Rejections of requests for information are rarely so candid.
But when civil society organizations asked the Green Climate Fund for basic information about what projects are “in the pipeline,” GCF Executive Director Yannick Glemarec turned them down, rejecting the recommendations of an independent internal panel supporting disclosure.
Glemarec was clear about his core reason: providing the information would place “undue pressure” on the participants in the GCF deliberative process.
The crux of the controversy is about how much advance notice the public should get about proposed projects. The Fund aims to help developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and enhance their ability to respond to climate change
Civil society organizations asked for some basic information about projects in the GCF pipeline, but not yet cleared for Board consideration and therefore not yet announced.
The advocates said that getting the information somewhat earlier would give them and affected communities more time to analyze project proposals.
Their request was supported by a three-person GCF Information Appeals Panel (IAP). Its decision says, “Early stakeholder and community engagement will also fulfill the policy goals of the GCF’s environmental and social safeguards regime and ensure it remains accountable to such policies.”
Funding proposals (FPs) come to the GCF from “accredited entities,” 103 of them, including large development institutions such as the World Bank and private entities such as XacBank LLC, a national private sector entity in Mongolia. They go through an internal vetting process, including the Independent Technical Advisory Panel, before being advanced for Board action.
The GCF Board, which meets 3-4 times a year, had approved 159 projects in 117 countries worth $7.2 billion as of November 2020.
The release of information about the project is based on a timetable. Information about the environmental and social implications of projects the Board will consider is put out 120 days before board meetings for high risk projects, 30 days for medium risk projects and 21 days for low risk ones.
The CSOs asked for information that is the foundation of a monthly GCF document that provides a broad view of what’s coming. The “pipeline” document analyzes the projects, but in anonymized, general terms, describing their overall value, what regions they are going to, their thematic type, etc. See the latest one: Funding proposal pipeline update as of December 2020.
Since the pipeline report is based on details about individual proposed projects, the CSOs in May of 2020 asked for elementary information: the name of the proposal, the country involved, the name of the accredited entity (and the responsible official), the projected date for Board consideration and a brief project description.
The matter was raised by civil society organizations following the GCF, the Active Observer Team, including the Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) and the two elected CSO active observers, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and the Asociacion Indigena Centro para la Autonomia y Desarollo de los Pueblos Indigenas (CADPI).
Request Denied by Secretariat, Supported by Appeals Panel
The request was rejected first by the GCF Secretariat which listed many reasons based on its reading of exemptions in the GCF’s Information Disclosure Policy (IDP).
The Secretariat’s positions in the pipeline case relied on a variety of provisions in the disclosure policy to reject the request.
The Secretariat’s reasoning was faulted by the three-person review panel made up of the heads of the GCF’s Independent Evaluation Unit, Independent Redress Mechanism and Independent integrity Unit. The trio hears appeals under the disclosure policy, but their decisions are only advisory. They recommended disclosure of the requested information.
Side Note: Policy Under Review
The GCF is now reviewing the IDP, not because of this case, but as the first promised periodic review since its 2014 enactment.
A coalition of civil society groups recently blasted the policy as insufficient and proposed numerous ways to strengthen it. (Text of CSO submission)
A GCF spokesperson wrote EYE:
The Secretariat is reviewing the IDP, including the disclosure of environmental and social safeguards reports in the light of the provisions of the Environmental and Social Policy on the matter and the live webcast of formal meetings of the Board.
In accordance with the IDP, the review focuses on policy implementation issues and proposed policy changes, taking into account new information access standards or policies developed and implemented by peer institutions and partners regarding the range of their activities. The Ethics and Audit Committee of the Board, with the support of the Secretariat, will present a report to the Board on issues relating to the implementation of the IDP along with any recommendations for changes to it.
This presentation is expected to occur during the course of 2021 subject to the priorities of the Board. Before such time, a draft policy will be circulated for robust internal and external stakeholder consultations. This step is in addition to the publication of a draft at least 21 calendar days prior to the Board meeting in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the GCF Board and the IDP.
Executive Director Opposes Requested Disclosure
Executive Director Glemarec on Oct. 20, 2020, issued a nine-page decision strongly rejecting the panel’s opinions, not only about disclosing the documents in question, but also about how the Fund should proactively disclose the information going forward. Nothing in the disclosure policy, Glemarec scolded, authorizes the panel to offer policy recommendations.
The information sought, Glemarec said, exists in a “limited distribution” document for the Board and what not to disclose was a “deliberate decision” that has been “institutionalized for years.”
Among other objections, Glemarec said it would be impractical to contact the submitting entities to get their permission for making the disclosure. The disclosure policy provides substantial deference to submitting third parties over whether their information should be disclosed. This veto power is also a problem, the groups said in their comment on the IDP.
He also noted said the request was moot because the requested material had been disclosed as part of the mandated pre-meetings disclosures in the five months during which the CSOs request was processed.
Avoiding “Undue Pressure”
Glemarec also stated that the information is exempt from disclosure because it is covered by the IDP exemption protecting “deliberative information.”
Most tellingly, Glemarec said that the perceived harm is “undue pressure.” He wrote (page 6):
With regard to the potential harm in terms of damage to the free flow of information and ideas that could arise from disclosure, the Secretariat would like to avoid undue pressure on the Secretariat, accredited entities, national designated authorities, TAP, and other stakeholders to act in a certain direction with respect of a draft FP. This could happen once an indicative list is known but before the TAP decision is finalized.
Such a broad interpretation of the deliberative process exemption was rejected by the independent panel, writing (page 9) (Paragraphing added by EYE for readability):
Exceptions to the IDP’s general policy of transparency and disclosure are to be interpreted narrowly. Any request for information that is denied on the basis that an exception applies must be squarely justified within the exception, and the burden of doing so lies on the GCF Secretariat. In order to bring information requested within the “deliberative information” exception the Secretariat must satisfactorily establish that disclosure “would damage the free flow of information and ideas” within the Secretariat.
Other than for the assertion that disclosure would have that effect, the Secretariat’s response makes no effort to demonstrate how the disclosure of the basic information requested by the Appellant would damage the internal free flow of information and ideas. For example, how would the disclosure of the country to which a project proposal relates damage the free flow of information? How would the disclosure of the Accredited Entity developing a project proposal damage the free flow of information within the Secretariat? Would Secretariat staff be reluctant to exchange information or generate ideas if the country and Accredited Entity of a funding proposal were known to the public? If so, why and how?
None of these critical questions are answered in the Secretariat’s response. In these circumstances, the IAP is unable to find that the Secretariat has adequately discharged the burden of establishing the elements needed to claim the application of the deliberative information exception.
In their comments on the disclosure policy, the CSOs called this exemption in IDP’s rules overly broad.
The ED’s letter here.
The IAP decision here.
Press release by the Information Appeals Panel here.
GCF “pipeline” updates posted here.
