By Toby McIntosh
October 2, 2025
The limited scope of the International Finance Corporation’s Access to Information Policy has been revealed in the recent denial of request.
EYE asked the IFC for the response letters it sent to persons who requested information via the IFC’s Access to Information Policy (AIP).
The replies could have shed a little light on how the IFC, the private sector lending arm of the World Bank, implements its access policy, which is currently being reviewed.
But the IFC said its replies do not constitute “institutional information” subject to disclosure.
The IFC’s rejection of the request was backed by the Access to Information Appeals Panel, made up of three persons from outside the agency. However, that panel may only consider whether the IFC’s denial was “reasonable.”
‘Institutional Information’ Narrowly Construed
To decide what documents are disclosable, the IFC and the appeals panel are mandated to follow Paragraph 8 of the access policy.
So what’s Paragraph 8 all about?
It begins with a goals statement about the value of transparency, but ends by saying there are just two categories of disclosable information. One is “institutional information about IFC.” The other is “project-level information regarding investments and advisory services supported by IFC.”
In rejecting EYE’s request, IFC AIP Policy Advisor Elena Bourganskaia on July 11, 2025, wrote, “IFC letters to requesters of information under the AIP would not be categorized as either ‘institutional information about IFC’ or ‘project level information regarding investments.’ ”
The AIP Policy Advisor handles appeals after requests are denied initially by the IFC staff. Describing her task she wrote, “My role as IFC AIP Advisor is to focus on whether the requested information falls within the scope of paragraph 8 of IFC’s AIP and, if so, whether IFC has a reasonable basis for determining that there is a compelling reason not to disclose such information pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Policy.”
EYE filed an appeal with the independent appeals panel.
Review Restricted, Appeals Panel Supports IFC
The appeals panel backed up Bourganskaia’s denial, agreeing that the requested documents are not “institutional information.”
To interpret “institutional information,” the appeals panel looked to Paragraphs 17-27 of the AIP under the heading “INFORMATION ROUTINELY MADE AVAILABLE BY IFC.”
These 11 sections describe general categories of information to be disclosed, along with examples. The first category is “Corporate Governance Information,” such as annual reports. The second is “Board Proceedings,” with examples such as minutes of meetings.
Neither the AIP Advisor nor the appeals panel appear to have considered Paragraph 16, which precedes the list of disclosable documents and says that the list is non-exclusive. It states:
The information described below is not an exclusive list of documents that may be disclosed under this Policy. Rather, it lists certain information about IFC and its activities, which, in IFC’s experience, are frequently the subject of public interest.
‘Reasonable’ Standard Restricts Review
The appellate panel has a limited mission under the AIP, to decide “whether the AIP Advisor had a reasonable basis for his or her determination,” as the panel said in its Sept. 19, 2025, decision. (IFC AIP Appeal Panel Decision #1 ) EYE’s appeal was the first IFC matter decided by the panel, which also serves as appellate body for the World Bank.
The panel’s decision states, “The parameters of Paragraph 8 of the AIP set the threshold for disclosure, and are limited to either institutional information about IFC, or project-level information regarding investments and advisory services supported by IFC that are not already public and accessible on the IFC website.
EYE in its appeal had pointed out the opening sentence of Paragraph 8 and other hortatory language about transparency in the policy. Paragraph 3 begins, “IFC believes that transparency and accountability are fundamental to fulfilling its development mandate. And Paragraph 10 says, “There is a presumption in favor of disclosure with respect to the information described in paragraph 8 above, absent a compelling reason not to disclose such information.”
“Invalid,” the appeals panel said, writing:
The parameters of Paragraph 8 of the AIP set the threshold for disclosure, and are limited to either institutional information about IFC, or project-level information regarding investments and advisory services supported by IFC that are not already public and accessible on the IFC website. Therefore, the requester’s assertion that the IFC denial of the requested information violates the transparency and disclosure pledges as per Paragraphs 3, 8, and 10 of the AIP is invalid because requester is assuming those paragraphs somehow supersede the limited information categories available for disclosure as set out in Paragraph 8 of the AIP.
The policy, the panel stressed, “… provides for the disclosure of only those records that shed light on what the IFC is and does: descriptive information about the IFC (‟institutional information” described in Paragraphs 17-27 of the AIP)….”
Timing Coincides with Revuew of AIP
The IFC’s determination not to release its reply letters comes as the agency is engaged in a review of its AIP and seeking public comment.
It’s part of a multi-year review of the IFC Sustainability Framework, which guides environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards for IFC investments in emerging markets.
EYE requested the reply letters to learn more about how the AIP is implemented.
EYE also has sought information from the IFC on how many requests are made under the policy and how the IFC has handled them. An IFC official replied this data is being compiled, possibly for presentation at an Oct. 6, 2025, meeting with stakeholders about the AIP.
The World Bank summarizes requests and issues annual reports on its access policy. It also publishes the decisions of its internal Access to Information Committee and the independent appeals panel.
Disclosure Note: This author is part of a small group, composed mostly representatives from non-governmental organizations, that is meeting to discuss the IFC AIP.
Appeal Panel Disagrees With IFC Contention
The appeals panel rejected the IFC’s AIP Policy Advisor’s contention that EYE’s request was not specific enough and overly broad. EYE sought one month’s worth of IFC’s request response letters, for January 2025.
The panel wrote, “However, it appeared to the AIP Panel that this request sought a specific and limited set of information that was easily identifiable and locatable and thus was not a blanket or objectively frivolous request as per Paragraph 53 of the AIP.”
The IFC also erred by failing to make this contention in its initial denial of the request, the panel said. “In other words, once the request has been considered, it is too late to assert that it will not be under Paragraph 53,” according to the decision.
Panel Paragraph Raises Questions
The appeals panel made several confusing, possible troubling, observations after looking at the IFC’s reply letters.
The panel wrote:
- To ensure that its determination was based on sound reasoning, the AIP Panel reviewed IFC’s responses to access to information requests for the period specified (January 2025) by the requester. Upon reviewing, the AIP Panel discovered that the responses were not in a traditional letter format as sought by the requester, but instead were inputs into text boxes that are then conveyed to the requester via email. After reading the materials, the AIP Panel reached the conclusion that the contents of the text boxes did not fall within the scope of Paragraph 8, and only contained information that the IFC routinely makes publicly available as per Paragraphs 17-48 of the AIP.
First, whether the replies were sent by email or in some other form should make no difference to a decision on what should be disclosed. Possibly the request was poorly worded by saying “letters.” A better choice would have been “responses.”
Second, if the content of the text boxes, and then the emails, contained information the IFC “routinely makes publicly available,” then why prohibit its release? Apparently, prohibited, by Paragraph 8.
Originally published at Eye on Global Transparency