A significant gap exists between policy and implementation.
That’s a major finding from new research into whether development finance institutions (DFIs) share information about their planned projects, especially about environmental and social (E&S) risks, with affected communities. (See draft report here.)
The research was conducted by Publish What You Fund, an international nongovernmental organization based in the United Kingdom. It’s the third report from the multi-year DFI Transparency Project. (See EYE article on second report here.)
PWYF researchers studied 20 multilateral and bilateral DFIs, preparing charts on more than 40 factors, such as “Does the DFI state the date of community E&S disclosure?” and “Does the DFI disclose stakeholder engagement plans.”
Many sections of the color-coded charts are red. Among other main conclusions:
– “No DFI policies on community disclosure include specific timelines for the disclosure of project information to project affected communities.”
– Very few of the DFIs studied told communities about the existence independent accountability mechanisms to which complaints can be brought.
The names of the DFIs examined are not provided, but PWYF officials said during a webinar Feb. 11 that after the findings are reviewed with the institutions the names will be disclosed probably by the end of the year, by which time further reports are expected.
Also see an interview on DFI transparency with Rayyan Hassan, Executive Director of the NGO Forum on the Asian Development Bank, conducted by PWYF CEO, Gary Forster.
Dutch DFI Faulted in Separate Study
One of the DFIs studied by PWYF was the FMO, the Dutch development bank, which recently had its transparency policies criticized, by NGOs led by the International Accountability Project. See the report beginning with this blog post by Ishita Petkar.
FMO was criticized for failing to provide translated materials, documents such as environmental and social impact assessments (ESIAs), and summaries of potential project impacts.
Petkar expressed disappointment with the FMO’s response, saying it shunted responsibility and failed to make a concrete commitment to substantively revising its policy.
