NULL

NULL

Better designed and implemented fiscal regimes for oil, gas, and mining can make a substantial contribution to the revenue needs of many developing countries while ensuring an attractive return for investors, according to a new policy paper from the International Monetary Fund. Revenues from extractive industries (EIs) have major macroeconomic implications. The EIs account for over half of government revenues in many petroleum-rich countries, and for over 20 percent in mining countries. About one-third of IMF member countries find (or could find) resource revenues “macro-critical” – especially with large numbers of recent new discoveries and planned oil, gas, and mining developments. IMF policy advice and technical assistance in the field has massively expanded in recent years – driven by demand from member countries and supported by increased donor finance. The paper sets out the analytical framework underpinning, and key elements of, the country-specific advice given. Also available in Arabic: ????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ???????????: ??????? ???????? Also available in French: Régimes fiscaux des industries extractives: conception et application Also available in Spanish: Regímenes fiscales de las industrias extractivas: Diseño y aplicación

As a follow-up to the Executive Board's May 2013 discussion, this paper considers a possible direction for reform of the Fund's lending framework in the context of sovereign debt vulnerabilities. The primary focus of this paper relates to the Fund's exceptional access framework, since it is in this context that the Fund will most likely have to make the difficult judgment as to whether the member's problems can be resolved with or without a debt restructuring. The objective of the preliminary approaches set forth in this paper is to reduce the costs of crisis resolution for both creditors and debtors—relative to the alternatives—thereby benefitting the overall system. These ideas are market-based and their eventual implementation would require meaningful consultation with creditors.

NULL

This note provides guidance to facilitate the staff’s advice on macroprudential policy in Fund surveillance. It elaborates on the principles set out in the “Key Aspects of Macroprudential Policy,” taking into account the work of international standard setters as well as the evolving country experience with macroprudential policy. The main note is accompanied by supplements offering Detailed Guidance on Instruments and Considerations for Low Income Countries

In discussing the June 2014 paper, Executive Directors broadly supported staff’s proposal to introduce more flexibility into the Fund’s exceptional access framework to reduce unnecessary costs for the member, its creditors, and the overall system. Directors’ views varied on staff’s proposal to eliminate the systemic exemption introduced in 2010. Many Directors favored removing the exemption but some others preferred to retain it and requested staff to consult further with relevant stakeholders on possible approaches to managing contagion. This paper offers specific proposals on how the Fund’s policy framework could be changed, presents staff’s analysis on the specific issue of managing contagion, and addresses some implementation issues. No Board decision is proposed at this stage. The paper is consistent with the Executive Board’s May 2013 endorsement of a work program focused on strengthening market-based approaches to resolving sovereign debt crises.

NULL

The ESF, established within the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility and Exogenous Shocks Facility (PRGF-ESF) Trust, complements existing Fund instruments for providing timely support, including financing at more appropriate terms, to low-income members that are facing sudden and exogenous shocks but do not have a PRGF arrangement in place. In particular, the ESF: (i) facilitates quick access to more concessional financing than the Fund’s Emergency Assistance and the Compensatory Financing Facility (CFF);1 (ii) helps members design and implement a policy framework adequate for adjustment to shocks while ensuring adequate safeguards for the use of the Trust resources; and (iii) plays a catalytic role for further and more concessional donor financing.

Investment in infrastructure can be a driving force of the economic recovery in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of shrinking fiscal space. Public-private partnerships (PPP) bring a promise of efficiency when carefully designed and managed, to avoid creating unnecessary fiscal risks. But fiscal illusions prevent an understanding the sources of fiscal risks, which arise in all infrastructure projects, and that in PPPs present specific characteristics that need to be addressed. PPP contracts are also affected by implicit fiscal risks when they are poorly designed, particularly when a government signs a PPP contract for a project with no financial sustainability. This paper reviews the advantages and inconveniences of PPPs, discusses the fiscal illusions affecting them, identifies a diversity of fiscal risks, and presents the essentials of PPP fiscal risk management.