Executive Directors welcomed the report of the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) on IMF Engagement with Small Developing States (SDS) and appreciated its insights and recommendations. They welcomed the report’s finding that the Fund has substantially stepped up its engagement with its SDS members over the past decade, and that SDS country officials generally considered Fund surveillance and capacity development (CD) activities of high quality and well-tailored to their needs.
The report and its recommendations should also be careful to not impinge upon areas that are still unfolding, such as the RST, crisis response, and CD provision, to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts and ensure that a coherent and evenhanded framework is in place. I offer qualified and/or partial support to the recommendations, as discussed below, to serve better our SDS members.
This evaluation assesses the decision-making processes that guided the evolution of the application of the Fund's mandate, the criteria and principles used to operationalize engagement in newer policy areas, and the coherence of the Fund's framework for engaging with partners. It finds that the systematic widening of the Fund's areas of work is posing adaptation challenges, necessitating trade-offs, and overburdening staff within a context of budgetary and expertise constraints. The evaluation offers a framework for approaching these challenges that is centered on a trilemma that exposes the tension between the steady expansion of the Fund's scope of work, its limited resources, and the need to maintain the high quality and value-added of its policy advice. It identifies several problems within this framework, including the ad hoc decision-making process for engaging in newer policy areas, which lacks a longer-term strategic anchor. Furthermore, decisions on policies, resources, and risks were taken in a piecemeal manner, without due consideration for crossed effects. It also identifies several open questions regarding the depth and frequency of the Fund's engagement in newer policy areas and the lack of an institutional approach to Fund partnerships.The evaluation proposes classifying newer policy areas across a spectrum of recommended engagement, ranging from signaling their macrocriticality while leaving deeper assessments to other institutions, to in-depth high-frequency engagement. It also offers four main recommendations: (i) developing an inclusive Fund-wide institutional strategy for engagement in newer policy areas that better links decisions related to scope, resources, and risks; (ii) producing budget data that enables the tracking of Fund activities and operations by policy area; (iii) updating the 2022 Guidance Note for Surveillance to enhance the clarity of principles for engagement; and (iv) adopting a Board-approved high-level Statement of Principles for engagement with partners.
Since the 2021 Annual Meetings, the IEO has made considerable progress with three ongoing evaluations, while two management implementation plans (MIPs) to follow up on recommendations from previous evaluations have been approved by the Board. In addition, to mark its twentieth birthday, the IEO organized a virtual conference to reflect on experience from its second decade and consider future challenges. We have also contributed to the ongoing work on institutional integrity at the IMF, drawing on a stocktaking of material contained in past evaluations and are considering additional work on these issues as we select two new evaluation topics later this year.
This evaluation assesses the decision-making processes that guided the evolution of the application of the Fund's mandate, the criteria and principles used to operationalize engagement in newer policy areas, and the coherence of the Fund's framework for engaging with partners. It finds that the systematic widening of the Fund's areas of work is posing adaptation challenges, necessitating trade-offs, and overburdening staff within a context of budgetary and expertise constraints. The evaluation offers a framework for approaching these challenges that is centered on a trilemma that exposes the tension between the steady expansion of the Fund's scope of work, its limited resources, and the need to maintain the high quality and value-added of its policy advice. It identifies several problems within this framework, including the ad hoc decision-making process for engaging in newer policy areas, which lacks a longer-term strategic anchor. Furthermore, decisions on policies, resources, and risks were taken in a piecemeal manner, without due consideration for crossed effects. It also identifies several open questions regarding the depth and frequency of the Fund's engagement in newer policy areas and the lack of an institutional approach to Fund partnerships.The evaluation proposes classifying newer policy areas across a spectrum of recommended engagement, ranging from signaling their macrocriticality while leaving deeper assessments to other institutions, to in-depth high-frequency engagement. It also offers four main recommendations: (i) developing an inclusive Fund-wide institutional strategy for engagement in newer policy areas that better links decisions related to scope, resources, and risks; (ii) producing budget data that enables the tracking of Fund activities and operations by policy area; (iii) updating the 2022 Guidance Note for Surveillance to enhance the clarity of principles for engagement; and (iv) adopting a Board-approved high-level Statement of Principles for engagement with partners.
The IEO evaluation contains a wealth of analysis and background material that will be invaluable as staff embarks on the preparation of the 2023 CD Strategy Review. The overall assessment is very positive, highlighting the achievements authorities have made with the help of Fund CD and the value they continue to place on this area of Fund work. The report also acknowledges the significant strides that have been made in improving governance and management of CD in recent years.
I welcome the report of the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) on the IMF and Fragile States. The report recognizes that the Fund has made important contributions in restoring macroeconomic stability, building core institutions, and catalyzing donor support across a diverse range of countries in fragile and conflict situations. The IEO’s analysis and findings provide a thorough stock-taking and resonate with staff. Accordingly, I broadly support the IEO’s recommendations to make the Fund’s engagement with countries in fragile and conflict situations more impactful.
"This management implementation plan (MIP) proposes actions to advance the Board-endorsed recommendations of the IEO evaluation “The IMF and Fragile States.” The actions outlined below would have resource implications. While some can be covered by reallocating resources or are already in the Work Program, others may require temporary funding; a review of staffing allocations to countries in fragile and conflict situations (FCS) might call for new permanent resources. The actions are broad in scope and self-reinforcing in effect if adopted as a package. They include: - Message of high-level commitment: Reflecting the actions of this MIP, a Management statement underscoring a strengthened institutional commitment to support FCS accompanies the MIP for Executive Board and IMFC endorsement. - An effective institutional mechanism: A high-level interdepartmental FCS Committee that reports to and seeks guidance in a formal meeting with management twice a year, will be established. The Committee will be tasked to analyze internal and external coordination issues in FCS and propose new ways tostrengthen engagement. An interdepartmental Technical Taskforce will support the Committee and report on progress in implementing this MIP, including through a Board paper on Review of FCS Engagement at end-2020. - Country engagement strategies: FCS teams will develop country engagement strategies that, drawing on relevant external expertise, will explicitly allow for thesocial and political context and the factors underpinning fragility; and lay the basis for full integration of capacity development (CD) with surveillance and lending. - Providing more sustained financial support: Staff is reviewing the lending toolkit for low-income countries to provide more tailored and flexible support, including for FCS, while ensuring uniformity of treatment. Staff will report on efforts to support FCS with protracted arrears to the Fund in the upcoming reviews of overdue financial obligations. - Practical steps to increase the impact of its CD support: Measures already in train will be complemented by the forthcoming Capacity Development (CD) Strategy Review’s assessment of initiatives to better integrate CD and Surveillance, including in FCS. Staff will also review the experience with provision of statistical and financial CD in FCS. And consideration will be given to establishing a FCS multi-donor trust fund or another suitable financing vehicle to address unmet needs for long-term experts. - Human Resources (HR) issues: The forthcoming phase of the HR Strategy will look into strategic workforce and career planning, including recruitment, and will consider actions to ensure that the Fund has appropriate staff expertise and experience to work effectively in fragile states. This will include the introduction of a “career” playbook that provides incentives for staff to be more responsive to the needs of the Fund in FCS. Adequacy of staffing allocations to FCS missions will be reviewed to ensure evenhanded treatment of the membership. Staff training on FCS will also be stepped up."
