By Toby McIntosh
The IMF’s Transparency Policy stands out because of one special feature: it doesn’t let the public ask for documents.
This unique quality differentiates it from the access policies of other major international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, which have mechanisms for facilitating and adjudicating requests, as do all national freedom of information laws.
It’s a major distinction.
The IMF policy describes which documents it will disclose and when. For some IMF documents about countries disclosure is “voluntary but presumed.” Governments can veto their release and a few still do.
By contrast, institutions with request systems, while also making proactive disclosures, also allow requests and set standards to determine whether or not to disclose requested documents.
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.
Opaque Transparency Review Also Highlight Larger Issue
The IMF is now reviewing its Transparency Policy, as well as its Archive Policy and Communication Policy, although not very transparently.
The process highlights the usual pattern of IMF policy-making, with information provided only after decisions are made.
The report and any recommendations made by the IMF staff regarding transparency won’t be disclosed until after the Board acts, expected in late 2024.
Calling this out in the context of the ongoing review, Oxfam, an international non-governmental organization, said the Fund “should disclose proposed policy reforms well ahead of finalizing them with governments and in advance of meetings with civil society.”
“Only through disclosing those documents before they’ve been approved by the board there would be genuine consultations with CSOs,” according to Oxfam’s comments to the IMF shared with Eye on Global Transparency.
Other elements of the transparency review also are opaque.
While public comments on transparency were invited in May of 2023, the comments received are not being made public. Nor are the results of a survey.
At this point, “the consultation has ended,” an IMF spokesperson said May 10. On March 26, 2024, Fund staff members held a meeting with civil society organizations (CSOs). The spokesperson said, “When published, the Board paper on the review of the Transparency Policy will likely include a background note on the consultation process, summarizing the inputs received.”
The final review document is expected to go to the Board in late 2024, a bit later than the mid-2023 date previously stated. (A review was to have been held in 2018.)
The IMF last reviewed its Transparency Policy in 2013, when modest changes were made.
A Continuing Topic: ‘Voluntary but Presumed’
The biggest debate in 2013 was over the rules for the release of key reports about countries, as can be seen now in the Board’s minutes (which are released after three years).
The so-called Article IV reports about member countries, mandated by Article IV of the IMF’s Articles of Agreement, are detailed assessments of economic conditions and more. They can be politically sensitive for governments and sometimes affect economic markets. The reports are produced through bilateral discussions with all members, usually every year.
Disclosure policy for these reports is “voluntary but presumed.”
This standard, which allows governments to veto disclosure, was not changed in 2013. But several small steps were taken to encourage transparency while being sensitive to nation government concerns.
The release rate of Article IV reports has risen from about 90 percent back then to about 96 percent, but a handful of persistent transparency resisters exist.
Four countries declined to release the Article IV reports in 2021: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Kiribati and Turkmenistan, according to the most recent report. (See Eye on Global Transparency article.) In 2020, two countries opted not to publish: Tajikistan and the Republic of United Arab Emirates, according to the IMF report for that year.
The Transparency Policy allows governments to propose deletions of highly market-sensitive material and material not in the public domain that would seriously undermine the ability of the member to implement its policy intentions. Most government requests for deletions are rejected, according to the IMF reports. According to the report on 2021, emerging market and developing economies made 29 deletion requests. Of these, 32 percent were approved, 10 percent partially rejected and 59 percent rejected. The country reports do not indicate where deletions were made.
Also, disclosure of the reports after their consideration by the Board can be delayed. These time lags have reduced, but in 2021, the release of reports for 13 member countries took longer than 28 days.
If documents are not disclosed, their release is governed by the Archives Policy and will not available to the public for 20 years.
The IMF survey included the question: “Does the decision of authorities not to consent to the publication of some country documents negatively affect the perception of the Fund being transparent?” And, with multiple options for replying: “The 20-year rule for “other documentary material” is appropriate for transparency purposes.”
Lack of Request Mechanism Criticized
“There is a lot to improve,” according to Oxfam, “such as having access to information mechanism for documents that are not for publication.”
Request-driven systems are the norm for access policies at international institutions and the national level. These policies set standards to protect against the release of personal or commercially sensitive information, and for other reasons. These “exemptions” provide the basis for institutions to use when replying to public requests for information.
This point mirrors comments made during the review held 11 years ago.
“The focus of the current IMF Transparency Policy is entirely on the proactive or automatic disclosure of information,” said the Centre of Law and Democracy in a 2013 critique.
“As such, … it fails to establish a proper system of openness which, in addition to the proactive disclosure of information, also involves a system for responding to requests for information,” the Canadian-based NGO said. “In this regard, it has failed to make the transition that has been made by other IFIs in their information disclosure policies,” CLD wrote.
It cited the Charter of the Global Transparency Initiative:
Everyone has the right to request and to receive information from international financial institutions, subject only to a limited regime of exceptions, and the procedures for processing such requests should be simple, quick and free or low-cost.
The Global Transparency Initiative (2005-2013) was a consortium of nongovernmental organizations that pushed international financial institutions toward greater transparency. CLD was a member. (Full disclosure: This author served on the GTI Steering Committee.) GTI also published a 2007 guide titled Transparency at the IMF.
Unknown Documents Considered Frustrating
Oxfam also called for the Fund to create “a public list of documents that are not meant for publishing.”
“Now, we only know what documents the Fund publishes but we don’t know the types of documents that it doesn’t publish,” Oxfam told the Fund in its comments, “the public should have that information with a clear mechanism that enables the possibility to access these documents.”
The call for a catalogue of publications, even by an experienced IMF-watching group, underscores frustration around what isn’t known.
Mentions of IMF documents unfamiliar to outsiders and not mentioned in the Transparency Policy appear in other public IMF documents.
This occurred, for example, in a 179-page IMF staff document dated Jan. 30, 2024, “Operational Guidance Note on Program Design and Conditionality,” which went to Board as “a comprehensive reference and primer on program design and conditionality.”
The Guidance Notes references another kind of IMF document, the Policy Note, prepared by staff, that outlines policy discussions with country authorities and also includes extensive material on the economy and contingency plans. (The Policy Note is described in section 97 of the Guidance Note.)
But Policy Notes are not listed in the Transparency Policy on the “Indicative List of Documents Covered by the Decision.”
One Revision to Policy Made in 2022
A divided IMF Board has revised the Transparency Policy at least once since 2013.
In 2022, the Board approved a change allowing the Fund to keep confidential the detailed assessments of sovereign debt risks. (See EYE article.)
To avoid “potentially adverse market reactions,” as a staff report put it, the assessments for some countries would not be made public.
Some IMF Executive Directors unsuccessfully argued for full public disclosure of the assessments. The decision was criticized by the head of Debt Justice, a British nongovernmental group, who said that keeping the assessments and methodologies secret would make the IMF less accountable.
Nerdy Footnote: Looking for the Consolidated Transparency Policy
Eye on Global Transparency has located what it believes to be a complete version of the Transparency Policy.
The IMF’s call for comment included a link to the May 14, 2013, 97-page document that was the foundation of the 2013 review policy. However, that policy turned out to be incomplete because it did not include subsequent amendments.
Side note: When the IMF in March of 2023 introduced a new web page, Transparency at the IMF, there wasn’t any link to the policy. (See EYE article.)
The Board has revised the Transparency Policy half a dozen times since 2013. Aside from the 2022 change, the amendments were technical and uncontroversial, adding references to new documents.
EYE learned about the other amendments after inquiring after an up-to-date version of the Transparency Policy.
The IMF directed attention to the 43rd Edition of Selected Decisions and Selected Documents of the IMF Fund (March 12, 2024). Beginning on page 813, there’s a lengthy document titled “Publication of Reports” followed by “2018-19 Review of the Fund’s Transparency Policy.” At the end, on page 835, is a listing that begins with the Board’s 2013 decision on the Transparency Policy and goes on to list what appear to be six subsequent amendments:
Decision No. 15420-(13/61), June 24, 2013, as amended by Decision No.15805-(15/62, June 22, 2015, 16231-(17/62), July 14, 2017, 16519-(19/42), May 24, 2019, and Decision D in 16747-(20/43), April 15, 2020 17231-(22/37), April 13, 2022, and 17291-(22/62), June 29, 2022
Language from the amendments appears to be in the text contained in Selected Decisions volume, but the IMF spokesperson did not reply to a request for confirmation.
