By Toby McIntosh
A staff review of the Disclosure and Access to Information Policy (DAI) at the African Development Bank provides a substantially positive overview of how the access policy is administered, making a few recommendations for improvements.
The report also suggests ways to bolster engagement with civil society organizations and concerned communities, urging revision of the separate but related External Communications Strategy and Policy.
The 37-page report was posted online on July 8. (For full text, see Report on the Implementation Review of The Disclosure and Access to Information (DAI) Policy 2012-2021.)
Only a few of the suggestions are to change the language of the DAI policy.
One such recommendation, while not elaborated, is to revise the privacy protections in the DAI policy. The recommendation states:
With growing concerns around privacy and the protection of personal information of employees and other third parties with whom the Bank does business, a section on information privacy should be included in the policy to align with privacy laws such as the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
Another proposal says an external independent appeals panel should be instituted to handle appeals of request denials.
Initial reviews of appeals are now handled by an existing internal staff committee. Only four appeals have been filed since the policy was made effective in 2013. Figures given for 2020 show that 453 requests were made and only two were rejected.
The delay in the establishment of an Appeals Panel “can also be attributed to the absence of resources,” the report says. “However, Presidential Directive 04/2021 establishing the Records Management and Information Disclosure Committee (RMIDC), and the Appeals Panel was issued by the President on 28th May 2021.”
The (RMIDC) in 2020 upheld a decision not to disclose an Ethics Committee Report as well as the contents of the whistleblowers’ allegations against the president of the African Development Bank Group. The information requested is “strictly confidential,” according to the RMIDC, pursuant to Section 3.3 C of the DAI Policy on legal, disciplinary or investigative matters.
The report says that comprehensive independent evaluation of the DAI policy should be considered, to “inform thinking on the need for a policy revision.”
After reviewing the AfDB report, the AfDB told EYE, the Board of Directors “welcomes the recommendation for a possible Independent Evaluation of the Policy.” The Bank explained, “Any eventual independent evaluation and its timing are dependent on the work programme of the Independent Evaluation Department, which the Secretariat has no control over. As soon as we know, the necessary information will be provided.”
Simultaneous Disclosure ‘Thorny’
Some problems are identified.
The implementation of an existing policy to disclose documents at the same time they circulated to the Board (known as simultaneous disclosure) is identified as “a thorny issue.”
The reports states:
The DAI requirement to simultaneously disclose certain operations documents when they are circulated to the Board for approval remains a thorny issue in the Bank Group because Regional Member Countries or third parties do not provide their written consents promptly to Task Managers (TMs). This process is usually initiated, if at all, shortly before the Board deliberates on the document.
Feedback also found that many users find it challenging to navigate the Bank’s website.
“It is not easy to find information on the Bank’s external website, which is the main channel for accessing information on the Bank’s projects, programmes and operations,” concludes the report. Few were aware of the existence of an Online Inquiry Form for DAI requests, the report says.
Some of the proposals concern internal administrative practices. The AfDB should “streamline and automate the disclosure process to ensure efficient and timely disclosure of Bank documents.”
Another administrative-related proposal is to “[C]ontinue strengthening the Bank’s staff capacity building on the DAI policy and prepare to update the staff handbook on DAI, last updated in 2013.”
“The DAI policy needs more visibility both internally and externally,” the report says.
The lack of an up-to-date External Communications Strategy and Policy “hinders the effective implementation of the DAI policy,” the report says. One problem a new communications policy could address, the report says, is that “technical assistance or emergency documents are only available in one language, thereby making wide access difficult.”
A revised communications strategy, the report says, also could address the perception among a high percentages of those interviewed for the report, within and outside the AfDB, that the Bank has not engaged enough with stakeholders.
The reports includes a variety of recommendations to improve engagement with external stakeholders.
The creation of the DAI report, it states, was thanks “internal and external stakeholders.” It says a written contribution were received from five unidentified civil society and that 27 representatives of CSOs participated in the focus group discussions. Those consulted, the report summarized, said “indicated that the process of requesting information from the Bank was simple” and that the Bank was generally responsive.
The disclosure policy was established in 1997, then revised in 2004 and again in 2012. Annual reports are issued. A review of DAI annual reports revealed that the number of documents proactively disclosed on the Bank’s website has increased significantly over the years, from 700 in 2013 to 3,795 in 2020, according to the report. “All internal and external requests for information were met within the stipulated policy timelines,” the report says.
A “steady increase” has occurred in the number of DAI requests received and processed between 2014 and 2019 (from 15 requests in 2014 to 499 requests in 2019), with a slight reduction in 2020 (454). “The slight decrease in the number of requests received in 2020 does not necessarily imply less interest among requesters, but instead reflects the fact that the Bank has been proactively disclosing its information and using other platforms to share its information with external stakeholders,” according to the report.
For annual reports, the last in 2020, and other information on the DAI policy, see here.
Findings from an. unexplained “benchmarking exercise” showed that “with a few exceptions, AfDB’s DAI Policy remains consistent with the Access to Information policies of the other DFIs [Development Finance Institutions),” the report says.
