SEPTEMBER
2002 Groups
Suggest Changes in EBRD Public Information Policy
The
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)
is preparing a new draft of their Public Information Policy
(PIP) that may be presented to the EBRD Board for first
review sometime in the Fall. Groups following the EBRD
have submitted many suggestions for change, as summarized
below.
Bankwatch
would also like to see the increased availability
of evaluation documents. "There is a much bigger
hesitation among the staff about the evaluation documents.
They need a push from shareholding countries,"
Hlobil said.
This
genre includes such things as Expanded Annual Monitoring
Reports, Operation Performance Reports and other types
of project evaluation documents.
If
adopted, the EBRD would be following the lead of other
multilateral banks that have started disclosing more
information on evaluations.
"The
point is that the Bank is doing evaluations of projects
and making assessments about implementation,"
Hlobil said. "This is a public institution and
these issues should be known to the public."
Lack
of Process for Disclosure
Another
problem cited by CEE Bankwatch is the lack of an independent
review board to examine instances when EBRD refuses
to release information following a specific request
and to ensure that consistent standards for release
are met.
In
February, the Bank met with NGOs to discuss the creation
of such an appeals/compliance mechanism, which would
allow the public's comments to be heard and responded
to fairly. Currently the EBRD staff is preparing a
paper on the topic that will be submitted to the Board
in the coming months. If approved, the compliance
mechanism would be general, and not implemented specifically
for PIP.
"A
compliance mechanism is really essential. The Bank
has been very vague about it and we still don't know
any details," said Hlobil.
Without
such an appeals/compliance mechanism, the EBRD is
not held accountable when its refusal to disclose
information violates PIP, the paper states. Most EBRD
shareholding nations also have similar boards to maintain
accountability and transparency.
Bankwatch
has also requested the implementation of a clear timeline
for responses to requests of information, similar
to the policies of most shareholding nations. Also
suggested was requiring the inclusion of a reason
when requests are turned down.
Translation
and Web Posting of Key Environmental Impact Assessments
The translation
of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) written
for category "A" projects--where "the
impacts are potentially significant and cannot be
readily identified, assessed, or mitigated,"--
into local languages should not be dependent upon
the decision of project sponsors in its consultation
with EBRD, Bankwatch recommended. The group argued
that not requiring sponsors to translate the documents
decreases the ability of locals to gain information
about projects affecting them directly. Bankwatch
also recommended that EIA should available in full
form, on the Internet, either on the specific company's
web site or on www.ebrd.com.
Currently, the EBRD just "strongly encourages"
project sponsors to include EIAs on their web sites
and provides a list of EIAs with links to project
sponsor web sites on the EBRD web site. Because smaller
companies without web sites cannot be expected to
create one simply for the purpose of posting EIAs,
the current policy is not sufficient, stated Bankwatch.
Already the EBRD releases Executive Summaries of EIAs
on their web site, so there should be no difficulties
in releasing the full document, Bankwatch said.
The
Bank is handling this matter in the context of a review
of the Environmental Policy, not the Public Information
Policy, according to a Bank official.
Earlier
Release of Environmental Analysis Documents
Bankwatch
has suggested releasing all EIA documents to the public
120 days before Board consideration. A uniform time
period would override the two tiered structure now
in place. EIA's prepared for projects being managed
by the private sector now have to be available for
half the time required for projects sponsored by a
public sector organization.
The
policy requires that public sector EIAs be released
a minimum of 120 days before Board consideration and
private EIAs, a minimum of 60 days. Bankwatch argued
that if the environment will be affected, whether
the project is public or private is irrelevant. If
adopted, this policy would be comparable to the Asian
Development Bank's policy on EIA disclosure.
Release
of Environmental Analysis for Category "B"
Projects
Currently,
EBRD does not release of Environmental Analyses written
for category "B" projects, which are defined
as those "where any future environmental impacts
are potentially significant but where, because of
their nature, size and location, they can be readily
identified, assessed and mitigated." Bankwatch
suggested the Environmental Analyses be released publicly
for a period of 60 days before board approval. Interestingly,
this issue was brought up previously by NGOs in a
public comment and feedback period between Jan. 24
and March 10, 2000, but was not commented upon by
EBRD. The World Bank and the Asian Development Bank
require the release of documents in parallel categories.
Release
of Emergency Response Plans
Emergency
preparedness plans prepared by project sponsors, such
as the company that runs the Kumtor gold mine, do
not have to be disclosed under EBRD rules. Recognizing
a potential need to keep certain information private,
the paper suggested organizing the document in such
a way that the omission of sensitive information would
not adversely affect comprehension.
Timing
of Release of Project Summary Documents
Project
Summary Documents (PSDs) should be released 60 days
prior to review by the Board, regardless of whether
the project is public or private, according to Bankwatch.
This would end current policy, which allows a shorter
disclosure time for private projects.
Under
current policy, PSDs for private sector projects are
supposed to be released at least 30 days prior to
consideration by the Board. Public Sector PSDs are
released as soon as possible following initial project
review by Bank management, around 4-5 months before
Board approval, and at least 60 days before Board
discussion. Again, Bankwatch said, differentiation
between public and private sector projects should
be eliminated, and information should be accessible
to those before the project is presented to the Board
for approval, allowing time for comments and suggestions.
Another
impediment to transparency for PSDs occurs because
a sponsor may voice confidentiality concerns. This
reason was used to without the document in almost
one-third of cases examined.
List
of technical and factual documents
Bankwatch
also suggested including a list of technical and factual
documents prepared during project preparation in the
PSD. By doing this, EBRD would provide a better clue
as to what information is available on the project,
and what information can be requested.
Environmental
Section of the Final Review Memorandum
The
release of the environmental section of the Final
Review Memorandum, or the Environmental Review Memorandum,
which both give information regarding the EBRD's view
on the results of certain policies and the environmental
consequences of a project, is suggested by Bankwatch.
Currently, a summary of environmental issues and related
mitigation actions are included in PSDs, but the information
is briefer and is presented in a different form than
the information found in both memos.
Information
on Implementation of Projects
Once
launched, a project proceeds with almost no information
about implementation being available. Only if the
national government requires public reports is such
implementation material available.
Translation
of the Environmental Procedures Document
How
the Bank should handle projects with environmental
consequences is written down in the document known
as the Environmental Procedures. However it has not
been translated into national languages. Bankwatch
feels that misunderstandings about specific projects
have resulted from the inability of locals to access
these procedures. Because Environmental Procedures
are not altered frequently, translation wouldn't be
too costly, Bankwatch said.
Staff
Response to the Public Comments on Policies
Prior
to the consideration of new Board policies, Bankwatch
has suggested, the EBRD should release the summary
of public comments prepared by the Bank staff, and
the staff response to the comments.
Schedules
of Future Projects and Events
Also,
Bankwatch suggested that the release of both monthly
and half-yearly schedules on the planned projects
and events of EBRD would further increase the transparency
of the decision making process, giving fair warning
to the public about its agenda. The World Bank Board
has adopted a policy requiring a similar plan.
Board
Minutes
Bankwatch
proposed that without the release of the minutes from
meetings of the Board of Directors, citizens are unable
to find out exactly what issues are being raised and
supported, decreasing the transparency of the institution.
They also suggested releasing the Record of Vote,
though this would require a change in the Rules of
Procedure by the Board of Directors, rather than the
PIP.
The
Chashma Right Bank Irrigation Project in Pakistan commenced
in 1978. (Photo: Asian Development Bank)
ABOUT
IFTI WATCH In
this column, Washington, D.C.-based journalist Toby
J. McIntosh reports on the latest developments
in information disclosure in International Financial
and Trade Institutions (IFTI).
Contact: tmcintosh@bna.com or
1-(202) 452-4498
