Back Matter
Author:
International Monetary Fund
Search for other papers by International Monetary Fund in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close

Abstract

This chapter focuses on IMF’s technical assistance (TA) activities and describes Japan Administered Account for Selected Fund Activities (JSA) including its objectives, size, scope, and use, as well as assessments of its activities, with focus on fiscal year. Activities to be funded from the JSA, as well as all other IMF TA activities, are planned each year. Reflecting greater global financial stability and fewer conflict situations over the past two years, FY2006 saw a reduction in JSA allocations for crisis prevention and the rehabilitation of economic and financial institutions in post-conflict countries, and an increase in JSA allocations for sustainable debt management and poverty reduction efforts. The distribution of the commitment of JSA funds among the subject areas has broadly reflected the foregoing distribution in the overall use of IMF resources for technical assistance. Japan also provides financial support for a scholarship program for qualified Asian nationals who want to study economics at the doctoral level at one of the leading universities in North America to pursue a career at the IMF or in their home country governments. The program covers tuition and reasonable costs for two years of study; scholars are expected to cover the remaining years of study, typically through additional funding from their universities.

Annexes

Annex 1:

JSA TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECTS APPROVED IN FY2006

article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image

Annex 2:

JSA JOINT JAPAN-IMF FIELD VISITS

Purpose

The purpose of these visits is to provide the Japanese authorities with a firsthand view of how JSA funding is being used in the field. These visits are designed to assess (1) how the authorities value the work of experts funded, (2) whether the authorities are making effective use of the assistance, and (3) whether the technical assistance (TA) is making a contribution to the reform process. Discussions also sometimes touch on more generic TA policy and operational issues such as (1) the relative effectiveness of long-term and short-term expert assignments, (2) identification of TA needs, (3) integration of TA into IMF-supported programs, and (4) the role of resident representatives and TA experts in coordinating assistance from other donors.

Format

The joint mission usually comprises two Japanese officials (a representative of the Ministry of Finance and a representative of the Japanese Executive Director’s Office) and an IMF staff member.

Countries and projects selected for review are based on a number of considerations to reflect different levels of economic development and structural reform and variation between regions and subject areas.

Once mission members receive briefing notes or are briefed at IMF headquarters, they visit recipient countries where TA is provided and, when possible, meet separately with the senior representatives of the host institution (usually the minister of finance, governor of the central bank, or chairman of the central statistical organization), the immediate counterparts to the expert (usually department heads), and the expert him- or herself. In the case of seminars or training courses, meetings are also held with participants in the respective sessions or courses as well as officials in charge of human resources development at the relevant training institutions. Meetings are typically held with other concerned donors to seek their views.

Findings

To date, 12 missions have been carried out (covering 20 countries, two regional training institutes, the Pacific Financial Technical Assistance Center, and the East Africa Regional Technical Assistance Center) since this practice was introduced in FY1996. The field visits have found that JSA funding is well administered and effectively used. In all the visits, the authorities were well aware and fully recognized the importance of, and expressed their appreciation for, Japan’s financial support to the IMF’s TA program. The positive firsthand view gained by the Japanese authorities has contributed to the continued strong support by Japan, through their contributions to the JSA, for the IMF’s TA program. A list of all field visits and a summary report of the two field visits that took place in FY2006 are provided below. Reports on earlier field visits can be found in previous JSA Annual Reports.

Joint Field Visits in FY1996–FY20061

1. Fiji (Pacific Financial Technical Assistance Center) and Western Samoa, March 1996

2. Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz Republic, June 1996

3. Zambia and Zimbabwe, December 1996

4. Russian Federation, July 1997

5. Bulgaria and Lithuania, June 1998

6. Indonesia, Singapore Training Institute, and Thailand, June/July 1999

7. Belarus and Slovenia, June 2000

8. Azerbaijan and the Joint Vienna Institute, June 2001

9. Cambodia and the IMF-Singapore Regional Training Institute, June 2002

10. Mongolia and Timor-Leste, September 2002

11. Indonesia and Fiji, December 2003

12. Botswana and the East Africa Regional Technical Assistance Center, December 2005

Joint Field Visits in FY2006
East AFRITAC, Tanzania, December 5–6, 2005

In response to a request by sub-Saharan African countries for enhanced IMF support for their capacity-building efforts, the IMF, in cooperation with donor partners including Japan, established in FY2003 two Africa Regional Technical Assistance Centers (AFRITACs)—one in East Africa based in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (whose membership includes Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda), and the other in West Africa based in Bamako, Mali (whose membership includes Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, and Togo). Drawing on positive experience in the Caribbean and the Pacific regions, the centers follow a regional approach to building capacity by maximizing TA delivery among neighboring countries with similar needs. Led by a center coordinator, each AFRITAC has a team of resident advisors in the core areas of the IMF’s competence, supplemented by short-term experts on an as-needed basis, who help member countries to develop and implement their capacity-building programs within the guidelines of each country’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. To ensure ownership of activities by beneficiary countries and accountability to, and coordination with, donor partners, each AFRITAC works under the policy guidance of a steering committee consisting of representatives of member countries and donors.

In FY2005, a mid-term review of the work of both AFRITACs was carried out by a team of external evaluators. The evaluation found that the regional centers were an effective delivery vehicle for capacity building, particularly through their familiarity with local context and issues, timely responses to beneficiary country needs, enhanced beneficiary country ownership, increased regional cooperation and solidarity, and improved coordination of external assistance. Although the evaluation concluded that the two centers are, for the most part, achieving their objectives, it also made a number of recommendations for improvements focusing on strengthening monitoring and evaluation, developing local staff resources, and promoting the use of local expertise.2

Japan has been an important donor partner of both AFRITACs with contributions to date totaling $1.6 million. During the visit to East AFRITAC, the Japan-IMF review mission was briefed by the center coordinator and resident advisors and met with the chairman of the East AFRITAC Steering Committee, and also with concerned senior officials in Tanzania, including the governor of the Bank of Tanzania and the permanent secretary of the treasury. The review mission also attended the semiannual meeting of the East AFRITAC Steering Committee, which was being held during the time of the field visit.

The main concerns of the Japanese members of the review team—the need to retain qualified staff in government agencies for long-term capacity building, the challenge of meeting the increasing demands for assistance with limited available resources, and the need for an eventual exit strategy because the regional centers are not meant to be permanent establishments—were raised with both center staff and the authorities who outlined the measures being taken and described the continuing efforts to address these concerns.3 The achievements and ongoing work of East AFRITAC received high praise from the authorities who confirmed the positive assessment of the mid-term evaluation. At the conclusion of the field visit, the Japanese representatives of the review team expressed strong satisfaction with East AFRITAC’s role in supporting member countries in building their capacities in areas crucial for sound economic development, and with the good coordination among donors, advisors, and authorities.

Regional Payment System, Botswana, December 7–9, 2005

Since January 2005, the JSA has been funding an IMF regional payment system advisor based in Botswana to help the central banks in Botswana, Sierra Leone, and Swaziland reform and modernize their countries’ financial payment and settlement systems as part of their strategy to modernize their financial sectors. These individual national efforts are part of ongoing regional initiatives in Africa to integrate the various national payment systems and create a robust cross-border payment system. For Botswana and Swaziland, this integration would involve convergence with the Southern Africa Development Community, and for Sierra Leone, convergence with the West African Monetary Zone.

In each country, the IMF regional advisor is helping the authorities develop necessary legislation in support of a national payment system and also develop and implement electronic clearinghouses and electronic funds transfer and real time gross settlement mechanisms that form the basis of a modern payment and settlement system. The regional advisor’s work includes assisting with drafting of legislation; establishment of standards, rules, regulations, and procedures consistent with the core principles of the Bank for International Settlements; creation of monitoring and oversight systems; procurement of systems software and hardware; and staff training.

Work in the three countries is in differing stages of completion. Although good advances have been made in Botswana and Swaziland (which now have electronic clearinghouses and have reduced their respective national clearing cycles to four days with further reductions planned), progress in Sierra Leone has been hampered by the postconflict environment and limited institutional capacity. In general, the main delays encountered in these reform efforts result from the need to involve and consult with the large number of stakeholders inherent in payment systems, including commercial banks, market participants, and other regulatory agencies.

During their visit, the review mission met with the governor and deputy governor of the Bank of Botswana, as well as with the regional advisor and senior officials of the Bank of Botswana’s National Payments System Reform and Modernization Project. In the view of the authorities, the advisor has made important contributions to the reform efforts and the countries have benefited tremendously from the assistance provided by the IMF and made possible by the JSA. According to the regional advisor, the authorities are strongly committed to the reform process and are fully supportive of the various measures and recommendations made.

At the end of the field visit, the Japanese representatives of the review mission concluded that the work being carried out to develop the national payment systems was central to reform and modernization efforts in the three beneficiary countries, that significant progress was being made, and that the assistance was highly valued and appreciated. In view of the further work still required, particularly with regard to the installation of real time gross settlement systems and overall strengthening of staff capacity in Botswana and Swaziland and the outstanding issues in Sierra Leone, it is expected that the IMF will continue to provide assistance in this area with additional JSA support.

1

Because of scheduling difficulties, joint field visits were not carried out in FY2005.

2

The evaluation report, Africa Regional Technical Assistance Centers (AFRITACs) Independent Mid-Term Evaluation: Volume I—Final Report, April 1, 2005, can be found on the IMF website, http://www.imf.org

3

These measures include encouraging governments to pay closer attention to career development and adequate salaries, prioritizing assistance for the most urgent needs of the least–developed member countries, and the possibility of slowly “graduating” individual countries from East AFRITAC assistance on a case-by-case basis.

Annex 3:

RESULTS OF EVALUATIONS OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECTS

Following the introduction of a formal process of evaluation of JSA-funded technical assistance projects by the beneficiaries, 120 evaluation questionnaires have been returned by beneficiary authorities. Overall, the responses show that the authorities are highly satisfied with JSA-funded technical assistance. In the few cases in which there was negative feedback, the IMF departments concerned have taken follow-up action to ascertain the cause of dissatisfaction in order to avoid future occurrences.

As shown in Table 10, answers indicate that the beneficiary authorities are satisfied with the terms of reference for the expert. However, although 92 percent of respondents expressed that the terms of reference reflected their needs, 17 percent indicated that they were not or not fully consulted on the terms of reference prior to arrival of the expert. Beneficiaries were satisfied with the selection of the expert used for the project. Almost all respondents (92 percent) viewed the qualifications and experience of the expert as appropriate. Cooperation between the expert and counterparts was also considered good by 89 percent of respondents. The responses were lower (83 percent) regarding the usefulness of the expert’s advice in terms of the reform efforts. On a question regarding skills transfer, 77 percent of respondents indicated that the expert paid sufficient attention to training and capacity building, leaving 18 percent who indicated that skills transfer was only partially sufficient and another 4 percent who felt it had been inadequate. Respondents were satisfied (82 percent) with the ongoing supervision by IMF headquarters. It is not surprising that, in light of the tasks at hand in most countries and the complex realities of reforming economic and financial management practices and building institutional and human capacities, as well as constraints on technical assistance resources, 20 percent of respondents felt that some relevant issues or tasks were not addressed by the expert. Overall, 60 percent of respondents indicated that they were highly satisfied with the overall progress made during the project and another 38 percent were satisfied. To date, there has been only one case in which the beneficiary authority was not satisfied with progress made under the technical assistance provided.

Table 10.

Results of Evaluations of Technical Assistance Projects

(Percent of respondents)

article image
Notes: Based on 120 responses. N/A = not applicable.

Annex 4:

ADMINISTERED ACCOUNTS—JAPAN FINANCIAL STATEMENT FY2006

article image
Note: See the text, footnote 8.
1

Other bilateral donors include Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Multilateral donors include the African Development Bank, the Arab Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank, the Caribbean Development Bank, the European Commission, the Inter-American Development Bank, the United Nations, the United Nations Development Programme, and the World Bank.

2

In this report, unless a distinction is made, use of the term “JSA” (Japan Administered Account for Selected Fund Activities) is meant to include the “JAA” (Japan Administered Technical Assistance Account), which was its predecessor.

3

The reference to fiscal year (FY) in this report is to the IMF’s fiscal year, which runs from May 1 through April 30. This report thus covers the period May 1, 2005–April 30, 2006. Reports on FY2000–FY2005 can be found on the IMF’s website, http://www.imf.org/JSA.

4

For additional information on the IMF’s activities, visit http://www.imf.org

5

In this report, “person years” refers to the time spent by IMF staff and experts on TA activities. Some of the increase in FY2006 is the result of a change in the methodology of recording TA work. As of FY2006, all TA-related work—including administrative support that hitherto had not been included, particularly in the IMF Institute and the special services and support departments—is reflected in the total IMF TA delivery figure.

6

The IMF currently cosponsors six regional training institutes/programs with other donors and host governments: the Joint Vienna Institute in Austria; the IMFSingapore Regional Training Institute in Singapore; the IMF–Arab Monetary Fund Regional Training Program in the United Arab Emirates; the Joint Africa Institute, temporarily located in Tunisia; the Joint China-IMF Training Program in Dalian; and the Joint Regional Training Center for Latin America in Brazil.

7

The five existing IMF regional technical assistance centers comprise two Africa Regional Technical Assistance Centers (East AFRITAC, based in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; and West AFRITAC, based in Bamako, Mali); the Caribbean Regional Technical Assistance Center (CARTAC), based in Bridgetown, Barbados; the Middle East Technical Assistance Center (METAC), based in Beirut, Lebanon; and the Pacific Financial Technical Assistance Center (PFTAC), based in Suva, Fiji.

8

The IMF arranges for an annual audit of the JSA to be undertaken by its external auditors in connection with theannual audit of the IMF’s own accounts, and for a separate certificate of completion to be provided to the Japanese authorities. See Annex 4 for the audited financial statements of the JSA and the Japan Advanced Scholarship Program for FY2006.

9

Because of the time required for the contracting and fielding of experts and payment of invoices, there is a time lag between commitments and disbursements. The duration of a JSA-funded TA project is normally 6 to 12 months.

10

These figures reflect the priority given to the countries of these regions under JSA financing guidelines, which currently set a target of 50 percent of allocations for countries in the Asia, Central Asia, and Pacific regions combined and 10 percent for the other transitional countries of the former Soviet Union (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, and Ukraine).

11

Multiregional projects are those with beneficiaries from more than one region. Annex 1 includes descriptions of such projects.

12

In FY2003, as part of a larger effort to strengthen monitoring and evaluation of IMF technical assistance, a formal multiyear program of TA evaluations was introduced with three to four evaluations to be undertaken annually covering a mix of topics. Evaluations carried out under this program include TA for public expenditure management in selected countries in sub-Saharan Africa, TA to strengthen the commercial court and implement the bankruptcy law in Indonesia, TA to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the monetary and financial systems sector, an evaluation of PFTAC, and a mid-term evaluation of the AFRITACs. Currently ongoing are evaluations on TA for tax policy in countries undergoing trade and tariff reform, and on experience with implementation of the “upstream approach” for delivery of TA in revenue administration.

13

The scholarship program targets candidates from Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Lao P.D.R., Mongolia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam, as well as the Pacific Island countries. Nationals of other countries in the region are also considered on a case-bycase basis.

14

Under the Japan-IMF Scholarship Program for Asia, an academic year refers to the period October 1–September 30. Thus, academic year 2005 refers to the period October 1, 2005–September 30, 2006.

15

Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Hitotsubashi University, International University of Japan, and Yokohama National University.

16

Under the Japan-IMF Advanced Scholarship Program, academic year refers to the period August 1–July 31. Thus, the academic year 2003 refers to the period August 1, 2003–July 31, 2004.

  • Collapse
  • Expand