Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

In response to a request from Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, we reviewed the multilateral development banks’ record in ensuring that meaningful public consultation takes place on the projects they support. Our specific objectives were to describe the steps the banks have taken to ensure meaningful public consultation on the environmental implications of proposed projects and timely public access to project documents; evaluate the quality of consultation that occurs on bank-supported projects and the documentation on the consultation that is provided to executive directors; and determine the extent to which the banks provide broad, timely public access to project information on proposed projects, including environmental assessment reports. Conclusions

The banks have adopted guidelines and created systems to provide for meaningful public consultation during project development, complemented by efforts to enhance public access to relevant information through bank public information centers. Several factors contributed to the quality of consultation on the projects we examined. World Bank-supported projects also employed comparatively good consultation practices. Most of these projects were supported by the International Finance Corporation or sponsored by the government of China. As shown in figure 3.1, consultation on 50 percent of the projects (22 of 44) was exemplary or good, while it was adequate on 25 percent (11 of 44) of the projects. Bank intervention generally improved sponsor practices. Comparatively good consultation practices were also associated with projects that (1) used community-based approaches in design and implementation, (2) had a “high profile” because of recent adverse publicity on similar projects, and (3) were supported by the World Bank. The median rating for consultation on the projects supported by the Corporation or sponsored by the government of China was less than adequate compared to the median rating of good for all other projects. Critical to their decision in these cases is complete and accurate information on the projects, including a description of the public consultation that has taken place. Recommendation

We recommend that the Secretary of the Treasury instruct the U.S. executive directors at the banks to work with other executive directors and bank management to have the banks improve compliance with their guidelines on providing timely public access to project profiles and EA reports through their internet home pages.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed certain aspects of the environmental assessment and information disclosure policies and practices of the multilateral development banks, focusing on the: (1) steps the banks have taken to ensure meaningful public consultation on the environmental implications of proposed projects and timely public access to relevant project documents; (2) quality of consultation that occurs on bank-supported projects and the documentation on the consultation that is provided to executive directors; and (3) extent to which the banks provide broad, timely public access to project information, including environmental assessment reports.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) the multilateral development banks, led by the World Bank, have taken significant steps to ensure that meaningful public consultation takes place on the environmental implications of the projects they fund; (2) GAO believes, however, that the banks can take further steps to build on the progress that has been achieved by ensuring that executive directors receive complete and accurate documentation about the consultation practices that have been employed in developing proposed projects, and by more consistently providing the public with timely access to environmental information on these projects; (3) the banks have adopted guidelines that require sponsors to consult with the public in developing projects, and created systems to provide worldwide public access to information about these projects--including information on their environmental implications; (4) generally, public consultation on the projects that GAO reviewed was adequate or better, and bank intervention improved sponsor practices on nearly every project; (5) several factors contributed to the quality of consultation; (6) for example, good consultation was associated with projects employing community-based approaches to project development, as well as those having a high profile because of recent adverse publicity on similar projects; (7) also, in general, World Bank-supported projects received higher ratings than the projects supported by the other banks GAO reviewed; (8) nevertheless, consultation on 25 percent (11 of 44) of the projects, primarily projects supported by the International Finance Corporation or sponsored by the government of China, was less than adequate; (9) also, documentation given to the executive directors provided incomplete or inaccurate information about the consultation measures employed on many of the projects; and (10) the banks' Internet home pages were inconsistent in meeting their own guidelines for providing public information concerning project profiles and environmental assessment reports.