By Toby McIntosh
The rules on transparency and participation for the new climate change Loss and Damage Fund (LDF) will be written soon. A few clues are emerging about these policies, but much remains unknown.
At present, it appears likely that observers will be allowed to participate, but when, how many and who is undecided. Also, an access to information provision seems probable,
Beyond that, there are many details that will need to be hashed out. Among the unresolved issues are:
- Whether the meetings will be open and/or live-streamed,
- If and when documents will be released in advance of meetings,
- Whether public comments will be sought on prospective policies and projects,
- What post-meeting documents will be disclosed, and
- How functional and useful will be the database on funded programs.
The delayed first meeting of fund’s 26-member board probably will be held in late April. Decisions about how the LDF will operate will be made by the board, but it’s more complicated because of the involvement of the World Bank and the U.N. Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP).
During COP 28 last November, the decision was made to create the fund that will support countries dealing with “loss and damage” caused by climate change. The World Bank will be the trustee and secretariat, for four years, a decision that was controversial; opposed by some of the likely recipient countries, but supported by the donor countries.
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.
Looking for Hints About Transparency
So far there are only a few hints about what the policies on transparency and participation will look like.
But there are several places to look for these clues.
First, the founding documents for the LDF provide some direction. Significantly, they encourage the inclusion of “observers” at LDF meetings (but don’t give much detail). Also, they say there should be an access to information policy, though a bit ambiguously.
Because the World Bank already serves as the secretariat and trustee for other climate-related trust funds, their transparency policies provide something of a menu for LDF decision-makers.
The policies and practices of these trust funds vary considerably, according to a re\view by Eye on Global Transparency. EYE looked at the transparency policies of five climate-related trust funds administered by the Bank: the Adaptation Fund, the Global Environment Facility, the Global Infrastructure Fund, and the Clean Investment Fund (which includes the Climate Technology Fund and the Strategic Climate Fund), and the Green Climate Fund (which has a more autonomous operation).
These funds are among 27 “Financial Intermediary Funds” (FIFs) administered by the Bank, all roughly similar in structure, but with diverse transparency characteristics. The LDF will be a FIF, too. As such the LDF will sign governance and operations agreements with the Bank.
Decisions to Come Through Complex Process
The LDF Board is expected to start making decisions soon, although the process, and its transparency in the early stages, is still undefined.
The first LDF Board meeting may be held the last week in April, according to current to those following the process. The first session was delayed because developed countries were slow to name board members. (See articles, chronologically, in Climate Home News, African Arguments, DowntoEarth, Climate Home News.) The board has a slight majority from developing countries, 12 from developed states, and the other 14 representing other geographic and development constituencies.
A timeline and list of benchmarks for establishing the fund is contained in a summary about the fund available on the Bank website. Also see a detailed analysis by Liane Schalatek and Julie-Anne Richards of the non-profit Heinrich Böll Foundation.
When the LDF governing board does convene, one main topic on the agenda will be the terms of engagement with the World Bank. The World Bank must formally agree to its role and meet a dozen COP conditions. The LDF board will appoint an Executive Director.
The World Bank’s board of directors “by mid-April” will consider a “Draft Board Paper” on its relationship with the LDF, according to the Bank website, which also lays out the decision-making schedule. Bank officials declined to discuss the preparations except to refer to the website.
Early Transparency Questions
How transparent the LDF board’s decision-making process will be during the early stages is an open question.
Concerned about this, the Böll analysis said, “The Board must put in place a negotiation and assessment process that allows for meaningful participation of observers, and ensures that any work done intersessionally is reported on a regular basis to the full Board and the public. Also, Böll said, “documentation provided by the World Bank must be made publicly available.”
“This will be an early test of the willingness of the LDF Board to conduct its work transparently and with accountability in line with the mandate of the Governing Instrument for the Fund’s operations,” according to Böll.
“As there will be no fully defined procedures for the participation of observers and rightsholders, including their representation as active observers, for the LDF Board’s first meeting, it is crucially important that temporary arrangements set a positive precedent and go significantly further than the approach in the TC…” Böll said, referring to the “transitional Committee” at COP that developed the broad governance guidelines for the fund.
Creation Mandate Supports Transparency
The governance documents to establish the fund stress transparency as a value, but don’t go very deep into operationalizing the goal.
Some broad guidelines on transparency are contained in the “Governing Instrument.” (See text of the decision). It has two annexes, including one on governance and operating modalities.
“The Fund will operate in a transparent and accountable manner guided by efficiency and effectiveness and sound financial management,” according to the governance annex (Paragraph 5).
Open Meetings Not Required
The governance annex does not mandate open meetings.
The meetings of the governing bodies of climate-related trust funds at the World Bank are closed to the public and the press.
Uniquely, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) livestreams its Board meetings and archives the videos.
At the Global Environment Facility (GEF) recordings the proceedings are made public (on YouTube) after the event.
What model the LDF will follows remains to be seen.
Also yet unknown is whether observers will be invited to the first meetings.
Observer Provision Ambiguous
The Governing Instrument calls for observers to be part of the LDF process, but without getting into specifics. The practices concerning observers of other World Bank climate-related trust funds are quite diverse.
The LDF governance annex (Paragraph 20) affirms, “The Board will enhance the engagement of stakeholders by inviting active observers, including youth, women, Indigenous Peoples and environmental non-governmental organizations, to participate in its meetings and related proceedings.” This message is amplified in Paragraph 27, which says, “The Fund will make arrangements to allow for the effective participation of observers in its meetings, including developing and carrying out an observer accreditation process.” This language was a compromise, as explained by Böll (3.B.I.b).
The observers language does not say how many observers should attend. Nor is it definite on the constituencies that should be at the table. It does not mention the private sector, often an invited constituency. There have been calls to include other constituencies, such as climate migrants and local communities. Also, the annex doesn’t say how the observers should be selected.
The Böll analysis recommends, “Permanent arrangements for both active observer (with suggested two representatives per constituency) and broader participation of observers and rightsholders should be adopted as soon as possible, ideally at Board meeting 2, including by dedicating financial support for the participation of developing country observers and respecting the right of constituencies and groups to determine their own representation.”
Going beyond the idea of including observers at meetings, the LDF governance annex (Paragraph 28) suggests the establishment of “consultative forums to engage and communicate with stakeholders.” And Paragraph 29 says the fund should to “develop mechanisms to promote the input and participation of stakeholders.”
Examples From Other Bank Trust Funds
At the Green Climate Fund, four “active observers” participate. Two are civil society representatives – one from a developing country and one from a developed country. Two others are from the private sector, also one from each of the developing and developed country constituencies. They are selected by other CSOs (322) and private sector entities (90) accredited by the GCF. (See Observers section of website, which includes the names of the current representatives)
These active observers have the opportunity to make interventions by invitation of the co-chairs of the Board. In addition, the GCF co-chairs also may invite additional observers and/or experts to Board meetings,” a GCF spokesperson said, adding, “These individuals observe the proceedings from a separate room.”
Observers attend the meetings of some other climate-related trust funds, too.
At the Clean Technology Fund (CTF) Trust Fund Committee, five official observers from stakeholder groups “participate in the Committee to advocate on behalf of their constituents and promote transparency and efficient use of resources,” according to a webpage that describes the system.
At the GEF, representatives of civil society and the Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group (IPAG) are invited to Council meetings. Further information on engagement with civil society here and the criteria for CSO participation here. A list of IPAG members can be found on a tab here. A new Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) Council also includes, as observers, representatives from youth, women and indigenous peoples and local communities.
By contrast, less direct involvement occurs at the Adaptation Fund, which organizes a dialogue with civil society as a standing agenda item of its twice yearly Board meetings. (See more here.)
Various Access to Information Policies Apply
Significantly, the LDF governance annex (Paragraph 70) calls for access to information polices to apply, actually many of them.
It says, “The Fund’s operations, including with respect to activities financed by it, will be subject to the host institution’s policy on access to information.”
Presumably this means the World Bank’s access to information policy. Whether the “with respect to” language is meant is restrictive of the scope seems unclear.
The paragraph continues, “The activities financed by the Fund will also be subject to each implementing entity’s policy on access to information.”
“Implementing entities” refers to the bodies that sponsor and manage the projects the LDF will finance. They could be international financial institutions, such as the Asian Development Bank, or regional development institutions, national governments, or other bodies, as determined by the LDF. Presumably requests for information LDF funded projects at these implementing institutions would need to be sent there.
How these two paragraphs work together seems somewhat unclear. Would the World Bank’s access policy be applicable to documents from the implementing agencies about projects in the possession of the LDF?
Also, the annex does not address what would happen if an implementing agency lacks an access to information policy or has a weak one.
Reports Should Be Public, Annex Says
The submission of an annual report is mandated in the governance annex (Paragraph 13).
Virtually all Bank FIF trust funds issue such reports, prepared by the Bank staff as the Secretariat.
These reports vary in length (from 20-100 pages) and in detail. They typically tell how the trust fund is fulfilling its mission, summarize financial data and synopsize the projects being supported. Most of the reports for the climate-related funds EYE examined are dated 2023, although there doesn’t appear to be an Adaptation Fund “Performance Review” since 2021. For examples, see the GIF latest Annual Highlights Report and the GEF 2013 Monitoring Report.
For some climate trust funds, semi-annual reports are prepared. For example, see a November 2023 report to the Climate Technology Fund.
More in the gray zone is the disclosure of other reports, whose existence may not even be known.
As the LDF governance annex sketches the duties of the Secretariat, it suggests that performance evaluation reports should be made public.
Among other things, the Secretariat should prepare “performance reports on the implementation of activities financed by the Fund,” and develop a results measurement framework against which programs, projects and other activities will be reviewed periodically. “The results of the periodic evaluations will be published by the secretariat,” states the governance annex (Paragraph 65).
Other Transparency Terms Less Defined
Despite its general pro-transparency tone, the LDF governance documents don’t deal with many other elements of transparency.
Some details on transparency could be delineated in agreements with the Bank or be left to the World Bank in its function as the secretariat.
For example, at the Climate Investment Fund, the 18-page 2023 Memorandum of Understanding which covers a wide-range of matters, says the secretariat is responsible for creating “a comprehensive database of the CIF’s activities, knowledge management system, result measurements system, and. learning program.” It establishes that the Secretariat will establish a “communications strategy” with the World Bank and other multi-lateral development banks.
Trust Funds Websites Offer Limited Project Information
The climate-related trust fund websites EYE reviewed all provide basic information on their governance structures, including foundational documents and the names of members of the governing bodies.
The design and content of the climate-related trust fund websites is not uniform. This is a level of prescriptive detail that does not appear in the operational agreements with the Bank.
But the details can be significant, even with regard to seemingly basic features, such as listing of the funded projects and the search functions, which are vary in design.
The summaries of the funded projects are often not detailed, perhaps because the trust funds are not the implementing agencies. The summaries typically don’t link to the more detailed relevant documents available the implementing organization, which may be the World Bank, other international organizations or national governments.
As a result it can be hard to do research. Digging deeper is made more difficult because the trust funds usually don’t give the official names or ID numbers used for the projects by the implementing agency. Without the official name or number, searching on the World Bank website for a project usually results in no matching information.
Meeting Minutes Usually Public
For the most part the five climate-related trust funds examined by EYE issue summaries of their meetings afterwards.
The notable exception on disclosure of minutes is the Global Infrastructure Facility (GIF). A spokesperson said, “Governing council meeting summaries are not publicly posted as they are shared only directly with governing council members.”
For example, see the Board web page of the Green Climate Fund. (The governing bodies of trust funds go by different names and meet with differing frequency, usually just several times a year though sometimes for multiple days.) The detailed report on the Oct. 23-26 , 2023, Board meeting runs 264 pages.
The GEF issues summaries of is meetings, too, for example of a February meeting. Uniquely, GEF also reprints reports on its meetings done by Earth Negotiations Bulletin, a project of the International Institute for Sustainable Development. IISD provides detailed coverage of the meetings of international bodies, though usually without attributed comments.
There are other wrinkles of difference, some positive.
The meeting reports made by the Adaptation Fund Board are available in the six official languages of the United Nations.
A few of the funds also report on the activities of subcommittees and other bodies. The GIF’s Advisory Council releases summaries of its sessions. The Advisory Council, with members from many constituencies, discusses broad topics, and doesn’t make formal recommendations.
Pre-Decisional Documentation Runs Gamut
Several of the trust funds provide advance information about the agendas of their governing bodies and what they will be considering.
As might be expected, no such information comes from the GIF, which issues no minutes.
But other climate funds do provide advance information.
Notably, the Adaptation Fund posts both project concepts and full project proposals online for public review and comment even before the Adaptation Fund Board secretariat has completed the screening and technical review process. See the Proposals Currently Under Review page. The pages link to lengthy description of the projects.
At the GCF, documents to be considered by the Board are to be disclosed simultaneously with their submission to the Board, 21 days before their consideration (Page 7, line 16 ,in Access Policy).
Similarly, at the Clean Technology Fund (CTF) Trust Fund, in advance of the March 20 meeting, the website showed a provisional agenda, a provisional list of documents, and the documents themselves, such as one concerning Macedonia.
At the GEF, documents are circulated publicly four weeks prior to each meeting and comments from Council members are invited, a spokesman said. The documents appear on the Council page. (Click on a respective meeting, then see the ‘documents’ tab.”) The submitted comments are summarized and published on the “work program” page.
Post-Approval Results Documentation Varies
Because the trust funds support projects but do not implement them, most “results” reporting comes from the implementing entities.
At the GCF, such performance reports are on the website, where they are published as “operational documents.”
For example, an annual performance report on Sustainable Landscapes in Eastern Madagascar. The report is supposed to present “the overall implementation progress of the project including performance against GCF investment criteria, financial information, project logic framework targets indicators, and development of ESS, Indigenous Peoples, and Gender project elements.” It also provides information on “challenges encountered and mitigation actions taken.”
Access to Information Policies at Climate Funds
Two of the five climate-related funds examined have their own information disclosure policies, the GCF and the GEF.
The GCF access policy has come under some criticism as too restrictive.
When a civil society organizations asked the GCF for basic information about what projects are “in the pipeline,” then 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. (See Jan. 15, 2021, EYE article.) More recently, the GCF kept partially secret a report critical of a controversial project in Nicaragua. (See May 1, 2023, EYE story.)
The GEF adopted its access policy in 2019. It including several broad exemptions that drew criticism from civil society. (See Jan 14, 2019, EYE article.)
For the Clean Technology Fund, the rules of procedure include a disclosure provision (XVI). The same language appears in the rules for the Strategic Climate Fund (XVI).
It provides for a veto of disclosure by parties that have submitted documents and also relies on the World Bank access to information policy. It states:
Unless the document or information is provided with explicit indication that it will not be disclosed to third parties or that it may not be disclosed without the consent of the provider of the document or information, the Administrative Unit may, in consultation with the CTF Trust Fund Committee and in accordance with the World Bank’s policy on disclosure of information, make publicly available any document or information provided to the Administrative Unit for submission to the CTF Trust Fund Committee. Each of the MDBs, the Trustee and any other parties submitting documents or information to the CTF Trust Fund Committee or the Administrative Unit shall be informed by the Administrative Unit that unless it expressly specifies that any document or information submitted by it is subject to any restriction against disclosure, the document or information submitted to the CTF Trust Fund Committee may be made publicly available under this paragraph.
Whether the exception against disclosure is exercised is hard to know. The CTF rules establish a requirement for each multilateral development bank (MDB) to report annually and for independent evaluations to be conducted every three years (Section G). It states:
Each MDB will report annually to the CTF Trust Fund Committee for monitoring and evaluation conducted by the MDB in accordance with its procedures. An independent evaluation of the operations of the CTF and the impacts of its activities will be carried out jointly after three years of operations by the independent evaluation departments of the MDBs. Such evaluation will be based on the scope and reporting criteria agreed with the CTF Trust Fund Committee.
The other climate-related trust funds surveyed here do not have access policies. Nor do most of the hundreds of other Bank trust funds.
For example, the Operations Manual for the Financial Intermediary Fund for Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response does not provide for public requests for information, or mention the World Bank access policy, but does pledge that certain documents will be disclosed:
- Disclosure. The FIF seeks to operate in a transparent manner. In particular, the Governance Framework, this Operations Manual, the Contribution Agreements, FPAs, FIF financial and progress reports, midterm review/evaluation, and independent evaluation (to inform the Governing Board’s decision on the future of the FIF) will be made publicly available, including as posted on the FIF’s website by the Secretariat. It is understood that the IEs will share information with the Governing Board and/or any Contributor in accordance with its policies and procedures.
EYE asked the World Bank access team whether trust funds are covered by the World Bank’s access to information policy, but has not received an answer.
