 150 Board papers. B. Public Access Requests 11. Information Made Public on Request. In addition to accessing information released by the Bank online and through the Bank’s public information centers, the public can submit public access requests directly to the Bank. As noted above, a dedicated website on the Bank's Access to Information Policy not only provides the public with easy access to Bank information, but also readily enables users to submit online requests for information. 12. In the first 18 months, the public filed 1,060 information requests with the Bank. Of the 1,060 cases received, the Bank completed 950 cases (89.6 percent) by December 31, 2011. Of the completed cases, 579 cases (61 percent) were properly addressed to the Bank and provided adequate information to enable the Bank to respond by either fulfilling or denying the request, in whole or in part. With respect to requests that require more information from the requesters to fulfill (e.g., very generic or broad requests), when such requests are received, the front-line (i.e., Archives, InfoShop/PIC) staff contact the requestors to identify a more precise request; in some instances, following such dialogue the requesters find the information directly online. 7 See AI Policy at para. 23 (b). CASs, PADs, and PDs may be simultaneously disclosed before Board discussion if the member country gives its written consent to such early disclosure. See AI Policy at para. 23 (b) (ii). Page | 3 Table 2 provides a detailed breakdown of all the cases that were completed in the first 18 months. Table 2. Resolution of Cases Completed in the First 18 Months Requests Properly Requests Requested Addressed to the Required Information Bank and with Additional Covered by Requests adequate Information Other Disclosure Referred to Requests for information to from Policy/Regime World Bank Records Not Total enable the Bank to Requesters or Information Data Found in the Cases Fulfill or Deny – Requesters Held by Other Helpdesk or Bank’s Completed the Request Unresponsive* Organizations EXT Possession 950 579 (61%) 224 (23.6%) 27 (2.8%) 75 (7.9%) 45 (4.7%) * For requests that require more information from the requesters to fulfill (e.g., very generic or broad requests), the front- line (i.e., Archives, InfoShop/PIC) staff contact the requestors to identify a more precise request; in some instances, following such dialogue the requesters find the information directly online. 13. Declassification of Restricted Board Records. In addition to proactively disclosing the Board records discussed in section II.A of this Report, the Bank, in response to 11 public access requests, also declassified and disclosed 75 Board records, including 24 Board transcripts, that were restricted by the Deliberative Information exception. 14. Requests Fulfilled or Denied in the 18-month Period. Of the 579 cases that were properly addressed to the Bank and had adequate information to enable the Bank to respond, 91.5 percent (530 cases) were fulfilled in whole or in part, and 8.5 percent (49 cases) were denied in whole. Of the 18 requests fulfilled in part: (a) 13 were denied in part because the information is restricted by an AI Policy exception; (b) two could not be fulfilled in part because the records were not found in the World Bank’s custody; and (c) three others could not be fulfilled in part because the requester did not respond to the World Bank’s request for additional information to enable the request to be fulfilled. Table 3 provides a breakdown of the requests that were either fulfilled or denied in whole or in part. Table 3. Requests Fulfilled or Denied or Could not be Fulfilled in Part in the First 18 Months Total Requests Fulfilled Fulfilled* Denied Fulfilled or Denied (in whole) (in part) (in whole) 579 512 (88.4%)** 18 (3.1%)** 49 (8.5%) * Of these 18 cases, 13 were denied in part, and the other five could not be fulfilled in part (which were not denials) because either (a) the records were not found to be in the Bank's custody (two cases), or (b) the requesters did not respond to the Bank's request for additional information that would enable the request to be fulfilled (three cases). ** In total, the Bank fulfilled – in whole or in part – 530 cases (91.5% of the total number of requests fulfilled or denied). Page | 4 15. Denials. The Bank allows access to any information in its possession that is not on a list of exceptions as defined under the AI Policy. 8 Accordingly, the Bank does not provide access to documents that contain or refer to information related to the exceptions set out in the AI Policy. Under exceptional circumstances, the Bank also reserves the right to restrict access to information that it normally discloses. 9 In the first 18 months, of the 579 cases that were properly addressed to the Bank and had adequate information to enable the Bank to respond, only 8.5 percent (49 cases) resulted in a full denial, and 2.2 percent (13 cases) resulted in partial denials. The reasons for the denials are set forth in Table 4. Table 4. Requests Denied (in whole or in part) and the Reasons for the Denials Total Requests Denied (in whole or in part) 62 /i Personal Information 2 /ii Security and Safety 2 /iii Information Restricted Under Separate Disclosure Regimes and 1 /iv Denials Other Investigative Information Based on Information Provided by Member Countries or Third Parties in 7 /v the AI Policy Confidence Exception(s) Corporate Administrative Matters 8 Deliberative Information 40 Denials for Prerogative to Restrict Access 2 /vi Other Reasons /i The 62 cases reflected in this Table were denied by the Bank pursuant to either one of the AI Policy exceptions or the Bank's exercise of the prerogative to restrict access. Note that Table 3 above reflects five additional cases that could not be fulfilled in part because either (a) the records were not found to be in the Bank's custody (two cases), or (b) the requesters did not respond to the Bank's request for additional information that would enable the request to be fulfilled (three cases). Because the five cases were not actual denials (but rather, were cases in which the Bank could not fulfill the request), they are not reflected in this Table. /ii One of which is also covered by the Corporate Administrative Matters exception. /iii One of which is also covered by the Corporate Administrative Matters exception, as indicated in the case notes. /iv The information is also covered by Deliberative Information exception. /v Three of which are also covered by the Deliberative Information exception. /vi See paragraphs 17-18 of this Report. C. Exercise of the World Bank’s Prerogatives 16. Exercise of the Bank’s Prerogative to Disclose Restricted Information. Under the AI Policy, the Bank reserves the right to disclose, under exceptional circumstances, certain information covered by the Corporate Administrative Matters, Deliberative Information, and Financial Information (other than banking and billing) exceptions, if the Bank determines that the overall benefit of such disclosure outweighs the potential harm to the interests protected 8 See AI Policy at paras. 6-17. The exceptions, as explained in the Policy, are: (a) Personal Information; (b) Communications of Executive Directors’ Offices; (c) Ethics Committee; (d) Attorney-Client Privilege; (e) Security and Safety; (f) Information Restricted under Separate Disclosure Regimes and Other Investigative Information; (g) Information Provided by Member Countries or Third Parties in Confidence; (h) Corporate Administrative Matters; (i) Deliberative Information; and (j) Financial Information. 9 See AI Policy at para. 19. Page | 5 by the exceptions. 10 With respect to documents covered by these exceptions, which have not been provided to the Bank by a member country or third party in confidence: the Board has the authority to exercise this prerogative for Board papers or Board records classified as Confidential or Strictly Confidential; and the Access to Information Committee (“AIC�) has the authority to exercise this prerogative for all other documents of such nature. During the first 18 months, the AIC considered 22 public access requests for this purpose. The AIC exercised the prerogative to disclose in 11 cases (50 percent) involving documents covered by the Corporate Administrative Matters, Deliberative Information and/or Financial Information (other than banking and billing) AI Policy exceptions. 17. Exercise of the Bank’s Prerogative to Restrict Access. Under the AI Policy, the Bank reserves the right not to disclose, under exceptional circumstances, information that it would normally disclose if it determines that such information is likely to cause harm that outweighs the benefits of disclosure. 11 The prerogative may be exercised only: (a) by the Board with respect to Board records; (b) by the vice president concerned with respect to Board papers; and (c) by the director concerned with respect to other information. 18. A review of the Bank’s records management system (“WBDocs�) shows that the use of this prerogative to restrict has been limited. Of the approximate one million records filed in WBDocs, less than 0.03 percent has been restricted through the exercise of this Bank prerogative. In the context of Board records, in order to allow the Executive Directors the opportunity to exercise the prerogative to restrict in exceptional circumstances, as discussed above, management notifies the Board before declassifying Board records. As also discussed above, in the first 18 months, a total of 83 Board records were submitted to the Board for consideration; of which, 75 (91 percent) proceeded to be declassified and disclosed. The Board exercised the prerogative to restrict eight records following a determination that the records’ disclosure would likely cause harm that would outweigh the benefits. D. Timeliness of World Bank Responses 19. Timeliness. The AI Policy states that the World Bank endeavors to provide a comprehensive response to requests within 20 working days, recognizing that additional time may be needed for special circumstances, such as complex requests or requests that require consultation with internal or external parties. Of the 950 completed requests received in the first 18 months, the World Bank provided comprehensive responses to 74 percent of the cases within 20 working days; these cases took an average of 8.5 working days to complete. For the cases that required more than 20 working days to complete, the cases took an average of 61.4 working days to complete. As noted above, the AI Policy recognizes that additional time, beyond the 20 working day standard, may be needed in special circumstances, including for example, those involving complex or voluminous requests, or requests requiring review by or consultations with internal Bank units, external partners, the AIC, or the Board. The requests received in the first 18 months that went beyond the 20 working day standard broadly required consultation with 10 See AI Policy at para. 18. 11 See AI Policy at para. 19. Page | 6 relevant business units (including locating the documents requested) and, in some cases, additional review by or consultations with the AIC, the Board and/or external parties. E. Appeals 20. The Appeals Process. One of the guiding principles of the AI Policy is to recognize a requester’s right to an appeals process if the requester is denied access to information by the Bank. A requester may file an appeal on the basis that the Bank violated the AI Policy by improperly or unreasonably restricting access to information that it would normally disclose under the AI Policy, or on the basis that there is a public interest case to override the AI Policy’s exceptions that restrict the disclosure of certain information (limited to information restricted by the Corporate Administrative Matters, Deliberative Information and Financial Information, other than banking and billing information, exceptions). 21. AIC. The AIC serves as the first level of appeal for those appeals alleging a violation of the AI Policy, and as the first and final level of appeal for those appeals asserting a public interest. In the first 18 months, the AIC considered and ruled on 13 appeals, upholding the Bank’s decision to deny access (at least in part) in 12 cases, and dismissing in whole in one case. In three of the 13 cases, even though the AIC found that the denials did not violate the AI Policy and/or the requesters did not provide a compelling public interest case to override the AI Policy exception(s) concerned, the AIC decided to release the information to the requesters through its authority to exercise the Bank’s prerogative to disclose restricted information, and based on its determination that the benefit of disclosing the information outweighs the potential harm. In the third case, while certain requested documents were restricted by the Information Provided in Confidence exception, the member country concerned subsequently agreed to make the information public. 22. As noted above, one of the 13 appeals was dismissed in whole; three others were dismissed in part. The AIC dismissed the one appeal in whole because the requester filed a public interest appeal asserting that there is a public interest in disclosing an individual Bank staff member’s personal financial information. Because the requested information is restricted by the Personal Information exception, and the AI Policy limits public interest appeals to requests involving information restricted by the Corporate Administrative Matters, Deliberative Information and Financial Information exceptions of the Policy, the AIC determined that the appeal was not properly placed before the AIC. In the second case, the AIC dismissed a portion of the appeal because, at the time the appeal was filed, the Bank had not decided on the request (and the subsequent decision did not involve a denial). In the third case, the AIC dismissed the appeal in part because it found that the requester had modified the original request made to the Bank, and thus the Bank had neither considered nor denied the requester’s access to the additional information at issue; the AIC dismissed that portion of the appeal and referred the request back to the Archives Unit for processing. In the fourth case, the AIC dismissed the appeal in part because the requester provided no public interest reasons to support the appeal on public interest grounds. Page | 7 23. AI Appeals Board. In the 18-month review period, the World Bank established its first AI Appeals Board, which serves as the second and final level of appeal for those appeals alleging a violation of the AI Policy. 12 The AI Appeals Board convened in Washington, DC, in September 2010. For appeals alleging a violation of the AI Policy that result in an AIC decision to uphold the Bank’s decision to deny access, the decision issued to the requester always provides the requester with an internet link that enables the requester to readily file a second level appeal, if he/she so chooses. In the first 18 months, no appeal was filed before the AI Appeals Board. To better understand the reasons for this, as part of an annual AI survey that the Bank conducts of all individuals who have filed a request for information through the Bank’s access to information system, the Bank intends to seek the views of those who, in FY 2012, filed a first level appeal alleging a violation of AI Policy and received an AIC decision to uphold the original denial on why they chose not to file a second level appeal with the AI Appeals Board. III. LESSONS LEARNED AND IMPLEMENTATION ENHANCEMENTS A. Additional Monitoring Activities 24. In addition to management’s monitoring and reporting of the AI Policy’s implementation, as mentioned above, the Internal Audit Vice Presidency (“IAD�) conducted an advisory engagement in 2011 that reviewed the Bank’s implementation progress on the roll-out of the AI Policy. The review recognized that management had undertaken extensive work to put into place infrastructure and related business processes to facilitate the implementation of the AI Policy, and that the AI Policy’s implementation has been strengthened by an effective oversight and governance mechanism (which included the AIC, in its role to broadly oversee the implementation and interpretation of the AI Policy, and the Information Policy Unit, LEG (“LEGIP�), in its role as the anchor for the AI Policy and in preparing and coordinating regular implementation progress reports to the Board). The exercise was useful in giving management the opportunity to take stock of lessons learned and to identify areas for further enhancement, as further elaborated below. B. Follow-up Actions 25. Management has taken the following actions to strengthen the business processes and infrastructure that support the AI Policy’s implementation: (a) Records Management. Management acknowledged that the AI Policy represents a substantial shift in how staff manage and handle information in the Bank’s possession. To strengthen the Bank’s records management infrastructure, the Bank’s Information Management and Technology Vice Presidency (“IMT�) has engaged Vice Presidential Units (“VPUs�) across the Bank, by convening a group of information management focal points, composed of high level Bank staff, to meet regularly to discuss records management issues and agree on related actions. This engagement with VPUs helps to ensure unit level ownership and participation to institute 12 The AI Appeals Board consists of three persons external to the Bank, who are nominated by the Bank President and endorsed by the Board of Executive Directors. Page | 8 controls over areas of records management, classification, folders management and the use of network drives, email accounts, websites and other areas where records may be stored. Various tools and training materials have also been developed for the information management focal points to provide to staff and to improve their units’ level of records management. VPUs are also provided data to help them monitor compliance with filing and the classification of information. IMT completed these actions on March 31, 2012, and continues to work with the business units to improve their records management results. (b) Information Classification. Staff members’ ability to appropriately determine information as public or restricted, and their security classification, is a crucial factor in successfully implementing the AI Policy. IMT conducts a quarterly sampling of the classification of information. According to IMT, sampling results indicate that Bank staff members continue to improve in the accuracy of their classification of information. As noted above, IMT is working to provide all VPUs with data to help them monitor compliance with their unit’s accuracy in classifying information. IMT completed implementation of this sampling system on June 30, 2012, and continues to provide data to all VPUs in support of their information classification monitoring activities. (c) Analytics and reporting on case management. With the introduction of the AI Policy, the Bank, under the leadership of its External Affairs Vice Presidency (“EXT�), created an interim cost-effective in-house case tracking system for receiving, handling and processing public information requests in support of the AI Policy. Management recognized the importance of prioritizing the development of a more sophisticated case management and tracking system to minimize the need to manually compile AI statistics for one reason. Under the auspices of IMT, the case tracking system has continued to be developed to support the AI work in this respect. Additionally, a requirements document for a new case management system has been prepared for systems development. IMT completed the requirements document on March 31, 2012, and is scheduled to develop of the new case management system according to those requirements starting October 2012. Deployment of the new system is expected before the end of FY 2013. (d) Integration of AI Policy training in the Bank’s on-boarding process for new staff. To ensure that staff are knowledgeable on how to support the Bank in meeting its obligations under the AI Policy, all Bank staff have been required to complete a mandatory e- learning training program, which consists of three training modules on: (i) the AI Policy; (ii) information classification; and (iii) records management. EXT has worked with the Human Resources Vice Presidency (“HRS�) to incorporate the mandatory training into the Bank’s on- boarding program to ensure systematic and timely completion of the AI Policy training by all new staff on an on-going basis. The training was enforced for eligible current staff and consultants during FY 2011, attaining a 98 percent completion rate. HRS is developing a mechanism for sending automated reminders to staff regarding mandatory learning; this is expected to take effect in FY 2013. (e) Adequacy of systems for processing safeguard documents for disclosure. The automation and integration of certain Bank systems and databases have been identified as a key to help streamline the processing and disclosure of safeguard documents. IMT and EXT are working with the Operations Policy and Country Services Vice Presidency (“OPCS�) to proceed with the disclosure automation work, which is anticipated for FY 2013. Page | 9 26. Improving Public Availability of Trust Fund Information. In applying the AI Policy to operations financed by trust funds, one of the Bank’s objectives is to align the process for disclosing documents related to recipient-executed activities that are financed by trust funds with the process for disclosing documents related to operations that are financed by the Bank. In the first 18 months of the AI Policy’s implementation, the plans for integrating trust fund documents in the operational systems for Bank-financed operations were still under development. As a result, disclosure of certain trust fund related documents had to be handled on a case-by-case basis. While certain trust fund related documents will continue to be made publicly available only upon request, the sponsoring business units (OPCS, CFP, CTR, IMT and LEG) have agreed on a plan to ensure the further improvement of the public availability of documents related to recipient-executed activities financed by trust funds. The advancement of this trust fund business integration initiative is scheduled to begin in FY 2013. 27. Handling of Public Access Requests – Beyond Transition. In anticipation of a significant increase in demand for information when the AI Policy took effect, management put into place the following interim arrangements for processing public information requests in the first two years of the AI Policy’s implementation: (a) a special team was created within the Archives Unit to process all requests for information created or received before July 1, 2010, the effective date of the AI Policy; and (b) EXT (InfoShop) and/or the communication staff in country offices would process all requests for information created or received after July 1, 2010. 13 This arrangement has proven effective, and the work of the front-line units has been well coordinated. 28. As the first two years of the AI Policy implementation is concluding, going forward, management has decided to have the current arrangements evolve as follows: (a) EXT and the communication units in country offices will process all requests for information created or received in the most recent three years; and (b) the Archives Unit will process all requests for information created or received by the Bank prior to the rolling three year cut-off date, which will be July 1 of each year, starting July 1, 2013. 29. Streamlining of the Process for Declassifying and Disclosing Specific Categories of Restricted Documents – After 20 Years. The AI Policy indicates that specific categories of documents are declassified and made publicly available 20 years after the date of the document, provided that the document does not contain or refer to information that is not eligible for declassification, namely information covered by one or more of the AI Policy exceptions other than the Deliberative Information and the Financial Information exceptions. 14 The AI Policy also recognizes that, notwithstanding its broad intent to allow access to any information in the Bank’s possession that is not on the list of exceptions, the Bank reserves the right, under exceptional circumstances, to restrict access to information that it normally discloses. 15 The AI Policy provides that, for documents other than Board records, the Bank’s prerogative to restrict access may be exercised by the vice president concerned with respect to Board papers, 13 See 2009 Policy Board Paper at para. 25. 14 See AI Policy at paras. 32-33; note that banking and billing information, though covered by the Financial Information exception, is also ineligible for declassification. 15 See AI Policy at para. 6. Page | 10 and the director concerned with respect to other documents. In implementing this AI Policy provision for the declassification of documents – other than Board records – the Archives Unit has routinely notified the vice president or director concerned of the intended declassifications to give the authorized party the opportunity to consider whether to exercise the Bank’s prerogative to restrict access before a document is declassified and disclosed. The Archives Unit has found this process of notifying and consulting authorized parties creates delays in declassifying and disclosing older documents, and proposed to the AIC that, in the interest of timely disclosure of information and reducing unnecessary requests to vice presidents and directors, when declassifying documents (other than Board records) after 20 years, the Archives Unit will carry out the reviews and discontinue routine notification and consultation unless, in the opinion of the Chief Archivist, there is specific cause to seek the views of the vice presidents or directors concerned. 30. The AIC considered the Archives Unit’s proposal, and in the interest of the AI Policy’s guiding principle of maximizing access to information, the AIC decided that the process for declassifying documents at least 20 years old – but not including Board records or communications between Bank staff and Executive Directors’ offices – should be modified to allow the archivists in the Bank Group’s Archives Unit to determine, under the supervision and authority of the Chief Archivist, the following: (a) Whether the documents concerned are eligible for declassification pursuant to the AI Policy, and (b) If the documents concerned are eligible for declassification, whether: • The content of the documents to be declassified raises issues that require notification of, as relevant, the vice president or director concerned, in order for the authorized party to consider exercising the Bank’s prerogative to restrict access; or • To proceed with declassification and disclosure without such notification based on the responsible archivist’s judgment that the content of the document raises no significant issue. IV. ASSESSMENT OF THE BANK’S PERFORMANCE BY EXTERNAL PARTIES AND THE AI POLICY’S IMPACT A. External Assessments 31. The Bank’s Commitment to Aid Transparency. The Bank is committed to the view that aid transparency is a crucial component of aid effectiveness. To that end, the Bank adopted the AI Policy to enable it to increase the public’s access to key Bank documents, and to support the achievement of development outcomes through more informed civil society participation around the Bank’s projects and policy reform processes. This raises questions of how the Bank and its efforts are perceived by the public and what impact the AI Policy has had thus far. While the Bank continues to refine its processes and recognizes that the successful implementation of the AI Policy will continue to be a work in progress, based on internal and external assessments to date, the AI Policy’s impact and the results of the Bank’s performance have been positive. Page | 11 32. Quality of Official Development Assistance. In 2010, the Brookings Institution and the Center for Global Development assessed the quality of official development assistance of donor countries and bilateral and multilateral aid agencies. Under the indicator of aid transparency and learning (i.e., provision of timely and comparative information about aid spending, in support of better coordination amongst donors and recipient countries, to enable them to improve their planning, and to learn from actual experience), the assessment ranked the Bank as the highest- performing donor out of 30 major donors. 16 33. Aid Transparency Assessment Ranking. In 2010, the independent United Kingdom- based organization, Publish What You Fund, conducted an aid transparency assessment that rated donors on their overall commitment to aid transparency, and the extent to which the donors provide aid information to recipient governments and to civil society organizations. 17 Publish What You Fund, which is a coalition of civil society organizations working on governance, aid effectiveness and access to information, assessed the Bank as the highest-performing donor amongst 30 major donors, rating the Bank well above average in nearly all indicators and ranking the Bank the highest overall in making available specific aid information to recipient countries and to civil society. 34. Aid Transparency Index Ranking. In 2011, Publish What You Fund issued a pilot aid transparency index, which ranked 58 donor agencies according to how much information they provide across 37 different indicators. According to the index, the Bank was determined to be the best performer out of 58 donors. 18 Though the index report noted that Bank systems could be better streamlined to allow easier access and comparison of information, it recognized the Bank’s broad publication and disclosure of its operational and institutional information. The index report also recognized the Bank’s participation in and implementation of the International Aid Transparency Initiative, which provides a common standard for publishing data and has the potential to transform the way aid is managed. 35. Criticisms. While acknowledging the positive developments of the Bank’s AI Policy, certain external groups have expressed some criticism. Specifically, while some members of civil society recognize that international financial institutions (“IFIs�) have taken significant steps to develop their information disclosure policies to represent a real presumption of disclosure, they have expressed concern with respect to the IFIs’ policies to protect two types of interests, namely the commercial interests of third parties and internal deliberations, fearing that the protections are too broad. 19 As reflected in the results of the Bank’s implementation record thus far, the number of public access requests that have been denied on the basis of the Information Provided by Member Countries or Third Parties in Confidence and the Deliberative 16 See Brookings Institution and Center for Global Development, Quality of Official Development Assistance Assessment, Aid Transparency and Learning indicator, at http://www.cgdev.org/section/topics/aid_effectiveness/quoda?p=b&d=t. 17 See Publish What You Fund, Aid Transparency Assessment at http://www.publishwhatyoufund.org/files/Aid- Transparency-Assessment.pdf. 18 See Publish What You Fund, 2011 Pilot Aid Transparency Index at http://www.publishwhatyoufund.org/resources/index/2011-index/world-bank/ida/. (Update: In 2012, Publish What You Fund gave the Bank its highest aid transparency rating of “good�; out of 72 donor organizations, the Bank was one of only two organizations to be rated “good,� ranking second behind DFID.) 19 See Centre for Law and Democracy, Openness Policies of the International Financial Institutions: Failing to Make the Grade with Exceptions, July 2012. Page | 12 Information exceptions has been relatively small (see Table 4 of this Report). The Bank is, nonetheless, sensitive to these concerns, and is committed to monitoring the application of these exceptions under the AI Policy. The Bank will take action as needed to ensure their reasonable application. 36. Other points of criticism voiced by some interlocutors in civil society pertain to outreach at the country office level to make stakeholders aware of the AI Policy, and to review its approach to translations. Several country offices have taken the initiative to engage with their stakeholders on the broader Open Development agenda, including the AI Policy, and management (through a partnership of EXT, OPCS, World Bank Institute, Development Economics Vice Presidency, Controller’s Vice Presidency, LEG and the Regional Vice Presidencies) is making a concerted effort to encourage more country offices to do so. 37. With respect to the Bank’s approach to making certain information available in languages other than its working language of English, Bank management recognizes that, while the translation of documents is a matter that extends beyond the AI Policy, it is an important element of ensuring proper public access to Bank information. In 2009, when the AI Policy was proposed to the Board, management took note that the new policy might create a higher demand for document translation; in that context, management noted the need to examine the adequacy of the Bank’s existing Translation Framework to respond to the potential demand. While management acknowledges that some members of civil society have expressed concern with the Bank’s approach to translations, overall, the Bank has not experienced a perceptible increase in demand for translations since the implementation of the AI Policy. In that respect, the existing Translation Framework – which vests responsibility for translation decisions in the business sponsor of each document – is possibly providing business units with the needed flexibility to determine how limited resources can be spent to ensure that relevant information reaches, as widely as possible, the audiences who need to know. 20 However, Management recognizes that translation is an important factor in communications and information access, and, in turn, effective development; in this light, and as a standalone matter, management will continue to monitor the Bank’s implementation of the existing Translation Framework to ensure its effectiveness. B. Impact of the World Bank’s AI Policy on Access to Information 38. Other IFIs’ Adoption of Similar Transparency Initiatives. One impact that the Bank’s adoption of the AI Policy has had is to set in motion the adoption of similar transparency initiatives by other IFIs. In the spirit of collaboration and harmonization of IFI policies, the World Bank has been consulted by and has shared with interested IFIs the Bank’s experience in preparing, rolling out and implementing its AI Policy. Below are some highlights of the access to information initiatives of other IFIs that followed the Bank’s adoption of its AI Policy:  In 2010, the Inter-American Development Bank (“IADB�) adopted a new Access to Information Policy, which took effect in 2011. The policy reflects principles similar to 20 See A Document Translation Framework for the World Bank Group, August 6, 2003; see also Translation Framework for the World Bank: Progress in Implementation, December 8, 2006. Page | 13 those of the Bank’s Policy. It takes a negative list approach, presuming disclosure of the institution’s information subject to a narrow list of exceptions, and introduces a two stage review mechanism if a requester wishes to challenge a denial.  In 2011, the Asian Development Bank (“AsDB�) adopted a new Public Communications Policy, which took effect in 2012. The institution’s new policy also takes a negative list approach. It clarifies its list of exceptions to disclosure, increases the public’s access to the institution’s Board decision making process, including the simultaneous disclosure of Board papers, and the declassification of Board transcripts after 10 years. The policy also provides an independent appeals panel for review of denials.  In 2012, the African Development Bank (“AfDB�) adopted a new Disclosure and Access to Information Policy, to take effect in 2013. The institution’s new policy also adopts a negative list approach, disclosing any information that it produces not contained on its list of exceptions. Annex A of this Report provides detailed comparative information on some aspects of the respective policies of the World Bank, IADB, AsDB, AfDB, and the International Monetary Fund (“IMF�). V. POLICY ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION – FURTHERING TRANSPARENCY 39. Making Certain Corporate Administrative Matters Publicly Available. Management has taken steps to make publicly available certain corporate administrative information that has been restricted under the AI Policy’s Corporate Administrative Matters exception. For example, the Pension Finance Committee (“PFC�), the governing body responsible for the Bank’s pension and other retirement benefit plans, has been in discussions with Bank management regarding the types of information about the plans that could be made available to the public through websites and other means. Bank management will support the PFC in this effort. Additionally, the General Services Department, Corporate Procurement Unit (“GSDCP�), is taking measures to publish corporate administrative procurement awards and operational consultant procurement awards above USD250,000, with the exception of only those cases involving information covered by an AI Policy exception other than the Corporate Administrative Matters exception (e.g., Security and Safety exception) or if the Bank determines that the disclosure is likely to cause harm that outweighs the benefits of disclosure. 21 GSDCP is currently reviewing the systems, staffing and organizational considerations necessary to implement these additional disclosures at the earliest. 40. Based on the Bank’s implementation experience, Management has identified several aspects of the AI Policy that can be clarified or further developed. Executive Directors have been consulted and are providing input on the matters. Following the conclusion of the 21 See AI Policy at para. 19. Page | 14 consultations, Management will present recommendations to the Executive Directors for consideration. VI. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS 41. Since the effectiveness of the AI Policy in July 2010, the Bank has made great strides in becoming a greater force of transparency and accountability. This is reflected in the Bank’s performance in the first 18 months, and the assessments conducted by external parties. However, the Bank recognizes that the successful implementation of the AI Policy will continue to be a work in progress. To that end, the Bank continues to refine the systems and infrastructure that support its implementation of the AI Policy. Moreover, based on its determination of certain aspects of the AI Policy that can be further clarified and developed, Management will continue to consult with Executive Directors and will present recommendations to the Executive Directors for formal consideration at a later date. Page | 15 Annex A: Comparison of the Information Access Policies of Select IFIs Key Features World Bank IDB AsDB AfDB IMF Policy Title Policy on Access to Access to Public Disclosure and 1. Transparency Information Information Communications Access to Policy Policy Information 2. Archives Policy Date of Approved November Approved May 2010. Approved October Approved May 2012. Both approved Approval and 2009. Effective July Effective January 1, 2011. Effective 9 months December 17, 2009. Effectiveness 1, 2010. 2011. Effective April 2, after approval by the Effective March 17, 2012. Board (i.e., February 2010. 2013). Main Policy The Bank allows IDB will disclose The policy is based The AfDB will aim The IMF will strive Statement access to any any information not on a presumption in to maximize access to disclose information in its contained on a list of favor of disclosure. to information that it documents and possession that is not exceptions. All documents that produces by information on a on a list of ADB produces or disclosing any timely basis unless exceptions set out in requires to be information not strong and specific the Policy. produced may be contained on the list reasons argue against disclosed unless they of exceptions such disclosure. contain information (negative list). (Transparency that falls within the Policy) exceptions of the policy. Guiding 1. Maximize access 1. Maximize access 1. Proactive 1. Maximum See above. Principles to to information. disclosure. disclosure. The principle 2. information 2. Narrow and clear 2. Presumption in 2. Enhanced access. respects, and will be 3. Clear list of exceptions. favor of 3. Limited list of applied to ensure, the exceptions. 3. Simple and broad disclosure. exceptions. voluntary nature of 4. Safeguard the access to 3. Right to access 4. A consultative publications of deliberative information. and impart approach. documents that process. 4. Explanations of information and 5. Proactive pertain to member 5. Clear procedures decisions and ideas. disclosure. countries is for making right to review. 4. Country 6. Right to appeal. consistent with the information ownership, before 7. Safeguarding the need for the IMF to available. disclosing certain deliberative safeguard 6. Right to appeal. documents, the process. confidential views of 8. Provision for information. A developing review. member’s consent to member countries publication of are considered. documents is 5. Limited “voluntary but exceptions. presumed,� allowing 6. Right to appeal. the member to notify 7. In the event of the IMF that it conflict with other objects, needs policies, the additional time to disclosure decide, or consents requirements of subject to an the Policy prevail. agreement on deletions. (Transparency Policy) Page | 16 Key WB IDB AsDB AfDB IMF Features Policy NO NO NO NO YES. contains Subject to consent of positive list of the member publicly concerned for some available documents, or information consent of the World Bank for joint documents. (Transparency Policy) List of Policy YES YES YES YES YES. Exceptions 1. Personal 1. Personal 1. Deliberative and 1. Deliberative 1. Legal documents Information information decision-making information and and records 2. Communications 2. Legal, disciplinary process. incomplete maintained by the of EDs’ Offices or investigative 2. Information reports Legal Department 3. Ethics Committee matters provided in 2. Communications that are protected 4. Attorney-Client 3. Communications confidence. involving the by attorney-client Privilege involving 3. Personal Bank Group’s privilege 5. Security and Executive information. President, 2. Documentary Safety Directors 4. Financial Executive materials 6. Info Restricted 4. Safety and information. Directors and furnished to the Under Separate security 5. Security and Governors Fund by external Disclosure 5. Information safety. 3. Legal, parties, including Regimes and provided in 6. Legal or disciplinary or member countries, Other confidence; investigative investigative their Investigative intellectual matters. matters instrumentalities Information. property; and 7. Internal audit 4. Information and agencies and 7. Information business/financial reports and trust provided in central banks, that Provided in information fund audit reports. confidence by bear Confidence 6. Corporate member confidentiality 8. Corporate administrative countries, private- markings, unless Administrative information sector entities or such external Matters 7. Deliberative third parties parties consent to 9. Deliberative information 5. Administrative their Information 8. Certain financial information declassification information 6. Financial 3. Personnel files 9. Country-specific information and medical or information 7. Safety and other records 10. Information security pertaining to relating to non- 8. Personal individuals sovereign Information 4. Documents and guaranteed proceedings of the operations Grievance Committee. (Archives Policy) Page | 17 Key WB IDB AsDB AfDB IMF Features Prerogative to YES. YES. YES. YES. Restrict Access If the potential harm IDB may decide to AsDB reserves the AfDB reserves the of disclosure exclude normally right not to disclose, right not to disclose, outweighs the available under exceptional under exceptional benefits of information from circumstances, if it circumstances, disclosure. access based on the determines that such information which it This prerogative premise that access disclosure would or would otherwise may be exercised would occasion would be likely to make public. only by: more harm than cause harm that Exercised by: - The Board, with benefit. outweighs the - The Board with respect to Board Requests to override benefit of disclosure. respect to Board records; the policy requires This prerogative papers or records - The vice president written authorization may be exercised - Written consent of concerned, with from: only by the Board. member country or respect to Board - The Access to third party for papers; and Information information - The director Committee provided in concerned, with authorization; or confidence respect to other - The Board for - The Information information. Board records. Disclosure Committee with regard to other information. Prerogative to YES. YES. YES. YES. Disclose If the benefit of In extraordinary If the AsDB - Board approval, for Restricted disclosure outweighs circumstances, determines that the early disclosure of Information the harm. Only for limited to public interest in Board papers or administrative, information disclosing the records deliberative or restricted by the information - The written financial corporate outweighs the harm consent of the party information. administrative, that may be caused concerned for early Exercising this deliberative and by disclosure. disclosure of prerogative requires: financial information Recommendation by information - Board approval for exceptions, if the the Public provided to the Board papers and IDB determines that Disclosure Advisory AfDB in records. the benefit of Committee to confidence, and - Written consent by disclosure would disclose or deny - The approval of the the party concerned outweigh the information requires: Information for information potential harm, and - Approval of the Disclosure provided to the IDB is not legally or Board for Board Committee for Bank by a third otherwise obligated records; early disclosure of party. to non-disclosure - Approval of the any other restricted - AIC approval for and has not been President for all documents. other restricted provided other documents; information information with the - For documents The AfDB also has understanding that it given with an the right to disclose will not be disclosed. express legal certain restricted Written commitment to corporate authorization keep the administrative, required from: informational deliberative and - Access to confidential, the financial information Information party given the if it determines that Committee; or commitment must the overall benefits - Board for Board consent. of such disclosure records. outweigh the potential harm. Page | 18 Key WB IDB AsDB AfDB IMF Features Declassification YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. Schedule for For information The classification Any information Five, 10, 20 years or - Executive Board Restricted under either level assigned to concerning AsDB- more depending on documents – over Documents deliberative and/or information will assisted projects, its sensitivity and 3 years old, financial exceptions determine the programs, policies, harmful effect. - Minutes of (other than banking schedule for strategies, and Information subject Executive Board and billing disclosure: 5, 10 or general operations to declassification meetings, BUFF information), 20 years. held by AsDB for will be defined in the and BUFF/EDs depending on Information more than 20 years, Information statements, and document type: classified under the other than Disclosure certain other - 5 years, strictest information relating Handbook. Some Board records – - 10 years, or confidentiality to Board “Restricted� over 5 years old; - 20 years. standard will not be proceedings, are information will not and disclosed even after disclosed on request be declassified. - Other 20 years. unless the documentary information falls materials within the maintained in the exceptions. IMF’s archives – over 20 years old. If documents are classified as “Secret� or “Strictly Confidential� as of Policy’s approval date, access only granted if the Managing Director consents. (Archives Policy) Board Records Disclosure of YES. YES. YES YES. YES. Board and - Minutes created on Records or portions – for minutes of Minutes of the Minutes of Board or after April 1, thereof relating to regular Board Board are eligible Executive Board Committee 2005, public after confidential matters meetings – disclosed for disclosure, but meetings and Minutes Board or documents are upon approval of subject to the Executive Board deliberations. excluded from those minutes by the exclusion of records Committee Minutes - Created before disclosure. Board and no later or portions thereof that are over 5 years April 1, 2005, than 60 calendar relating to old. declassified after 5 days after the Board confidential matters years for Regular meeting. or documents or sessions and after deliberative 20 years for information. Executive or Restricted Executive Sessions. Page | 19 Key WB IDB AsDB AfDB IMF Features Disclosure of YES. YES. YES. NOT CLEAR. Most IMF Board Board Papers Following Board Information sent to Proposals of policy Correspondence, documents cannot be Before Board papers whose the Board and and strategy papers draft reports or other published before Discussion preparation may classified as that have undergone documents prepared Board discussion or have involved “Public� will be a public consultation for, or exchanged the adoption of the consultations with disclosed at the time process will be during the course of relevant lapse-of- affected parties, civil it is distributed to the posted on the AsDB its own internal time decision. society groups, and Board (e.g., draft website at time of deliberations However, some other country strategies, circulation to the including documents documents stakeholders are operational policies, Board. pertaining to Board circulated to the posted before the loan proposals, and deliberations are not Board for Board discussion: technical disclosed because information only - Operational policy cooperation plans of they fall under the may be published papers and sector operation). Deliberative immediately after strategy papers, if Information their circulation to the Executive exception. the Executive Board. Directors have Joint Staff Advisory already reviewed a Notes circulated for draft version of the information only paper. may be published - Country after the stated Assistance period within which Strategy papers, an Executive Project Appraisal Director may request Documents, and that the document be Program placed on the agenda Documents, if the of the Executive member country Board. (Guidance consents to early note on the disclosure. Transparency Policy) APPEALS MECHANISM Review/Appeal YES. YES. YES. YES. NO. Mechanism Two-stage appeals Two-step review Two stage appeals Persons with when mechanism. The mechanism. First process. First stage legitimate concerns information first stage of appeals review by an and for public about the AfDB’s denied alleging a violation interdepartmental interest cases: omission or refusal of policy (and final Access to Public Disclosure to disclose stage of public Information Advisory information in interest appeals) is Committee (and Committee, an accordance with this considered by the final step for appeals internal body. Policy will have Access to to override a policy Second stage: access to effective Information exception). If the independent appeals and responsive two- Committee. The request is denied, panel. stage appeals second stage of requester can appeal mechanisms within appeals alleging a to three-member the AfDB. violation of policy is external panel. “Restricted� considered by an documents specified impartial AI Appeals in the list of Board, consisting of exceptions are not three external eligible for persons who are disclosure and will independent of the not be subject to the Bank. second stage of The decisions of the appeals. Board are not subject to appeal. Page | 20