By Toby McIntosh
The European Investment Bank (EIB) has denied a request by Eye on Global Transparency for the minutes of a meeting held by the key policy-making body considering more transparency for a massive database, access to which, advocates say, could lead to more private sector lending in developing countries.
The EIB said that disclosure of the minutes about the meeting would “seriously undermine” its work and subject officials to “external pressure.”
At issue is what transparency rules should apply to a now confidential database known as GEMs, the Global Emerging Markets Risk Database. GEMs is managed by the EIB on behalf of a consortium of 24 multilateral development banks (MDBs). The MDBs have contributed 35 years-worth of information about more than 20,000 contracts, primarily in the developing world. The EIB calls GEMs “the most exhaustive database of credit data” and the MDBs have exclusive access to it.
Proponents of GEMs transparency saw that providing greater public access to the data, particularly to the default and recovery information, would help private investors to better assess risk in developing countries and make more loans there.
Support for the idea came in a 2022 report supported by the Group of 20 countries, from the Investor Leadership Network representing private investors and from public interest advocates, such as the Center for Global Development (CGD). Key officials, from the World Bank and other MDBs, also have backed the move.
But while the concept appears to have widespread support, figuring out how to arrange the transformation is complicated.
The 24 MDBs govern GEMs through a seven-person Steering Committee of MDP representatives, a “Working Group” of MDB officials that meets once a year and a “General Assembly” that also meets annually. Day to day, GEMS is run by a “GEMs Team” at the EIB.
The GEMs General Assembly met for three days in Cairo in late October to discuss the matter, but no updates nor a time frame for making decisions were forthcoming.
One implementation proposal, to transfer administration of GEMs to another body appears to have been rejected, EYE reported Jan. 18 based on information from the EIB as it denied another EYE request for relevant documents.
The complexity of the task was outlined by Karen Mathiasen, a Project Director with the Washington-based think tank CGD in a blog post of Aug. 3, 2023.
“The G20 have endorsed the idea of a stand-alone database (“GEMs 2.0”) and called for its establishment by early 2024,” wrote Karen Mathiasen. “However,” she said, “prospects for meeting this timeframe appear slim because the process involves several complex issues that need to be resolved through a cumbersome governance structure. The G20 should step in to address this weakness.”
Noting that GEMs decisions are made by consensus, Mathiasen described the various issues that need to be resolved. These include how the data should be mined, “how to provide data that are sufficiently granular to be meaningful while preserving confidentiality,” whether investors should be able to buy specific data, and “absent a fee-for-service option” how a GEMs 2.0 should be funded, she wrote.
Readers: For sure notification of new postings please sign up in the “Stay Informed” column to the right. Or follow Eye on Global Transparency via LinkedIn or on X (Twitter) @tobyjmcintosh.
GEMs Decision-Making Opaque
Although the GEMs decision-making structure is known, there are no public records about its proceedings. No draft proposals have been put out for public comment.
By contrast, some of the 24 MDBs composing the GEMs Consortium provide post-meeting information about the work of their key decision-making bodies. The EIB issued a summary about its 2023 Board of Governors annual meeting, also the agenda, the text of the president’s speech and a press release. The World Bank publishes summaries of the annual meetings of its Board of Governors. At the Asian Development Bank, meetings of the directors are memorialized in Chair’s Summaries.
EYE on Dec. 18, 2023, pursuant to the EIB’s Transparency Policy, asked for the minutes of the most recent General Assembly meeting.
In denying EYE’s request on Jan. 26 (full text below) the EIB cited a variety of reasons for providing no information. And it said that providing a partial version of the minutes “would not be meaningful.”
The denial was based on an exemption in the transparency policy that protects information the disclosure of which “would seriously undermine the EIB’s decision-making process.” In full it states:
5.7 Access to information/documents, drawn up by the EIB for internal use or received by the EIB, which relate to a matter where the decision has not been taken by the relevant body of the EIB, shall be refused if disclosure of the document/information would seriously undermine the EIB’s decision-making process.
Access to information/documents containing opinions for internal use as part of deliberations and preliminary consultations within the EIB or with Member States/other stakeholders shall be refused even after the decision has been taken if disclosure of the information/document would seriously undermine the EIB’s decision-making process.
In its denial letter, the EIB explained its rationale, stating first that disclosure of “technical and strategic opinions” would “serious undermine” the Consortium and its members “capacity” to “document its work” and “take decisions.” The EIB wrote:
The minutes contain technical and strategic opinions for internal use as part of deliberations among the GEMS Consortium which, if disclosed, would seriously undermine the capacity of the GEMs Consortium and its members (including the EIB) to document its work in progress and take decisions on the issues contained in the minutes.
‘external pressure could be exerted’
The EIB then expressed concern about “external pressure.” It stated, “Many of these issues still require action points and external pressure could be exerted on the members of GEMs to influence those decisions.”
“Moreover,” the EIB continued, “certain decisions mentioned in the minutes have already been superseded.”
In two additional sentences, the EIB said disclosure would seriously undermine its work as the Secretariat. It wrote: “Disclosure would also seriously undermine the EIB’s capacity to carry out its role as Secretariat of the GEMs Consortium and to ensure a smooth and effective coordination of the implementation of the issues reflected in the minutes.”
To underscore this point, the EIB stressed that its role is “instrumental,” stating, “Ultimately this would seriously undermine the decision-making process of the EIB since said smooth and effective coordination of the GEMs consortium is instrumental to the current business of the EIB.”
Concerning redaction of the minutes, the EIB said it “assessed the possibility to disclose parts of the requested document that would not fall under the above-mentioned disclosure exception but found that such a partial disclosure would not be meaningful.”
The redaction provision (5.10) in the Transparency Policy does not mention “meaningful.” It says: “If only parts of the document requested are covered by any of the exceptions, the remaining parts of the document shall be disclosed.”
Under the EIB policy requested may appeal denials to EIB Group Complaints Mechanism.
EYE has pending an appeal of the partial denial of access to a requested document concerning a 2019 GEMs data-sharing agreement between the EIB and ILX. ILX is a Dutch investment company, the only private firm to gain access to the parts of the GEMs database. (See June 23, 2023, EYE article.)
EYE also filed with the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the World Bank’s private sector lending arm, asking for a market survey about GEMS conducted by the IFC.
The IFC denied EYE’s request Nov. 3, stating:
The market survey was aimed at assessing the market perception of GEMs value, with a view to use such insights in the decision-making process related to the possible establishment of the stand-alone legal entity and its products. As such, said survey constitutes an internal deliberative document meant for use by the GEM members and cannot be disclosed in accordance with Section (C) Exceptions, paragraph (i) Deliberative Information of IFC’s Access to Information Policy. The survey results will help inform future analytical work related to the use of GEMs statistics, and we expect that updated GEMs statistics will be released in the coming weeks after this month’s GEMs General Assembly Annual Meeting.
Previous all EYE articles on GEMs:
Development Banks Considering Transparency for GEMs Database (March 20, 2023),
GEMs Steering Committee Has ‘Proactive Agenda’ to Disclose Lending Risk Data (April 11, 2023),
Past EIB Deal Offers Insights into Value of Nonpublic Database on Lending Risks (June 23, 2023),
Disclosure of GEMs Database Still Likely, But When, What, and by Whom Unclear (Oct., 6, 2023),
Transparency Future for GEMs Database Remains Unclear; Meeting Upcoming, (Oct. 20, 2023),
GEMs Overseers Decide Against Moving Database; Still Promise Transparency (Jan. 18, 2024)
Full text of the EIB Jan. 26 denial letter
Dear Mr McIntosh,
We refer to your message of 18 December 2023 addressed to the European Investment Bank (EIB) requesting a copy of the minutes of the GEMS General Assembly annual meeting held in 2023. We also refer to our acknowledgement of receipt of 02 January 2024. Your request has been handled on the basis of the EIB Group Transparency Policy (EIB-TP)[1].
We regret to inform you that the EIB is not in a position to disclose the requested document.
The minutes contain technical and strategic opinions for internal use as part of deliberations among the GEMS Consortium which, if disclosed, would seriously undermine the capacity of the GEMs Consortium and its members (including the EIB) to document its work in progress and take decisions on the issues contained in the minutes.
Many of these issues still require action points and external pressure could be exerted on the members of GEMs to influence those decisions.
Moreover, certain decisions mentioned in the minutes have already been superseded.
Disclosure would also seriously undermine the EIB’s capacity to carry out its role as Secretariat of the GEMs Consortium and to ensure a smooth and effective coordination of the implementation of the issues reflected in the minutes.
Ultimately this would seriously undermine the decision-making process of the EIB since said smooth and effective coordination of the GEMs consortium is instrumental to the current business of the EIB.[2]
No overriding public interest in disclosure has been deemed to exist, as none of the information contained in the requested document relates to emissions into the environment.
In line with Art. 5.10, EIB-TP, the Bank has also assessed the possibility to disclose parts of the requested document that would not fall under the above-mentioned disclosure exception but found that such a partial disclosure would not be meaningful.
We thank you for your understanding and remain available for any clarifications[3].
Yours sincerely,
Infodesk Team
European Investment Bank
info@eib.org[1] https://www.eib.org/en/publications/eib-group-transparency-policy-2021
2 Art.5.7, EIB-TP
3 In line with Art. 5.31, EIB-TP, in case of a total or partial refusal following your initial application, you have the right to make a confirmatory application asking the Bank to reconsider its position or lodge a complaint with the EIB Group Complaints Mechanism.
