The Green Climate Fund violated its access to information policy by not disclosing documents about two projects enough time in advance, according to a ruling by the GCF Independent Appeals Panel (IAP).
In its first ruling, the three-person appeals panel rejected two defenses raised by the Fund Secretariat. (See summary of the binding Nov. 28, 2018 decision.)
The complaint was brought by Liane Schalatek, the Civil Society Organization Active Observer for Developed Countries, on behalf of the CSO Active Observer Team. The CSO representatives objected that the Fund had not released documents on two major projects 120 days in advance, as required by Fund policy. Instead, the documents were posted only a month before the board meeting.
The Fund was established within the framework of The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to finance projects in developing countries in adaptation and mitigation practices to counter climate change. The Fund’s Information Disclosure Policy, very hard to find on its website, was approved in 2016.
The Fund countered by claiming that the panel lacked jurisdiction because no specific request had been made under the access to information policy. However, the panel asserted a broader jurisdiction. The panel said it can review whether the Fund follows its own proactive disclosure policies, and is not limited to deciding only whether the Fund correctly acted on requests for documents. It said:
The IAP is of the view that a “denial” or “restriction” of access to information may take place when there is a refusal to provide the information, as well as when there is a delay in providing the information as required by the IDP. In this field, the principle that “access delayed is access denied” is now well established.
The panel also rejected the Fund’s argument that the late notification could be excused because a clause in its “master agreements” with the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. The arguments are complicated. (CSO Rebuttal Letter)
The appeals panel disagreed with the Secretariat’s reading.
Both the Bank and the ADB had provided the documents 120 days in advance of their own board meetings on the projects (and told this to the Fund).
The appeals panel recommended that the Fund follow its 120 day notice standard in the future.
In an article about its decision, the appeals panel said, “Ensuring that the GCF remains faithful and accountable to its policies and procedures speaks to the very essence of why independent mechanisms exist.”
