International Monetary Fund. Strategy, Policy, & Review Department, International Monetary Fund. Finance Dept., and International Monetary Fund. Legal Dept.
To help support members faced with the COVID-19 pandemic, the Fund temporarily increased certain access limits to its emergency financing (EF) instruments, i.e., Rapid Credit Facility (RCF) and Rapid Financing Instrument (RFI). While this expanded support has been critical to help countries manage the pandemic, the increase in access limits was not applied to the Large Natural Disasters (LND) windows within the EF toolkit, reducing the flexibility to respond to such LNDs. This paper proposes to temporarily increase by 50 percent of quota the annual access limit (AAL) and cumulative access limit (CAL) under the LND windows of the RCF and RFI. The changes to the “LND windows” would be in effect through end-December 2021, in line with the other temporary changes of access limits under EF instruments. The case for further extensions to all the temporarily increased EF AALs and CALs will be examined after the 2021 Annual Meetings.
International Monetary Fund. Finance Dept., International Monetary Fund. Strategy, Policy, &, and Review Department
The paper revisits the two-pillar framework for assessing the adequacy of Fund resources. Responding to Directors suggestions, the quantitative pillar is updated to include alternative assumptions and to provide a longer-term perspective on likely resource needs. While quantitative estimates are generally somewhat lower after factoring in the alternative assumptions, these reductions are more than outweighed when the analysis is extended through the middle of the next decade, recognizing that the outcome of the 15th Review will likely determine permanent Fund resources through at least the middle of the next decade. The updated qualitative pillar analysis highlights reforms since the global financial crisis and discusses uncertainties in the global environment. It also provides an assessment of the general impact of the various qualitative considerations. Taken together, the two pillars continue to make a case for at least maintaining existing Fund resources. Against this background, the simulations in the paper cover three illustrative sizes for quota increases (50, 75, and 100 percent), centered on broadly maintaining Fund resources, assuming the New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB) is maintained at its current level and Bilateral Borrowing Agreements (BBAs) expire.