| ||||
| Article IX, Section 5 | ||||
| Archives | ||||
|
The Acting Chair’s Summing Up—2024 Review of the Fund’s Transparency Policy and Open Archives Policy, Executive Board Meeting 24/107, November 15, 2024 Executive Directors welcomed the 2024 Review of the Fund’s Transparency Policy and Open Archives Policy. They underlined that these policies are at the core of the Fund’s broader transparency framework and are critical for helping the Fund to fulfill its mandate. They enhance the institution’s credibility and the traction of its advice by making important documents available to the public on a timely basis and subject the Fund to outside scrutiny and accountability. Directors agreed that the Transparency Policy’s principles and objectives remain broadly appropriate. They agreed that the Transparency Policy’s objectives should reflect the need for (i) timely disclosure, (ii) safeguarding the confidentiality of information, and (iii) ensuring the independence and candor of staff’s analysis. Directors also agreed that the policy’s rules-based approach to Board document publication and limited modifications helps achieve those objectives and ensure the evenhanded application of the policy, although a number of Directors continued to have concerns over the restrictiveness of some of the rules to modify Board documents. Directors acknowledged that, under these policies, significant progress has been made over the last decade in terms of greater transparency. The Fund’s transparency framework continues to be on par with other comparable financial institutions in terms of publication and disclosure of documents and information, the communication of Board activities, the rules to modify documents ahead of publication, and the protection of confidential information. Nearly all Board documents are now published and, on average, published more quickly. Nonetheless, Directors agreed that there is room for improvement of the implementation of the Transparency Policy, including to address remaining concerns among some Executive Directors about the evenhanded application of the modification rules. Directors noted that in the increasingly fast-paced media environment, the expectations of stakeholders on the availability and timeliness of information and independence of analysis have grown. They agreed that there is room to clarify the objectives of the policy and make staff analysis and the Fund’s views available more promptly, including by reducing the number of country papers that are published with long delays. Directors also agreed on the need for prompter communication of the Board’s views and decisions through press releases, especially for Article IV consultations, and ensuring the accurate presentation of authorities’ views in surveillance country documents. Directors agreed that the preamble to the policy decision should reflect the principle of protecting the independence and candor of staff’s analysis, while recognizing the necessity of modifications in some limited and defined circumstances. A number of Directors would have preferred balancing the language with the need to ensure the adequate reflection of authorities’ views or accuracy and clarity of staff reports. To improve clarity about the policy, Directors also supported the introduction of a more precise list of the specific Board documents that are covered by the policy but that are not subject to a presumption of publication. In addition, Directors concurred that published Board documents cannot be modified except in very narrow and specific circumstances to address significant risks to the Fund. Directors concurred with the importance of reducing delays in the publication of country staff reports. Accordingly, they broadly supported the proposals to operationalize the application of the non-objection modality to obtain members’ consent to publication of the country staff reports, including by establishing a timeframe for members to communicate their publication decisions and inform the public about such decisions on a timely basis. Some Directors felt it was unnecessary and inconsistent with the concept of voluntary publication of country documents to require press releases to indicate the authorities’ publication intentions. A few Directors would have preferred to eliminate the option to opt-out of the non-objection regime; a few others underscored the importance of maintaining the opt-out option. A number of Directors recommended allowing more flexibility in the timing of staff report publication to take into account capacity constraints, domestic approvals, and logistical issues, such as translating reports for non-English speaking audiences. Directors underscored that rapid communication of the Board’s views supports greater transparency. They agreed that establishing a separate publication path for surveillance country press releases, obtaining publication consent on a non-objection basis, and simplifying their preparation would support the timely publication of surveillance country press releases. A few Directors noted that publishing press releases and country staff reports together should ideally remain the norm. A few others emphasized the need to reduce the risks that could arise with the separate publication of the press release and the country staff report. Directors concurred that at times modifications to the authorities’ views presented in surveillance country staff reports are needed to ensure their accurate presentation. In this context, Directors supported the proposal to allow for parsimonious additions to the authorities’ views sections on main issues and policy recommendations covered by the surveillance staff report, while establishing adequate safeguards to protect the integrity of staff reports and analysis, including effective application of existing policies that support the integrity of staff analysis. As a way to improve the accuracy of staff reports, some Directors emphasized the importance of avoiding surprises as noted in the Guidance Note on surveillance. In this context, many Directors emphasized the need for greater flexibility in representing the authorities’ views. A number of these Directors felt that the proposed safeguards to make additions to authorities’ views in surveillance staff reports may be somewhat restrictive. More generally, Directors called for more open dialogue with authorities to ensure accurate and balanced presentation of the latter’s views. Directors also welcomed staff’s operational proposals, or called for additional measures, to ensure that the authorities’ views section and/or authorities’ other statements receive adequate visibility when country reports are published. Directors agreed with incorporating into the Transparency Policy the procedures for the removal of confidential information from Board documents before publication and the safeguards to identify the confidential nature of the information. They also supported the proposal to address and widen the scope of administrative errors that may arise when submitting documents for Board consideration, and to extend the deadline for submitting requests to correct errors in Board documents. Directors took note of staff’s proposed clarifications on the procedures of modifying policy documents prior to Board consideration. Directors also agreed to widen the dispute procedures set under the Transparency Policy to cover disagreements arising between the member and management to cover any type of modification to Board documents. Directors underscored the importance of better knowledge-sharing, guidance, and more streamlined procedures to support the effective operationalization of the Transparency Policy. In that regard, a number of Directors suggested periodic sessions to share information about trends in implementing the Transparency Policy. Directors also welcomed staff’s proposals to strengthen awareness-raising efforts to improve the understanding of the policy, its objectives, and procedures among staff, Executive Directors’ offices, and authorities. Concurring with staff proposal to develop “how to” notes, some Directors suggested developing a clear, concise, and publicly available factsheet covering the key elements of the Transparency Policy. They underscored the need to clarify the criteria used in implementing the correction rules for country documents and welcomed the operational proposals to upgrade and simplify the process of assessing modification requests and enhance transparency on the outcome of those requests. A few Directors noted that the upcoming review of the Fund’s communication strategy could further highlight the Fund’s commitment to transparency. Regarding the Open Archives Policy, Directors noted that the information available in the Fund’s archives has significantly increased and is more easily accessible to the public. They agreed that the policy remains broadly appropriate, compares favorably to those of other international organizations, and that no major update of the policy is required. They agreed to retain the current time rules for making archived permanent records available to the public, although a few Directors saw room to potentially reduce the time rule for releasing transcripts of informal Board meetings. Directors agreed with staff’s proposals to address specific practical concerns with the implementation of the Open Archives Policy. They concurred with proposals to ensure that Board documents that have been published are also made available under the archive catalog upon publication and recognized that the Managing Director, in exceptional circumstances, may grant upon request access to other documentary material before the expiration of the relevant time rule. Directors supported staff’s plans to strengthen the implementation of the policy by acquiring the infrastructure required for managing the Fund’s permanent digital records and welcomed plans to address the current backlog of unprocessed paper record of other documentary material and establish internal coordination mechanisms and guidance to support policy implementation. Directors agreed that both policies should continue to be on the standard 5-year or more, as needed, review cycle. A few Directors stressed the need for timely reviews and that the next review should take place within five years. SU/24/163 November 21, 2024 | ||||
| ||||
