By Toby McIntosh
The World Bank is relying on a revised interpretation of a footnote in its Access to Information Policy to deny public access to key reports about Bank-financed projects, known as aide memoires.
The Bank’s position appears to contradict decisions by the independent three-person Access to Information Board (AIAB) that handles appeals concerning the Bank’s Access to Information Policy (AIP).
The Bank says all aide memoires are covered by an exemption designed to protect the deliberative process and therefore exempt from disclosure.
But the Board has rejected the Bank’s arguments in three cases, stressing that it interprets the AIP “as it is written.” The Board said aide memoires are not automatically protected by the deliberative process exemption and must be assessed individually. Some aide memoires contain facts, not opinions, so their disclosure would not interfere with decision-making, the Board found. It ordered some aide memoires disclosed.
To counter the Board decisions, the Bank last year quietly issued an “interpretation” of a footnote in the AIP. This interpretation was done “to clarify the original intention,” according to a Bank statement to EYE.
The interpretation says that Footnote 9, which lists some documents covered by the deliberative process exemption, wasn’t an exhaustive list. There are others, the Bank now says, specifically, aide memoires.
The examples in the footnote, according to the interpretation, “are non-exhaustive and include any Aide-Mémoires prepared under a Bank financed project.”
Whether the Board will accept this interpretation, which effectively reverses its decisions, has not yet been tested.
Report on AI Cites `Lessons Learned’
The Bank’s effort to build a fortress around aide memoires came light in a recent report saying without qualification that aide memoires “are considered as deliberative information and as such are restricted.”
This assertion appears in an 11-page report published in June that summarizes “valuable jurisprudence” and six “prominent lessons” drawn from 100 cases over 15 years. The 100 decisions were issued by the Access to Information Committee (AIC), a body made up of Bank staffers, to which requesters can appeal the denial of their requests for Bank documents. The committee’s decisions usually back up the initial staff determinations not to release information.
Requesters who disagree with the committee’s decisions can appeal to another body: a three-person panel of independent experts, the Access to Information Appeals Board (AIAB).
This sometimes pays off. The Board has reviewed 18 of the 100 committee decisions, ordering the release of additional documents in seven cases, including aide memoires.
Both the AIC and AIAB decisions can be found on an Appeals page, although lately some AIAB decisions are unavailable, “404.” The AI Policy and related other materials are on the Bank’s AI web page.
Disclosure: I have filed several requests and appeals to both the AIC and the AIAB, with mixed success. One case involving documents about Tanzania. After “painstakingly“ examining about 500 documents, the AIAB ruled that the Bank and the AIC improperly withheld more than 100 documents. The Bank wrongly claimed the documents were “deliberative,” when in fact they described facts and outcomes and thus should have been disclosed, the AIAB said. (AI6479-A). (See EYE story, June 2, 2021.)
Readers: For notification of new EYE postings please sign up for free using Subscribe in the right column. No deluge, usually several articles a month on a variety of global transparency topics. Or, less reliably, follow EYE on Bluesky @tobymc.bsky.social, Twitter @tobyjmcintosh or LinkedIn.
Six Lessons, Plus Comments
The Bank’s June jurisprudence report lists six “lessons learned” that “have helped pragmatically improve the implementation” of the access policy.”
The “lessons” provide useful insight into the workings of the Bank’s access policy. EYE will offer supplemental lessons for potential requesters. And then return to the subject of aide memoires.
First Bank lesson: The first lesson is a series of conclusions, mostly about changes made to internal processes for handling requests. One lesson points to the value of doing good initial searches for documents.
Supplemental lesson. The lesson comports with the experience of EYE and other requesters who have seen that initial searches were sometimes deficient. More documents were discovered during appeals than were found in the initial staff searches. So appeals may have very practical value of turning up more documents.
Second Bank lesson: “Information cited in public documents is not automatically public,” the AIC report states. But it also points out that “when part of the requested information is already public, the Bank has found less justification for disclosing other related information that remains restricted from public access and/or collating information (at the Bank’s discretion).”
Supplemental lesson: The public availability of some of the information may work to the advantage of requesters.
Third Bank lesson: “Errors in the request phase can be recognized and corrected on the appeal phase. (i.e., “harmless error” approach).”
Supplemental lesson: This is basically about staff mistakes made at the initial stage, such as using incorrect justifications to deny access. The Bank report says that correcting such mistakes at the appeals stage is harmlessness. But this ignores a negative effect, that some requesters may not appeal denials when faced with fierce denial letters. This suggests another reason to appeal initial denials.
Fourth Bank lesson. This one is headlined “Violation of Policy” and covers three instances in which the AIC agreed with requesters and provided documents.
Supplemental lesson: Not very common, but evidence that appealing initial denials may be fruitful.
Fifth Bank lesson: “Appeals can be dismissed.” A number of examples are provided, but perhaps the most interesting ones concern situations in which requests are denied because the Bank says it would have to collate information to provide an answer. Under the AIP, the Bank “has the right to refuse a request that would require the Bank to collate information.” When the Bank exercises this clause, appeals are not allowed because the request was “refused,” but not denied.
Supplemental lesson: Such requests do face long odds. Be careful crafting requests for information that might require the collection of data. The Bank is not generous on this, nor persuaded that the data exists and could be easily processed.
Sixth Lesson: Aide Memoires
The most interesting lesson is the last one, on aide memoires (AMs), because it shows that the Bank is determined to keep AMs confidential even if doing so may conflict with rulings of the AIAB, the panel of three independent outside experts.
The two-sentence lesson states:
- Aide-Memoires (AMs): AMs are deliberative and require the member country’s agreement to be made public. Other exceptions may apply to AMs and must be properly marked.
AMs are important and informative reports, documenting in detail the progress on Bank-funded projects. AMs can be disclosed if the Bank and the borrowing country agree to do so. However, only a minority of AMs are disclosed.
In February of 2021, a requester asked the Bank for documents about the 2018-2022 Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo. (Requesters names are not made public.) After the request was totally denied, the requester appealed to the AIC, without success, and then to the AIAB.
The Board rejecting that Bank’s rationale. (AI7146-A)
The Board wrote:
Just because the Bank says that Aide Memoires are deliberative and treats them as such (as per the guidance to staff and countries), does not mean that they are deliberative – unless the AI Policy states that this is so. It does not.
The Board rejected the Bank’s reliance on a Directive/Procedure governing the voluntary disclosure of AMs, saying:
The AIAB does not agree that the Directive/Procedure creates an additional exception beyond that which is already provided for in the Policy; nor can it be that the Directive/Procedure substantively over-rides the AI Policy itself. We can find no authority that would justify an alternative interpretation. If it was the intention of the Bank’s Board to exclude Aide Memoires from the ambit of the AI Policy, then the AI Policy would itself say so. But it does not. And so applying the “ordinary meaning” of the words of the AI Policy, there is no exception for Aide Memoires, other than if they fall into one of the specific exceptions, such as deliberative information.
In short, the access policy does not categorically exempt aide memoires, according to the Board.
Most AMs Judged Not Deliberative
The Board proceeded to evaluate the documents in the Ebola case, including the aide memoires, and ordered most of them released.
Fourteen documents were involved in the request, 11 of them were AMs. The Bank and the AIC had denied all access. But the AIAB found that only four contained any “deliberative” information that would justify keeping them secret and that the other 10 should be disclosed (eight of these were AMs.)
The documents ordered disclosed, the AIAB said, “do not contain deliberative information: they contain analysis, make findings or record points of agreement reached with various stakeholders or partners of the Bank, but are all in essence either ‘factual’ and/or ‘decisional’ rather than ‘deliberative’.”
The AIAB in the Ebola case also scolded the Bank for arguing that “sensitive” information fell within deliberative exception; saying there is no exception for information on the basis that it is “sensitive.”
The Board further said the fact that the documents at issue may have been discussed as part of a post-contract review within the Bank was not sufficient for it to be regarded as deliberative and that the document itself must contain deliberative information.
In short, the AIAB made clear that the AIC incorrectly kept AMs secret.
Other AIAB Decisions Also Criticized Use of Deliberative Process Exemption
The AIAB in two other cases has been critical of the Bank’s use of the deliberative process exemption.
The Bank’s June jurisprudence report covers only the 100 AIC decisions and does not discuss the relevant AIAB’s decisions.
The Board in a 2018 decision, known as “the Nepal case,” wrote, “… the deliberative exception must be narrowly construed. It cannot simply be used to withhold any information which has been the subject of internal discussion by staff of the Bank at whatever level.” (Paragraph 19 of AIAB Decision AI51972.)
The Board said that “[a]s defined in the AI Policy, deliberative information must facilitate: debate, away from public scrutiny; room to develop consensus; and the safeguarding of the free and candid exchange of ideas. Information that is not prepared for or exchanged for these purposes fails to meet the threshold of deliberative information.” (Paragraph 17 of AI5197.)
The Board said that “[a]s the document was never intended to be used to inform a decision-making process there was no requirement to come to a consensus or safeguard the information from the public. The potential future use of the document for a deliberative purpose does not support a current finding that the document is deliberative information and covered under the exception.” (Paragraph 18 of AI5197.)
The Board in the Ebola case cited back to its 2021 decision about a request from EYE for documents concerning the Bank’s influence on the Tanzanian Statistics Act. (AI6479-A). In its 2021 Tanzania decision, the Board wrote, “The wording of the exception itself refers to the “decisions, results, and agreements” that come from the relevant deliberative process.”
The Board also said, “Further, for the information to be ‘deliberative’ it has to be connected to a specific decision-making process.”
In sum, the Board in three decisions has rejected the Bank’s use of the deliberative exemption to prevent disclosure of aide memoires.
Important Side Note on Redaction
Even if an aide memoire contains a smidgen that is legitimately deliberative information, the whole document will remain secret.
This is because the Bank does not redact documents for disclosure. With redaction, some portions remain kept confidential but other sections are disclosed. The AIP does not contain a redaction clause, and the Bank issued an interpretation saying redaction is not necessary.
So in the Ebola case, four documents contained some element considered to be part of the deliberative process. It’s impossible to know how much deliberative material was involved, but the whole document was kept secret.
The AIAB cannot require information to be redacted and disclosed.
Bank Signals Determination to Protect AMs
Despite the AIAB rulings, the June “lessons-learned” report says AMs “are deliberative.” Period.
It does not say that AMs “may be deliberative.”
The Bank’s report does address how make the key distinctions laid out by the Board for deciding whether documents are deliberative or not.
Rather, the report signals its intention to protect AMs from disclosure, saying:
Considering the importance of AMs to the deliberative process between the Bank and its borrowers, the Bank determined that AMs need to be clearly marked pursuant to the ATI Policy’s exceptions including, but not limited to, the Deliberative Information exception as well as by any other exception that may apply based on the specific content of the AMs.
In its reply to questions from EYE, the Bank said, “Staff needed to be reminder that all applicable ATI Policy exceptions need to be marked, not only “deliberative” in the case of aide-memoires.” The Bank said, “Aide-memoires may contain information restricted by other exceptions (e.g., security and safety, information provided in confidence).”
Interpreting a Footnote; the Details
Since the AIAB’S Ebola decision, the Bank has attempted to buttress its assertions about aide memoires being deliberative. Not by amending the access policy, but by quietly issuing an interpretation of a footnote in the policy.
Since the Bank adopted its AI policy in 2010 it has issued 14 interpretations of the policy, including one ruling out redaction.
The interpretation on aide memoires emerged detail when EYE addressed questions about the sixth lesson to a Bank access to information official, Claudia Gabarain, who forwarded them to the legal department.
The replies yielded a key fact, that the Bank in 2024, after the AIAB decision, amended its policy interpretation of the deliberative process exemption. It did so “to clarify the original intention of the ATI Policy as per its description of the Deliberative information exception and the respective footnote 9,” according the Bank’s statement to EYE.
Here are the details, beginning with the Deliberative Process exemption (Section III.B.2.(i) and footnote 9 in the ATI Policy) and the significant footnote.
(i) Deliberative Information. The Bank, like any institution or group, needs space to consider and debate, away from public scrutiny. It generally operates by consensus, and it needs room to develop that consensus. During the process it seeks, and takes into account, the input of many stakeholders; but it must preserve the integrity of its deliberative processes by facilitating and safeguarding the free and candid exchange of ideas. Therefore, while the Bank makes publicly available the decisions, results, and agreements that result from its deliberative processes, it does not provide access to the following information:8
-
- Information (including e-mail, notes, letters, memoranda, draft reports, or other documents) prepared for, or exchanged during the course of, its deliberations with member countries or other entities with which the Bank cooperates.9
Footnote 9 says:
This includes financial sector stress tests, the aide-mémoire following Bank-Fund financial sector assessments under the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP), the report following the Bank’s assessment of government debt management capacity, other technical advisory reports requested by member countries from Treasury, deliberations relating to IDA replenishments, IDA country allocations, and deliberations with donors relating to trust funds.
The fifth interpretation, adopted on March 16, 2011, consisted of one sentence:
Interpretation of the term “Deliberative Information” (March 16, 2011) The term “Deliberative Information” under the AI Policy is applied broadly to include any internal communications and communications with external parties.
A second sentence was added in 2024, without a public announcement. (It is found in the ATI Policy Directive at Section III.B.4(c).)
The 2024 addition says:
For this reason, the examples listed in the Bank Policy: Access to Information, at Section III.B.2.(i), footnote 9, are non-exhaustive and include any Aide-Mémoires prepared under a Bank financed project.
Interpretation Was a Response to AIAB Decision
The Bank told EYE that the sentence was added “as a result” of the AIAB 2021 Ebola decision (AI7146-A).
By way of explanation, the official reply to EYE said: “As the body established to facilitate the implementation of the ATI Policy, the AIC seriously considers all decisions of the AIAB as they may impact the implementation of the ATI Policy. This was the case with the appeal under Case No. AI7146 on Aide-Memoires.”
The reply said further, “The ATI Policy interpretation reiterates what’s already in the ATI Policy under the Deliberative Information exception and its respective footnote.”
EYE asked if the Bank had issued any policy interpretation to guide staff on how to make the distinctions outlined by the Board on whether a document that is deliberative or not, the Bank said, “No. The only policy interpretation issued is the one referred to above.”
The Bank pushed back on suggestion that the goal was to nullify the AIAB’s decisions, saying, “If the ATI policy interpretation had ‘nullified’ the AIAB decision, the Aide-Memoires disclosed by order of the AIAB would need to be retracted from public access and that is neither the intent nor logic of the ATI Policy.”
Use Another Exemption?
EYE asked if the Bank would assert the strong and unappealable “exceptional circumstances” clause.
Under Section IV.2 of the AI policy, “Bank’s Prerogative to Restrict Access,” the Bank reserves the right not to disclose, “under exceptional circumstances, information that it would normally disclose if it determines that such disclosure is likely to cause harm that outweighs the benefits of disclosure.”
The exceptional circumstances clause has been used with increased frequency, particularly to bar access to documents about contracts let with Bank funds, including the contracts themselves.
When the Bank exercises its prerogative to restrict, that decision can’t be challenged with the argument that disclosure would be in the public interest.
Also, the AIAB has no authority to consider appeals about the use of the prerogative exemption.
While not commenting on the potential use of this exemption with regard to AMs, the Bank commented, “[w]e want to clarify that the prerogative to restrict cannot be exercised if one or more ATI Policy exceptions apply.”
Aide Memoires Summarize Project Progress
Aide memoires are revealingly descriptive about the projects and reflect information from Bank officials and government officials. They can be disclosed at the discretion of the Bank and the borrowing country. But a low percentage of them end up on the Bank’s website.
An AM, a Bank official said, “is the World Bank’s main way of communicating with a borrower country after an official review of a project (such as a mid-term review). It summarizes how the project is progressing toward its goals, notes any challenges or risks that could affect success, and records agreements on how to address any outstanding issues (usually through an action plan).”
Another document, the Interim Status Report (ISR), is less-detailed and described as the “main report for tracking and sharing how a project is being carried out and what results are expected.”
Edited versions of ISRS are posted. The initial ISR report for a project is due three months after approval of the project and they are usually updated twice a year. “ISRs often include information from AMs, especially key decisions, since team leaders are encouraged to keep both documents consistent,” a Bank official said. The Bank posts the “disclosable version” of ISRs. The Bank official said, “Some parts of the ISR are meant only for internal communication between the project team and Bank Management (deliberative information under the ATI Policy) and are not shared publicly.”
Both AMs and ISRs grade the progress on projects with terms such as “Satisfactory” or “Moderately Satisfactory.”
AMs may include frank assessments. For example, a 2024 AM concerning a project in the Kyrgyz Republic states:
An outstanding case of questionable expenditures has not been fully resolved. In particular, the compensation paid to a former FM for unused annual leave days cumulatively over a period of 81 calendar days has been returned only partially.
Few AMs Released
What percentage of AMs are disclosed is unclear and the Bank provides no such data.
There are many more ISRs than AMs in the public and searchable Documents & Reports database: 55,539 ISRs vs 2,139 AMs as of early September.
A look at one country, Tanzania, for the year beginning Sept. 1, 2024, showed 66 ISRs and 14 AMs.
For some projects both kinds of documents show up. For example, concerning the project “Boosting Inclusive Growth for Zanzibar” (the BIG-Z Project) there’s an AM dated Nov. 22, 2024, and an ISR “archived” on Jan. 2, 2025.
Although the AMs go into more detail, the reports contain similar conclusions. The 24-page AM on the BIG-Z Project reported that “the overall project implementation status is still behind the schedule.” The nine-page ISR said, “Despite some progress, implementation continues to lag behind schedule.”
The AMs contain much more information. To see the contrast between the two reports, compare an May 2025 ISR on a Ghana Energy Sector Recovery Program project with an September 2024 AM on the same project.
Disclosed AMs can be found by the Bank’s Documents & Reports repository by doing an Advanced Search. Scroll down in the “Document Type” section and then select Aide Memoire.
Here are some more examples: a 2024 AM on a project in Pakistan, a 2024 AM on Statistical Innovation and Capacity Building in Kiribati and a 2020 AM on an agriculture project in Rwanda.
Civil society organizations have long expressed an interest in seeing AMs, but seem to have made few formal requests in the face of Bank protectiveness.
Access has been a long-running issue.
In 2009, I wrote about the Bank’s refusal to release an AM about a major water project in the Pakistan, quoting a representative of an organization representing the fishing community of Southern Punjab. (See Freedominfo.org, March 17, 2009.) He said, “This document would help us to build our case.”
