By Toby McIntosh
Proposed changes to the Central American Bank for Economic Integration’s Access to Information Policy would do little to improve the bank’s transparency, according to a review by Eye on Global Transparency.
Although the new document seems better organized than the 2020 original version, the core of the policy – the exemptions limiting disclosure – may make it equally or more difficult to obtain documents.
CABEI’s access policy was adopted in 2020 and a consultation (English and Spanish) is now being held on the policy. The deadline for submission was Nov. 11, 2023. The Bank has said it will publish a summary of the comments. See previous EYE story of the CABEI, More Transparency Urged at Central American Bank for Economic Integration.
There is ambiguity in the proposed policy. Broad statements laying out the purpose of the exemptions are followed by lists of document categories that are exempted from disclosure.
The Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) on Nov. 16 submitted Observations on the Central American Bank for Economic Integration (CABEI’s) draft Access to Information Policy. The non-governmental organization based in Canada noted some “positive” changes, but also was critical. Among other things, CLD said, “Several exceptions need to be further narrowed and all need to include a stronger harm test, while a public interest override needs to be introduced which would apply to all exceptions.”
Board Meeting Minutes Protected From Release
The constraints in the drafting are illustrated in the important category concerning “deliberative information.”
The proposed policy says:
Information whose disclosure would affect the decision-making process or inhibit the free exchange of ideas in the deliberative and internal processes of the Board of Governors, the Board of Directors, the committees and the Administration, as well as between the Bank and its member countries, private sector clients or third parties with which it has relations.
What might qualify as “inhibiting the free exchange of ideas” has been long discussed in access to information circles. A key point of controversy is whether the disclosure of core facts inhibits decision-making, for example, the cost of a proposed project. Disclosure of facts, it is argued, doesn’t inhibit the free exchange of opinions about, for example, whether the project should be a priority.
The proposed CABEI exemption, Article 16 (b), appears to make requests for even factual information fruitless. The second sentence of the exemption includes four categories of information that appear to be off-limits.
It states:
The protection of this information seeks to safeguard a space for the Bank to reflect, debate and build consensus outside of public scrutiny:
-
- Verbatim transcripts (verbatims) and minutes of meetings of any CABEI body.
- Any type of statement by governors, directors, Executive President and Vice President, any member of the Bank’s staff or invited guests, which has been made in the context of an internal meeting of the Institution.
- Communications of any nature, within and between dependencies, as well as those between the Institution and its counterparts.
- Non-final documents and inputs, in any type of format, which have been prepared or exchanged during the deliberative processes.
The first item appears to prohibit the release of not only transcripts, but also minutes of meetings, which often merely reflect the voting and the decisions.
The fourth category appears sweeping, covering any documents that might contain factual information, and “inputs.”
Information on Finances and Audits Protected
The proposed Exemption “e” would protect “[D]etailed administrative and financial information related to the Bank’s General Budget and its execution.” This is further defined as “[I]nformation whose disclosure would affect the Bank’s development and ability to run its internal financial, administrative and economic system.”
This seems to set up a test, such that information could be disclosed as long as it doesn’t affect how the Bank runs its operations.
However, this standard, seems to be modified by five specific items that follow, including:
(i) Detailed information on the budgets of operating expenses, capital investments, contributions and special contributions of the Bank, among other information of similar nature and content, as well as that related to the detailed execution thereof.
The proposed exemption rules out disclosure of “detailed information,” which is not defined. And (i) further seems to be categorical, virtually negating any debate over whether disclosure would undercut the bank’s ability “to run its internal financial, administrative and economic system.”
Similarly, proposed exemption (f), on “[I]nformation from internal and external control bodies,” appears to rule out disclosure of virtually all evaluative reports. The draft policy lists four categories, beginning with “Internal Auditing Reports.”
Proposed exemption (g) is intended to protect “[I]nformation whose disclosure would affect CABEI’s financial and commercial interests or that could affect the markets in which the Bank operates.” But this is followed by what appears to be an exhaustive list of five areas to be protected, beginning with “Financial statements on the funds administered by CABEI.”
The bank gives itself latitude on whether redaction is required, saying, “The Bank may issue public versions of documents containing public and confidential information, eliminating information protected by exceptions to disclosure.”
The draft policy promises that the bank will create “an interactive, illustrative and non-exhaustive list of routine disclosure documents.” Such a list is not included in the policy.
Documents could be declassified under the proposed policy, although no timeline is given. Instead, there are six criteria, beginning with “whether the information has lost sensitivity over time” and ending with “the exceptions set forth in this policy.”
Readers: For notification of new postings please sign up for free in the right column. Follow EYE on Twitter @tobyjmcintosh. Or follow Eye on Global Transparency via LinkedIn.
