Journal Issue
Share
Article

Initiative for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) and Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI)-Status of Implementation and Proposals for the Future of the HIPC Initiative

Author(s):
International Monetary Fund
Published Date:
August 2011
Share
  • ShareShare
Show Summary Details

I. Introduction1

1. This report provides an update on the status of implementation of the HIPC Initiative and the MDRI over the past year and presents proposals for the future of the HIPC Initiative. Although some challenges remain, the HIPC Initiative has been largely completed. As a result of progress in the last few years, 36 out of 40 HIPCs have reached the decision point, and 32 HIPCs have reached the completion point and also benefited from debt relief under the MDRI. Three of the four interim HIPCs are making progress toward the completion point. Only four potentially eligible countries are yet to start the process of qualifying for debt relief under the Initiative. At informal sessions in late February and early March 2011, the Executive Boards of the IMF and IDA agreed that, in view of the substantial progress that has been achieved under the HIPC Initiative to date, this was an opportune time to consider the future of the Initiative.2 They asked the staffs to prepare specific proposals for presentation in the next report on the status of implementation of the HIPC Initiative and the MDRI. At these informal sessions, the Boards also discussed changes to the reporting of progress under the initiatives, including discontinuing the status of implementation report in its current form.

2. The report is organized as follows: Section II reports on progress under the initiatives since the publication of the 2010 report.3 It also updates estimates of the benefits and costs of the initiatives and reviews progress in enhancing creditor participation, addressing commercial creditor litigation, and securing the financing of the initiatives. As this is intended to be the last status of implementation report, Section III makes proposals on how reporting of future developments under the initiatives would be handled and proposes the introduction of periodic reports to monitor debt vulnerabilities in LICs, including HIPCs. Section IV reviews options for the future of the HIPC Initiative and, in light of the earlier informal Board discussions, recommends the inclusion of end-2010 income and indebtedness criteria for potential eligibility under the Initiative. Section IV also reviews the assessment of potential eligibility of remaining HIPCs based on new end-2010 income and indebtedness criteria. Section V presents issues for discussion.

II. Implementation of the HIPC Initiative and the MDRI over the Past Year

A. Country Progress

3. Further progress has been made under the HIPC Initiative over the past year. Guinea-Bissau and Togo both reached their completion points in December 2010 and qualified for irrevocable debt relief.4 Of 40 HIPCs,5 32 have now reached the completion point and another four the decision point (Table 1).

Table 1.List of Heavily Indebted Poor Countries(As of end-July 2011)
32 Post-Completion-Point HIPCs1/
AfghanistanCongo, Rep. ofLiberiaRwanda
BeninEthiopiaMadagascarSão Tomé and Príncipe
BoliviaGambia, TheMalawiSenegal
Burkina FasoGhanaMaliSierra Leone
BurundiGuinea-BissauMauritaniaTanzania
CameroonGuyanaMozambiqueTogo
Central African RepublicHaitiNicaraguaUganda
Congo, Dem. Rep. of theHondurasNigerZambia
4 Interim HIPCs2/
ComorosChadCôte d’IvoireGuinea
4 Pre-Decision-Point HIPCs3
EritreaKyrgyz Republic 4/ SomaliaSudan

Countries that have qualified for irrevocable debt relief under the HIPC Initiative.

Countries that have qualified for assistance under the HIPC Initiative (i.e., reached decision point), but have not yet reached completion point.

Countries that are eligible or potentially eligible and may wish to avail themselves of the HIPC Initiative or MDRI.

The Kyrgyz authorities indicated in early 2007 that they did not wish to avail themselves of debt relief under the HIPC Initiative but subsequently expressed interest in the MDRI. This table does not list those countries that indicated that they did not wish to avail themselves of assistance under the Initiative, either at the time of the 2006 ring-fencing (Bhutan and Lao PDR) or later (Nepal).

Countries that have qualified for irrevocable debt relief under the HIPC Initiative.

Countries that have qualified for assistance under the HIPC Initiative (i.e., reached decision point), but have not yet reached completion point.

Countries that are eligible or potentially eligible and may wish to avail themselves of the HIPC Initiative or MDRI.

The Kyrgyz authorities indicated in early 2007 that they did not wish to avail themselves of debt relief under the HIPC Initiative but subsequently expressed interest in the MDRI. This table does not list those countries that indicated that they did not wish to avail themselves of assistance under the Initiative, either at the time of the 2006 ring-fencing (Bhutan and Lao PDR) or later (Nepal).

B. Debt Service Relief and Poverty Reducing Expenditure

4. Debt relief under the HIPC Initiative and the MDRI has substantially lowered the debt burdens of HIPCs. Debt relief under the initiatives to the 36 post-decision point HIPCs represents almost 35 percent of these countries’ 2010 GDP. 6 Together with debt relief under traditional mechanisms and additional ("beyond HIPC") relief from Paris Club creditors, this assistance is estimated to reduce the debt burden for these countries by about 90 percent relative to pre-decision point levels (Figure 1).

Figure 1.Post-Decision-Point HIPCs’ Debt Stock at Different Debt Relief Stages

(In billions of U.S. dollars, in end-2010 PV terms)

Source: World Bank and IMF staff estimates.

5. In parallel to the delivery of debt relief, HIPCs have increased their poverty reducing expenditure. For the 36 post-decision point countries, poverty reducing spending increased by more than three percentage points of GDP, on average, between 2001 and 2010, while debt service payments declined by a somewhat smaller amount (Figure 2 and Annex III Table 1). Notwithstanding these developments, HIPCs have made uneven, and in some cases limited, progress toward achieving the MDGs. For most of the 32 completion point HIPCs universal primary education is within reach, but half of them still have to implement additional reforms in order to achieve this target. More than half of completion point HIPCs are expected to meet their targets with respect to gender equality and preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS, TBC and malaria, and about half of them are on track to reduce under-five mortality rates and ensure environmental sustainability. However, only a quarter of completion point HIPCs are on track to meeting MDG 1 (to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger), with progress toward MDG 6 (to improve maternal health) less certain. Only a few HIPCs are on track to meet MDG 8 (to build a global partnership for development) (Annex III Table 3).

Figure 2.Average Poverty Reducing Expenditure and Debt Service in HIPCs 1/

Sources: HIPC documents and IMF staff estimates

1/ For detailed country data and projections, refer to Appendix Table 2 and Table 3.

C. An Update of the Costs of the Initiatives

6. The total cost of HIPC Initiative debt relief to creditors is estimated at US$76 billion in end-2010 present value (PV) terms (Table 2). The estimated costs are broadly unchanged relative to 2010 estimates. Changes reflect small revisions of data for the two new completion point countries and a lower discount rate.7 About two-thirds of the cost (US$54.6 billion) represents irrevocable debt relief to the 32 post-completion point countries. The estimated cost for the four interim countries amounts to US$4.4 billion.8 The estimated cost of HIPC Initiative debt relief to the creditors of the remaining four pre-decision point HIPCs is estimated at US$17 billion, most of which is accounted for by two countries, Sudan and Somalia. Topping-up assistance, which has been provided so far to seven HIPCs, represents less than 3 percent of the total HIPC Initiative cost.9

Table 2.HIPC Initiative: Costs by Main Creditor and Country Group(In billions of U.S. dollars, in end-2010 PV terms, unless otherwise indicated)
Post-Completion-Point HIPCsInterim HIPCsTotal Post-Decision-Point HIPCsPre-Decision-Point HIPCsTotal
(32)(4)(36)(4)(40)
(I)(II)(III) = (I) + (II)(IV)(V) = (III) + (IV)
Multilateral creditors27.11.528.65.334.0
IDA12.60.813.41.514.9
IMF4.50.14.61.96.5
AfDB Group4.60.45.10.45.5
IaDB1.70.01.70.01.7
Other3.60.23.81.55.4
Bilateral and commercial creditors27.52.930.411.642.0
Paris Club20.21.621.85.827.6
Other Official Bilateral4.90.25.14.99.9
Commercial2.41.13.51.04.6
Total Costs54.64.459.017.076.0
Memorandum Items
Total Costs from Previous Report 1/53.55.358.917.075.9
Total Change in Costs (percent)2.0-17.00.30.00.2
- due to countries’ progress through the HIPC Initiative 2/2.0-17.20.30.00.2
- due to data revisions0.00.30.00.00.0
Sources: Country authorities, and World Bank and IMF staff estimates.

Total costs as reported in Table 2 of “HIPC Initiative and MDRI: Status of Implementation, September 2010”, discounted to end-2010 terms.

Since August 2010, Togo and Guinea-Bissau reached the completion point.

Sources: Country authorities, and World Bank and IMF staff estimates.

Total costs as reported in Table 2 of “HIPC Initiative and MDRI: Status of Implementation, September 2010”, discounted to end-2010 terms.

Since August 2010, Togo and Guinea-Bissau reached the completion point.

7. Multilateral and Paris Club creditors bear the largest shares of the total cost of the HIPC Initiative, but non-Paris Club and commercial creditors are expected to provide a relatively larger share of debt relief for pre-decision point HIPCs. Among multilateral creditors (accounting for 45 percent of the total cost), the heaviest burdens are borne by IDA (20 percent), the IMF (9 percent), and the AfDB group (7 percent). The share of the total cost borne by multilateral creditors is higher for post-completion point countries (50 percent) than for interim countries (35 percent) and pre-decision point countries (31 percent). Bilateral creditors account for over half of the total cost of the HIPC Initiative, most of which is borne by Paris Club creditors (36 percent). Non-Paris Club official creditors and commercial creditors account for 13 percent and 6 percent, respectively. However, non-Paris Club creditors are expected to deliver about 30 percent of HIPC Initiative assistance to pre-decision point HIPCs. Hence, only broad participation of creditors would ensure the effective delivery of HIPC Initiative debt relief in those cases.

8. The total cost of the MDRI for the four participating multilateral creditors is estimated at US$33.8 billion in end-2010 PV terms (Table 3). About 65 percent of the total estimated MDRI cost will be borne by IDA, with the share of the IMF and AfDF amounting to 12 percent and 15 percent, respectively, and that of the IaDB amounting to 8 percent. Out of the total cost, US$30.3 billion in PV terms has already been delivered to the 32 post-completion-point countries. The IMF has also provided MDRI relief to Cambodia and Tajikistan (Table 3 and Appendix Table 4).

Table 3.MDRI: Nominal Costs by Creditor and Country Group (In billions of U.S. dollars)
Assistance in Nominal Terms 2/Assistance in end-2010 PV Terms
PrincipalForegone InterestTotalPrincipal and Foregone Interest
Post-Completion-Point HIPCs 1/42.14.746.830.3
3 IDA28.62.831.419.5
3 IMF 3/3.40.03.43.7
AfDF6.80.97.74.2
IaDB3.31.04.42.9
Interim and Pre-Decision-Point HIPCs 2/4.80.85.63.5
2 IDA3.60.33.92.3
2 IMF 3/0.50.00.50.5
AfDF0.80.51.30.7
IaDB0.00.00.00.0
All HIPCs47.05.552.533.8
IDA32.23.135.321.9
IMF 3/3.90.03.94.2
AfDF7.51.48.94.9
IaDB3.31.04.42.9
Non-HIPCs 4/0.20.20.20.2
Sources: Country authorities, and World Bank, IMF, AfDB and IaDB staff estimates.

These countries have qualified for MDRI relief. Figures are based on actual disbursements and commitments.

Estimates are preliminary and subject to various assumptions, including the timing of HIPC decision and completion points, and, where applicable, of arrears clearance.

The estimated costs for IMF reflect the stock of debt eligible for MDRI relief, which is the debt outstanding (principal only) as of end-2004 and that has not been repaid by the member and is not covered by HIPC assistance. For Liberia, Somalia, and Sudan, the costs represent the MDRI-type, beyond-HIPC debt relief.

IMF MDRI assistance to Cambodia and Tajikistan.

Sources: Country authorities, and World Bank, IMF, AfDB and IaDB staff estimates.

These countries have qualified for MDRI relief. Figures are based on actual disbursements and commitments.

Estimates are preliminary and subject to various assumptions, including the timing of HIPC decision and completion points, and, where applicable, of arrears clearance.

The estimated costs for IMF reflect the stock of debt eligible for MDRI relief, which is the debt outstanding (principal only) as of end-2004 and that has not been repaid by the member and is not covered by HIPC assistance. For Liberia, Somalia, and Sudan, the costs represent the MDRI-type, beyond-HIPC debt relief.

IMF MDRI assistance to Cambodia and Tajikistan.

9. Some creditors have given debt relief to HIPCs that goes beyond the requirements under the HIPC Initiative. Paris Club official bilateral creditors have provided, on a case by case basis, beyond HIPC Initiative debt relief amounting to US$11.9 billion in end-2010 PV terms (see Appendix Tables 12 and 13). In addition to debt relief under the HIPC Initiative, the EU provides debt relief under the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Initiative by cancellation of the debt outstanding on special loans after the application of HIPC Initiative relief.10 Most multilateral and bilateral creditors have approved the cancellation of outstanding debt beyond HIPC and MDRI to help Haiti recover from the January 2010 earthquake.11

D. Implementation Issues

10. Notwithstanding the substantial success in completing the tasks of the HIPC Initiative, ongoing challenges remain, including (i) mobilizing full participation of all creditors; (ii) addressing the issue of commercial creditor litigation; (iii) ensuring the full financing of the HIPC Initiative and the MDRI; (iv) taking the interim HIPCs to the completion point; and (v) eventually providing debt relief to the pre-decision point countries and possibly Zimbabwe.

Creditor Participation

11. To ensure that the country’s debt burden indicators are reduced to the HIPC Initiative thresholds, it is critical that all creditors deliver their share of debt relief to HIPCs. This is also consistent with the principle of the HIPC Initiative of broad and equitable participation of creditors in the provision of debt relief. As the large multilateral and Paris Club creditors have provided their full share of debt relief, this section reports on smaller multilateral, non-Paris Club bilateral, and commercial creditors.

12. The majority of small multilateral creditors have committed to deliver debt relief at the completion point (Appendix Table 5). In addition to the largest four creditors12, another 20 multilateral creditors, accounting for 13 percent of total HIPC Initiative costs (US$3.8 billion in end-2010 PV terms) have committed to deliver debt relief to all HIPCs at the completion point.13 However, another eight multilateral creditors, representing less than 0.6 percent of estimated HIPC cost, have not yet indicated their intention to provide relief under the HIPC Initiative.

13. Smaller multilateral creditors have delivered 55 percent of total HIPC Initiative debt relief committed to completion point HIPCs. According to the annual survey carried out by the World Bank, to which 10 institutions responded (the same number as in 2010), all but two multilateral creditors have already delivered at least 50 percent of committed debt relief14. Staffs are working with their counterparts in the other 10 multilateral development banks (MDBs),15 which represent only 2 percent of the total HIPC debt relief committed to post-completion point HIPCs, to increase the survey response rate. The staffs also continue to encourage the eight multilateral creditors that have not committed to providing debt relief to do so.

14. There has been some increase in the delivery of debt relief under the HIPC Initiative from non-Paris Club bilateral creditors over the past year. Mainly as a result of the delivery of debt relief by Algeria to an additional 10 HIPCs, including sizable relief to Mauritania and Mozambique, the overall delivery of assistance has increased to 39–43 percent (from 34–39 percent last year). Some non-Paris Club creditors (China, Cuba, and Kuwait) have delivered debt relief to the two countries that reached the completion point in the last 12 months–Guinea-Bissau and Togo–while others have not (Portugal, Saudi Arabia, and UAE). The low delivery rate of debt relief by non-Paris Club creditors remains disappointing. IMF and World Bank staffs continue to encourage non-Paris Club creditors to deliver their share of debt relief under the HIPC. These efforts have focused on moral suasion as participation by creditors in the HIPC Initiative is voluntary.

15. Delivery of debt relief by commercial creditors to HIPCs has increased in recent years. Commercial creditors account for US$4.6 billion (2010 PV terms), or 6 percent of the total cost of debt relief to be provided to all 40 HIPCs The increased participation of commercial creditors in the provision of debt relief has been supported by buyback operations supported by IDA’s Debt Reduction Facility (DRF). In December 2010, DRF provided support to Liberia for the conclusion of the second closing of the April 2009 external commercial buyback operation. The second closing has extinguished the debt of the remaining two hold-out creditors at fully comparable terms to those achieved in the first closing.

16. Currently the DRF will expire on June 30, 2012 and no operation can be approved after end-March 2012. The Board of IDA will have to take a decision on the extension and possible replenishment of the DRF in early 2012. A large share of commercial debt eligible for debt relief remains for the Democratic Republic of Congo, estimated at US$897 million, and for Sudan, estimated at around US$5 billion.

Commercial Creditor Litigation

17. The declining trend in the number of commercial creditor litigation cases against HIPCs of recent years flattened over the past year. According to survey responses from HIPCs, the number of litigation cases being pursued against them remained unchanged at 17 between 2010 and 2011, with two cases against Liberia resolved with support from IDA’s DRF but two new ones launched against the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is too early to assess the impact of national and multilateral initiatives intended to respond to the threat of creditor litigation against HIPCs that were discussed in last year’s status of implementation report, although there have been suggestions that the UK initiative encouraged two hold-outs on Liberia to accept the terms on offer from the DRF.1617

Ensuring the Financing of the Initiatives

18. During the IDA 16 replenishment, donors agreed to provide additional contributions to finance IDA’s MDRI and HIPC Initiative-related costs, and financing for arrears clearance operations. HIPC compensation would amount to SDR 1 billion and arrears clearance operations are expected to amount to SDR 0.4 billion.18 A separate IDA replenishment was established to finance IDA’s forgone credit reflows under the MDRI spanning four decades (FY07–44). During the IDA 16 discussions, donors reiterated their commitment to fully finance the costs to IDA of providing MDRI debt relief (SDR 3.5 billion during the IDA 16 period), and that financing of these costs would be additional to regular IDA contributions. Based on current commitments, it is expected that future IDA replenishments would include sufficient resources to finance IDA’s cost of debt relief under the initiatives.19

19. The Debt Relief Trust Fund (DRTF) has sufficient resources to help finance the future cost of debt relief for the eligible creditors.20 The IDA-managed DRTF, in addition to supporting eligible regional and multilateral creditors in providing HIPC Initiative debt relief to HIPCs, may utilize donor contributions for arrears clearance operations of IDA, as well as possible contributions from IBRD net income to meet any remaining structural gap in the MDRI financing framework. As of June 30, 2011, donors have pledged and contributed US$3.9 billion to the DRTF to support the eligible regional and sub-regional creditors (See Appendix Table 10).21 The DRTF has accumulated investment income amounting to US$380 million on those contributions and allocated for disbursement about US$3.2 billion. Excluding US$476 million in pending disbursements, the remaining amount of resources available for future debt relief operations totaled US$657 million as of June 30, 2011. This amount is equivalent to the current estimate of debt relief expected to be provided by eligible creditors to the four interim HIPCs and the three pre-decision point HIPCs that are expected to qualify for HIPC debt relief.

20. For the IMF, available resources are estimated to be sufficient to cover the projected costs of debt relief to all the remaining HIPCs, excluding Somalia and Sudan Additional resources will be needed if and when these countries embark on the HIPC Initiative process, as well as if additional countries with outstanding liabilities to the Fund were to eventually qualify for the HIPC Initiative.22 Moreover, if topping up is required in any future HIPC case additional resources would be required. In all these cases, resources would need to be mobilized from the international community.

Taking the Interim HIPCs to the Completion Point

21. Three of the four interim phase countries—Comoros, Cote d’Ivoire, and Guinea—could reach the completion point in 2012:

  • Comoros, which reached its decision point in June 2010, could reach the completion point in late 2012 or in 2013, provided its ECF-supported program is put back on track through measures aimed at curbing the wage bill and restarting the civil service and public enterprise reform programs.
  • Before the political crisis in the first half of 2011, Côte d’Ivoire had been expected to reach the completion point in the second half of 2011. The IMF recently approved a new ECF arrangement with Côte d’Ivoire that signals a resumption of progress toward the completion point. Provided that progress is also made on the adoption and implementation of a new institutional and regulatory framework for the cocoa/coffee sectors and on the implementation of the PRSP, the completion point could be reached by mid-2012.
  • The new government in Guinea has indicated that it regards reaching the completion point as a high priority. Guinea is seeking an ECF arrangement with the IMF and has started the implementation of a poverty reduction strategy (PRS). If implementation of an ECF-supported program and the PRS are deemed to be satisfactory, Guinea could reach the completion point by end-2012.

Prospects for Chad are uncertain as poor macroeconomic policy performance and limited progress towards other completion point triggers have prevented it from reaching the completion point. Improved macroeconomic policy performance could pave the way toward an IMF staff-monitored program and, if successful, toward an ECF-supported program and, eventually, the attainment of the completion point.

The Pre-Decision Point Countries and Zimbabwe

22. The situation of the pre-decision point countries is generally challenging The Eritrean authorities indicated in 2009 that they might consider seeking HIPC Initiative assistance but they have not reiterated their interest since and it remains uncertain if and when they might seek debt relief. The authorities of the Kyrgyz Republic indicated in early 2007 that they did not wish to avail themselves of assistance under the HIPC Initiative but subsequently expressed an interest in the MDRI, for which participation in the HIPC Initiative is a prerequisite. The protracted arrears cases of Somalia and Sudan complete this group. While Somalia remains heavily indebted, it has no functioning government and its future relations with the international community are highly uncertain.

23. Sudan remains deeply indebted and faces the loss of significant export and fiscal receipts following the independence of South Sudan on July 9, 2011 While a number of difficult issues remain unresolved between Sudan and South Sudan, including oil revenue sharing, they have reached a tentative agreement on public external debt, which would leave all the debt with Sudan, allowing South Sudan to start with a clean slate ("the zero option"). This agreement is contingent on South Sudan supporting Sudan in mobilizing creditor support for debt relief and on Sudan reaching the decision point under the HIPC Initiative within two years.23 Since early 2011, a working group, convened by IMF and IDA staffs and comprising some of Sudan’s main multilateral and bilateral creditors has been engaged in technical work on Sudan’s external debt. While Sudan’s main external creditors have indicated broad support for debt relief under established processes, including traditional debt relief mechanisms and the HIPC Initiative, some of them face legal constraints in committing to the provision of debt relief to Sudan. Moreover, in the period leading up to the decision point, Sudan would need to have established a track record of strong policy performance under programs covering macroeconomic policies and structural and social policy reforms, as well as make progress on preparing a poverty reduction strategy24.

24. While currently not potentially eligible for debt relief under the HIPC Initiative, Zimbabwe faces an unsustainable debt situation, and may at some point need comprehensive debt relief from the international community. Zimbabwe was not included in the list of potentially eligible countries in 2006, as, at the time, it was neither PRGF-eligible (because of its removal from the list o PRGF-eligible countries as a result of its arrears to the Trust Fund) nor IDA-only. However, a preliminary assessment based on incomplete data suggests that Zimbabwe may have met the end-2004 indebtedness criterion, albeit by a small margin. For the Fund, this means that, should Zimbabwe’s PRGT-eligibility be re-instated following the resolution of its arrears to the PRGT, it could be added to the list of countries potentially eligible for HIPC Initiative assistance, if the assessment against the indebtedness criterion were to be confirmed. For the World Bank, the HIPC Initiative income criterion is bound by the end-2004 cutoff, i.e., any change in a country’s IDA status post- 2004 is not a relevant consideration. Thus, because of the joint nature of the relief, for Zimbabwe to be deemed eligible for HIPC Initiative relief, a modification of, or exception to, IDA’s HIPC Initiative potential eligibility criteria would be required. Moreover, beyond eligibility considerations, to qualify for debt relief under the HIPC Initiative, Zimbabwe would need to build a track record of macroeconomic and structural policy performance under IMF and World Bank-supported programs, clear its arrears to IFIs, or have in place plans to clear such arrears, and develop a poverty reduction strategy.

III. Reporting on Debt Relief Progress and LIC Debt Vulnerabilities

A. Further Streamlining of Reporting on Debt Relief Progress

25. IMF and IDA staffs have closely monitored progress under the HIPC Initiative since its inception through regular status reports. These reports have tracked the progress of HIPCs through the debt relief process, provided updates on the estimated cost of the HIPC Initiative and of the MDRI to various creditors or creditor groups, reported on the participation rates of creditors in the HIPC Initiative, and monitored commercial creditor litigation against HIPCs. The intensity of reporting on progress under the HIPC Initiative has been streamlined over time. Initially comprehensive progress reports were prepared semiannually. In 2003, one of the progress reports was converted into a statistical update, which was subsequently abolished in 2006.

26. Given that most HIPCs have now reached the completion point, IMF and IDA staffs see a strong case for further streamlining HIPC Initiative and MDRI progress reporting. Rather than producing an annual status of implementation report along the lines of this one, the staffs propose updating pertinent information regularly and making it available on dedicated sections of the IMF and World Bank’s websites. The information to be posted would correspond to the information currently provided in the text tables and figures and the statistical appendix. Estimates of the costs to various creditors and creditor groups would continue to be updated and released. Monitoring of debt relief delivery and litigation against HIPCs would be conducted in the context of individual annual debt sustainability analysis and summarized regularly. The progress of HIPCs in increasing poverty reducing expenditure and reaching their MDGs would continue to be tracked and information posted on the IMF and World Bank websites.

B. Monitoring of and Reporting on LIC Debt Vulnerabilities

27. Although a third of low income countries (LICs)25 are either in debt distress or at high risk of debt distress, there is no systemic evidence that debt vulnerabilities among LICs have intensified over the last 18 months (Figure 3). An April 2010 IMF-IDA report concluded that, while the global financial crisis had had a significant impact on LIC debt vulnerabilities, the crisis was not expected to result in systemic debt difficulties across LICs.26 Relative to early 2010, the number of LICs currently rated at high risk of debt distress or in debt distress has declined slightly, mainly because some HIPCs that were previously in debt distress have reached the completion point and seen a dramatic improvement in their debt sustainability outlook.

Figure 3.Distribution of Debt Distress Ratings, April 2010 vs. September 2011

(Number of countries)

Source: Joint IMF-World Bank DSAs.

28. A quarter of the post-completion point HIPCs are rated at high risk of debt distress, and none is in debt distress (Table 4). Such vulnerabilities can be explained by a narrow export base or weak policy and institutional capacity.27 Notwithstanding the significant share of LICs with elevated debt distress ratings, systemic debt difficulties across LICs, that would warrant new debt relief initiatives, are presently not expected. Instead, the debt vulnerabilities of LICs will need to be addressed through sustained efforts, including from their donors, involving a combination of fiscal consolidation, improvements in institutions and policies, and more concessional financing terms on their external borrowing.

Table 4.LICs at High Risk of Debt Distress, or in Debt Distress, September 2011
In debt distressAt high risk of debt distress 1/
HIPCHIPC
Pre-decision pointPost-completion point
EritreaAfghanistan
SomaliaBurkina Faso
SudanBurundi
Congo, Democratic Republic of
Post-decision pointGambia, The
ComorosHaiti
Côte d’IvoireSão Tomé and Príncipe
Guinea
Non-HIPCNon-HIPC
MyanmarDjibouti
ZimbabweGrenada
Kiribati
Lao P.D.R.
Maldives
Tajikistan
Tonga
Yemen, Republic of

Kiribati is rated at high risk of debt distress in the latest DSA and is included in this table. It is not included, however, in Figure 3, as it does not have earlier DSA rating for comparison.

Kiribati is rated at high risk of debt distress in the latest DSA and is included in this table. It is not included, however, in Figure 3, as it does not have earlier DSA rating for comparison.

29. IDA and the IMF are providing assistance to help LICs maintain debt sustainability. The joint IMF-World Bank LIC Debt sustainability Framework (DSF) supports LICs’ efforts to achieve their development goals without creating future debt problems. The IMF and IDA also provide debt management technical assistance to LICs and IDA-only countries through the Debt Management Facility (DMF).28 In 2006, IDA adopted a grant allocation framework that provides ex ante response to the risks of future debt distress (thus reducing future debt service obligations in response to the likelihood of the country facing an unsustainable debt burden that could result, among others, from shocks).29

30. IMF and IDA staffs propose preparing periodic reports on debt vulnerabilities in LICs, including HIPCs. With a significant share of LICs at elevated risk of debt distress, the debt situation in these countries warrants close monitoring. Moreover, given the limited availability of concessional financing, a number of LICs, mainly those at low or moderate risk of debt distress, have begun to rely on non-concessional external borrowing to finance priority infrastructure investment, facilitated in part by the IMF’s new debt limits policy and the adjustments to the implementation arrangements of IDA’s non-concessional borrowing policy. 30 Increased recourse to non-concessional financing by LICs underscores the need for the close monitoring of evolving debt vulnerabilities in LICs. The staffs, therefore, see a strong case for intensifying the cross-country monitoring of, and reporting on, debt vulnerabilities in LICs, including HIPCs. The vehicle for such monitoring and reporting would be periodic joint IMF-IDA reports on LIC debt vulnerabilities based on the LIC DSAs and DSA updates prepared in the preceding 12-month period, as well as other pertinent information.

IV. The Future of the HIPC Initiative

A. Background

31. The HIPC Initiative was not intended to be a permanent mechanism to relieve the external debts of LICs. The Initiative was effectively closed to new entrants in 2006 when the sunset clause was allowed to take effect and the list of potentially eligible HIPCs was ring-fenced. The initial design of the Initiative included a "sunset clause", a two-year period within which members had to adopt an upper credit tranche-type program supported by the IMF ("the performance eligibility criterion"). The sunset clause was motivated by a desire to minimize moral hazard and to encourage HIPCs to adopt early economic reform programs.31 After four extensions, the sunset clause was allowed to take effect at end-2006 but countries potentially eligible for HIPC Initiative debt relief were grandfathered (Box 1). Earlier in 2006, a Board-endorsed ring-fencing exercise had been conducted, which restricted HIPC Initiative eligibility to a list of potentially eligible countries that had been assessed to have met the Initiative’s income and indebtedness criteria, based on end-2004 data, or, in cases where needed data were not available, countries that might be assessed to have met these criteria at end-2004 at some point in the future (Table 4).32 These ring-fenced countries can only qualify for debt relief (i.e., reach the decision point) if their debt burden were to remain above the relevant HIPC Initiative debt sustainability thresholds based on the most recent available actual debt data and if they remain IDA-only and PRGT-eligible.

Table 5.Status of HIPC Initiative Implementation and Ring-Fencing at End-2006
Post-Completion Point CountriesInterim-Period Countries 1/Countries on Ring-Fenced ListCountries Indicating They Did not Wish to Avail Themselves of the HIPC InitiativeOther Countries
BeninBurundiCentral African RepublicBhutanAfghanistan 5/
BoliviaChadComorosLao, PDRMyanmar 5/
Burkina FasoCongo, Dem. Rep. of theCôte d’IvoireSri Lanka 4/Zimbabwe 6/
CameroonCongo, Republic ofEritrea
EthiopiaGambia, TheHaiti
GhanaGuineaKyrgyz Republic 2/
GuyanaGuinea-BissauLiberia
HondurasSão Tomé and PríncipeNepal 3/
MadagascarSomalia
MalawiSudan
MaliTogo
Mauritania
Mozambique
Nicaragua
Niger
Rwanda
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia

Countries that had reached the decision point but not the completion point.

The Kyrgyz Republic later indicated that it did not wish to avail itself of the Initiative but subsequently expressed an interest in the MDRI.

Nepal later indicated that it did not wish to avail itself of assistance under the Initiative.

Sri Lanka later graduated from PRGT-eligibility and thereby from HIPC Initiative eligibility.

Lack of data did not allow assessment relative to end-2004 income and debt criteria. Afghanistan was later assessed to have met the criteria.

Zimbabwe was neither PRGT-eligible nor IDA only and therefore not assessed. A very preliminary assessment suggests that it met the debt criterion.

Countries that had reached the decision point but not the completion point.

The Kyrgyz Republic later indicated that it did not wish to avail itself of the Initiative but subsequently expressed an interest in the MDRI.

Nepal later indicated that it did not wish to avail itself of assistance under the Initiative.

Sri Lanka later graduated from PRGT-eligibility and thereby from HIPC Initiative eligibility.

Lack of data did not allow assessment relative to end-2004 income and debt criteria. Afghanistan was later assessed to have met the criteria.

Zimbabwe was neither PRGT-eligible nor IDA only and therefore not assessed. A very preliminary assessment suggests that it met the debt criterion.

Box 1.The Sunset Clause and the 2006 Ring-Fencing Exercise

The sunset clause was a key element of the original design of the HIPC Initiative framework.1 It sent a clear signal that the timeframe for qualifying for eligibility under the Initiative would not be unlimited, thereby providing incentives to potentially eligible countries to adopt IMF and IDA-supported adjustment programs early.2 It was also intended to limit the build-up of new debt before application of debt relief, thereby mitigating moral hazard.3

Slower-than-expected progress under the HIPC Initiative necessitated four extensions of the sunset clause. In agreeing to the extension in 2004, the IMF and IDA Boards decided that potential eligibility would be limited ("ring-fenced") to countries meeting the Initiative’s income and indebtedness criteria based on end-2004 data. In April 2006, the Boards endorsed and agreed to close the list of countries that at that time had been assessed to have met these two criteria (for the Fund, only the end-2004 indebtedness criterion was binding).4

The list included 11 countries that were assessed to have met the criteria and had not indicated that they did not wish to avail themselves of HIPC Initiative assistance. An additional three countries meeting the criteria indicated that they did not wish to take part in the initiative.5 The Boards also decided that the list could subsequently be amended to include other countries for which end-2004 data, while not available at the time of the ring-fencing exercise, were to become subsequently available and show that the relevant criteria were met.

In late 2006, the Boards decided to let the sunset clause take effect at the end of that year and grandfathered all the previously ring-fenced countries. With this decision all countries on the ring-fenced list would remain potentially eligible for debt relief under the HIPC Initiative.

1 The 1996 program for action stipulated that "the Initiative would be open to all HIPCs that pursue or adopt programs of adjustment and reform supported by the IMF and the World Bank in the next two years, after which the Initiative would be reviewed and a decision made whether it should be continued.2 Eligibility for HIPC Initiative assistance is contingent on meeting an income criterion (a country must be PRGT- eligible and IDA-only) and having a debt ratio higher than the relevant HIPC threshold after full application of traditional debt relief mechanisms.3 These considerations regarding the sunset clause were made in the 1998 review of the Initiative (see "The Initiative for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries—Review and Outlook," September 1998).4 For IDA, both the income and indebtedness criteria are bound by the end-2004 deadline; hence, countries whose IDA-only/PRGF-eligible status later changes would not be considered "potentially eligible" for HIPC Initiative debt relief under the criteria approved by IDA. However, the IMF Board decided that only the indebtedness eligibility criterion would be applied to end-2004 data, and not the income criterion (see "PRGF-HIPC Trust Instrument-Amendments to Eligibility Criteria," October 2004).5 "Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative—List of Ring-Fenced Countries that Meet the Income and Indebtedness Criteria at End-2004," April 11, 2006.

32. Considerable progress has been achieved under the HIPC Initiative since 2006. Seven countries have reached the decision point during this period. Six of these countries were among the 11 countries included in the 2006 ring-fenced list; the seventh, Afghanistan, was later added to the list when it was assessed to have met the income and debt criteria at end-2004. Moreover, one country, Sri Lanka, graduated from PRGT-eligibility, and thereby HIPC Initiative eligibility, during this period. Thus, only four ring-fenced HIPCs—Eritrea, Kyrgyz Republic, Somalia, and Sudan—are yet to reach the decision point, while three additional countries—Bhutan, Lao P.D.R., and Nepal—that have expressly indicated that they do not wish to avail themselves of assistance under the HIPC Initiative, remain potentially eligible for assistance.33 Moreover, while not a HIPC, Zimbabwe faces an unsustainable debt burden. The potential eligibility of Myanmar, which could not be assessed in 2006 because of lack of data, remains in doubt.

33. In summary, the HIPC Initiative is largely complete. Only a few potentially eligible and interested HIPCs are yet to qualify for debt relief under the HIPC Initiative. Among these, only Sudan has expressed a keen interest in obtaining assistance under the Initiative, while Eritrea’s intentions are unclear and prospects for Somalia’s engagement with the international community are highly uncertain. Zimbabwe is currently not potentially eligible but is likely, at some point, to need comprehensive debt relief from the international community. In the meantime, four countries that have indicated that they do not wish to avail themselves of HIPC Initiative assistance, remain potentially eligible for such relief.

B. Two Main Options

34. In their informal discussion of the future of the HIPC Initiative earlier this year, the IMF and IDA Boards expressed little support for making the HIPC Initiative a permanent facility or for closing it down. The former option would neither be consistent with the original intent of the Initiative nor justified by the current debt sustainability outlook in LICs. It would also be beset with moral hazard. At the same time, fixing a timeline for the closure of the Initiative—say within two years—might not allow the debt situation of some potentially eligible countries to be addressed. While this option would respond to concerns raised about the longevity of the HIPC Initiative, it would eventually require either the setting up of a new debt-relief framework or dealing with each country on a case-by-case basis, which would be politically challenging, time consuming, and ultimately costly.34

35. Two options for the future of the HIPC Initiative appeared to have the most support in the Boards: (i) maintaining the Initiative "as is"; and (ii) adding new income and indebtedness criteria (end-2010) and further ring-fencing potentially eligible countries.

  • Maintaining the status quo: Under this option, the Initiative would remain closed to new entrants. All currently potentially eligible HIPCs, including those that have indicated that they do not wish to avail themselves of HIPC Initiative assistance or those that are later assessed to have met the end-2004 income and indebtedness criteria, would retain their potential eligibility indefinitely.35 This option would afford these countries the opportunity to obtain debt relief on a timetable suitable to their individual circumstances (assuming they were to continue to qualify for such debt relief). Its main drawback is that it would perpetuate moral hazard, including for the countries that have hitherto not expressed an interest in debt relief under the Initiative, as qualification for, and the amount of debt relief committed, at the decision point depends on the debt stock for which the most recent information is available.
  • Adding new income and indebtedness criteria and further ring-fencing: Further ring-fencing of potentially eligible countries based on additional eligibility criteria relevant to the objectives of the provisions of the IMF’s Articles (and related Executive Board policies) pursuant to which debt relief is provided is legally feasible. For instance, an indebtedness criterion at a date later than end-2004 (e.g., at end-2010) could be seen as relevant from a Fund perspective and imposed as an additional criterion for HIPC eligibility.36 On the IDA’s side, the Board could revise the terms of the Initiative to allow countries otherwise eligible to permanently exit the Initiative through an amendment of its eligibility criteria or a further ring-fencing exercise. This option was already anticipated in 2006.37 It would lead to the exclusion of most, of the countries currently potentially eligible that have indicated that they do not wish avail themselves of HIPC Initiative assistance as their debt ratios have fallen below the relevant HIPC Initiative thresholds in recent years (see below). Once it were to be determined that these countries are no longer potentially eligible, they would no longer be able to avail themselves of debt relief under the Initiative, even if their debt ratios were to exceed HIPC Initiative thresholds at some point in the future.38

36. IMF and IDA staffs propose that the latter of these options be implemented. This option would eliminate considerable moral hazard and underscore the extent to which the HIPC Initiative has been successfully implemented. It would have the added benefit of meeting the expressed desire of most of the countries not wishing to avail themselves of assistance under the Initiative. The staffs are cognizant of the need to communicate any changes to the HIPC Initiative carefully, with an emphasis on its successful implementation to date. A further ring-fencing would not affect the delivery of debt relief for interim countries that have not reached the completion point, nor prevent pre-decision point HIPCs that have expressed interest in participating in the Initiative to reach the decision point according to their capacity to implement reforms.

C. Country Assessments against New Income and Indebtedness Criteria

37. IMF and IDA staffs have assessed the remaining potentially eligible countries against the HIPC Initiatives’ income and indebtedness criteria as of end-2010. All these countries met the income criterion at end-2010 as they remained PRGT-eligible and IDA- only. Three countries—Bhutan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Lao PDR—did not meet the indebtedness criterion at end-2010, while four—Eritrea, Nepal, Somalia, and Sudan—met the criterion (see Annex I for the detailed country-by-country assessments). Thus, the addition of end-2010 income and indebtedness criteria to the HIPC Initiative framework would retain only Eritrea, Nepal, Somalia, and Sudan on the list of potentially eligible HIPCs.

38. While not assessed as part of the ring-fencing exercise, the possibility for Zimbabwe’s to obtain assistance under the HIPC Initiative would not be affected by the above proposal. A preliminary analysis indicates that Zimbabwe would meet the proposed end-2010 indebtedness criterion. Thus, the conditions laid out in paragraph 24 would continue to determine how Zimbabwe could become potentially eligible for HIPC Initiative relief.

39. Of the four countries that would remain potentially eligible, Nepal is a special case in that its external debt is deemed sustainable. Under the LIC DSF, Nepal is rated at moderate risk of debt distress, with external public or publicly guaranteed (PPG) debt at end- 2010 well below all relevant thresholds. However, the present value of the PPG debt-to- exports ratio exceeded 170 percent, and thereby the HIPC Initiative threshold of 150 percent, at end-2010 after the application of traditional debt relief mechanisms. This discrepancy stems from the large size of remittance flows to the Nepalese economy--remittances exceed 20 percent of GDP and are more than twice as large as exports of goods and services—and the different treatment of remittances in the DSF and the HIPC Initiative—remittances can be taken into account in the DSF, and are indeed reflected in Nepal’s debt sustainability assessments, but are not included in HIPC calculations in accordance with views previously expressed by the Boards (see Box 2). For Nepal, including remittances in the denominator of the PV of PPG debt-to-exports ratio would lower this ratio to below 60 percent.

Box 2.Remittances in the Context of the HIPC Initiative

As originally laid out in the HIPC Initiative framework in 1996, it was envisaged that the denominator for the PV of debt-to-exports ratio would normally be limited to exports of goods and services as defined in the 5th edition of the Balance of Payments Manual.1 However, where workers’ remittances make a significant contribution to the country’s debt servicing capacity, such inflows were to be included in the denominator for the PV of debt-to-exports ratio. In 1997, the IMF and IDA Boards decided, given the absence of reliable data on remittances in most HIPCs, to exclude worker’s remittances.2

1 See "The HIPC Debt Initiative—Elaboration of Key Features and Proposed Procedures," Box 3, August 26, 1996.2 See "Summing Up by the Acting Chairman—Cap paper for the Preliminary HIPC Initiative Documents for Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, and Uganda," April 23,1997.

40. The staffs do not see a good case for modifying the framework of the HIPC Initiative to allow for the consideration of remittances in determining potential eligibility and qualification for assistance under the Initiative. While not as strong as in the 1990s, the rationale for excluding remittances from consideration in assessing a country’s debt servicing capacity—concerns about the unevenness of data availability and quality across countries—still has validity. Moreover, adding remittances to exports in the denominator of the debt-to-exports ratio, even if limited to cases for which remittances are large relative to the size of the economy, could have undesirable consequences, including possibly disqualifying from assistance countries that would qualify under current rules. It could also lower the amount of assistance to future HIPCs relative to what HIPCs that have already qualified have received, thereby violating, at least in spirit, the principle of uniformity of treatment. While it may be technically feasible to devise rules that would avoid giving rise to these undesirable consequences, such rules would be complex and lack transparency. In light of these serious drawbacks, the staffs do not favor such a major modification of the Initiative at this late stage, even though it would be appealing for the case of Nepal on economic grounds and have the corollary benefit of aligning the eligibility list with the wishes of the Nepalese authorities.

V. Issues for Discussion

  • Do Directors agree with the proposals for the further streamlining of reporting of progress under the initiatives, and for periodic reports on debt vulnerabilities in LICs, including HIPCs?
  • Do Directors agree with the proposals for the addition of income and indebtedness criteria for end-2010 to the HIPC Initiative framework and the further ring-fencing of the list of potentially eligible HIPCs based on these criteria?
  • Do Directors agree that introducing remittances into the HIPC Initiative framework at this late stage would not be appropriate?
Annex I. Assessing Remaining HIPCs against the Indebtedness Criterion at end-2010

Assessment of a country’s external debt against the HIPC Initiative’s indebtedness criterion at a particular point in time is data intensive Macroeconomic data is required on GDP, exports of goods and services, and central government revenue (excluding grants). On external public and publicly guaranteed debt, sufficiently detailed information is needed to allow the calculation of the present value of the debt, as well as the simulation of the application of traditional debt relief mechanisms. Ideally, loan-by-loan information should be used to arrive at precise estimates but, when this is not available, a close approximation can be obtained based on disaggregated data that separately identifies the debt service associated with pre-cutoff, post cutoff and non-ODA, ODA debt (see Annex II on methodological issues).

For all the seven countries remaining on the ring-fenced list based on end-2004 data, IMF and IDA staffs were able to obtain sufficiently detailed data to allow assessment against an end-2010 indebtedness criterion. The methodology used for the assessment is the same as was employed for the 2006 ring-fencing exercise.1 Full sets of loan-by-loan data were obtained for Nepal and Sudan, while partial sets were obtained for Eritrea and Somalia.2 For Bhutan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Lao PDR, the respective authorities provided sufficiently disaggregated data based on a template provided by the staffs. Macroeconomic data, including on GDP, exports, and central government revenues, was obtained from the most recent IMF and World Bank country reports, as well as from country teams.

Based on the data collected, IMF and IDA staffs have determined that Eritrea, Nepal, Somalia, and Sudan met the end-2010 indebtedness criterion while Bhutan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Lao PDR did not (Annex I Table 1):

  • For Bhutan, data provided by the authorities indicates that the PV of external public and publicly guaranteed (PPG) debt at end-2010 was 125 percent of exports of goods and services and 180 percent of central government revenue. Thus, Bhutan did not meet the HIPC Initiative threshold for either the export or fiscal windows at end-2010.
  • For Eritrea, estimates based on data on multilateral and Paris club debt indicate that the PV of external PPG debt was at least 596 percent of exports of goods and services at end-2010. Thus, Eritrea met the HIPC Initiative threshold for the export window at end-2010.
  • For the Kyrgyz Republic, data provided by the authorities indicates that the PV of external PPG debt at end-2010 was 75 percent of exports of goods and services and 184 percent of central government revenue. Thus, the Kyrgyz Republic did not meet the HIPC Initiative threshold for either the export or fiscal windows at end-2010.
  • For Lao PDR, data provided by the authorities indicates that the PV of external PPG debt at end-2010 was 113–117 percent of exports of goods and services and 236–246 percent of central government revenue.3 While the debt to revenue ratio was close to the HIPC Initiative threshold, the estimation of traditional debt relief covered only Paris Club debt, and therefore represented a lower bound for such relief. Thus, Lao PDR did not meet the HIPC Initiative threshold for either the export or fiscal windows at end-2010.
  • For Nepal, loan-by-loan data indicate that the PV of external PPG guaranteed debt was at 173 percent of exports of goods and services at end-2010. Thus, Nepal met the HIPC Initiative threshold for the export window at end-2010.4
  • For Somalia, estimates based on data on multilateral and Paris club debt indicate that the PV of external PPG debt was at least 410 percent of exports of goods and services at end-2010. Thus, Somalia met the HIPC Initiative threshold for the export window at end-2010.
  • For Sudan, loan-by-loan data indicate that the PV of external PPG debt was at 184 percent of exports of goods and services at end-2010. Thus, Sudan met the HIPC Initiative threshold for the export window at end-2010.5
Table AI.1HIPCs’ End-2010 External Debt Relative to Exports and Revenue
From Authorities’ Data Submission 1/ After Application of TDRM 2/From Loan-by-Loan Data After Application of TDRM 2/
PV of PPG of External Debt/Exports (Percent)PV of PPG of External Debt/Revenue Percent)PV of PPG of External Debt/Exports (Percent)PV of PPG of External Debt/Revenue Percent)
Bhutan125180
Eritrea 3/596172
Kyrgyz Republic75184
Lao P.D.R. 4/113–117236–246
Nepal173112
Somalia 5/410N/A
Sudan184201
Source: IMF and IDA staff estimates.Memorandum items:Bhutan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Lao PDR would not qualify for HIPC Initiative assistance based on end-2010 data, while Nepal, Eritrea, Somalia, and Sudan would.

The authorities were asked to provide sufficiently disaggregated data to allow the simulation of the application of TDRM. While the Laotian authorities provided data, it was insufficiently detailed to allow this.

TDRM stands for traditional debt relief mechanisms.

Based on data for multilateral and Paris Club creditors.

Range of estimates reflects stock flow discrepancies in data on commercial debt.

Based on data for multilateral and Paris Club creditors. No information is available on fiscal revenue.

Source: IMF and IDA staff estimates.Memorandum items:Bhutan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Lao PDR would not qualify for HIPC Initiative assistance based on end-2010 data, while Nepal, Eritrea, Somalia, and Sudan would.

The authorities were asked to provide sufficiently disaggregated data to allow the simulation of the application of TDRM. While the Laotian authorities provided data, it was insufficiently detailed to allow this.

TDRM stands for traditional debt relief mechanisms.

Based on data for multilateral and Paris Club creditors.

Range of estimates reflects stock flow discrepancies in data on commercial debt.

Based on data for multilateral and Paris Club creditors. No information is available on fiscal revenue.

Annex II. HIPC Initiative—Methodological Aspects Related to Determining HIPC Initiative Eligibility

Assessment of potential eligibility: A country is considered potentially eligible for debt relief under the HIPC Initiative if the following conditions are satisfied: (a) it is IDA-only and PRGT eligible and (b) its end-December 2004 debt burden indicators are above the thresholds established under the HIPC Initiative after full application of traditional debt relief mechanisms. The thresholds are 150 percent for the ratio of the present value of debt (PV) to exports of goods and services and 250 percent for the ratio of PV to fiscal revenue. To qualify under the second criterion a country must also have ratios of exports of goods and services to GDP and fiscal revenue to GDP above 30 percent and 15 percent, respectively.

Debt: Debt covered under the Initiative is limited to medium and long-term public and publicly guaranteed external debt with the following exceptions: short-term debt that has been in arrears for more than one year; private sector debt that has previously been covered by Paris Club agreements; debt of public enterprises (defined as at least 50 percent owned by the government) regardless of whether the debt is formally publicly guaranteed; and debt of public enterprises being privatized if that debt remains a liability of the government. Only disbursed and outstanding debt is considered: future disbursements are excluded even if they relate to existing commitments.

Debt Service: Debt service is projected on a loan-by-loan basis and reflects the disbursed and outstanding portion of the loans. When loans are repaid on a commitment basis, debt service is projected using the contractual repayment profile pro-rated by the disbursed amount.

Present Value: The PV is the discounted value of the projected debt service payments. It is used as the basis for calculating the amount of debt relief once full delivery of traditional debt relief is assumed. The currency-specific discount rates used under the HIPC Initiative are the average OECD Commercial Interest Reference Rates (CIRRs) calculated over the six-month period leading up to the cutoff date for the debt stock. For units of account from various multilateral creditors, the discount rate is the weighted average of the CIRRs for the currencies in the basket. The SDR discount rate is used for those currencies for which a CIRR is not available, unless they are formally pegged to a currency for which a CIRR is available, in which case the CIRR of the peg is used.

Traditional Debt Relief: This refers to a Paris Club stock-of-debt operation on Naples terms (with a 67 percent PV reduction on non-ODA debt) and action on at least comparable terms on other official bilateral and commercial debt. It is the basis for which qualification for debt relief is assessed in HIPC Initiative documents even when a country has never rescheduled its debts.

Cut-off date: The date (established at the time of a country’s first Paris Club rescheduling) before which loans must have been contracted in order for their debt service to be eligible for rescheduling. New loans extended after the cut-off date are not subject to future rescheduling. A June 1999 cut-off date (the effective date of the Cologne Agreement) is applied to countries that have not had a Paris Club rescheduling.

Official Development Assistance (ODA): ODA is defined by the OECD as credits (including grant and loan packages) (a) aimed at promoting economic development and welfare of developing countries and, (b) that are concessional in character and contains a grant element of at least 25 percent (using a fixed discount rate of 10 percent). ODA is provided to developing countries and to multilateral institutions by OECD/DAC members and other countries through their official agencies, including state and local governments, or by their executive agencies; ODA is also provided to developing countries by multilateral institutions. Excluded from this category and therefore considered non-ODA are defense related lending, lending on commercial terms and by export credit agencies.

Exports: The exports denominator corresponds to the three-year backward-looking average exports of goods and non-factor services, consistent with the IMF Balance of Payments Manual, 5th edition, 1993. The export base is gross and is not adjusted to reflect any netting out of imported inputs, debt service payments, etc. Worker’s remittances and transit trade (goods that cross frontiers without changing ownership) are excluded from the denominator.

Revenue: Revenue is defined as current central government revenue excluding grants. This is consistent with the objective of releasing government resources from external debt service, which in HIPCs is mostly undertaken by the central government, to spending in priority areas. Information on revenue on a wider basis is not available for most of these countries and use of a broad revenue base only when available would tend to penalize countries with better statistical systems.

Exchange rates: The PV of debt is converted from its currency-specific components into U.S. dollars using the exchange rates prevailing at the end of the base year for the debt stock. In cases where the balance of payments is presented in a currency other than the U.S. dollar, exports are converted to U.S. dollars using the average exchange rate for the corresponding year. The three year export average used as the denominator for the PV of debt-to-exports ratio is derived as a second step after annual exports have been converted into U.S. dollars. For the calculation of the PV of debt-to-revenue ratio, current central government revenue is converted into U.S. dollars using the average exchange rate for the year.

Annex III. Country Status under the Enhanced HIPC Initiative
Table 1.HIPC Pre-Decision-Point Countries
CountryRecent Political DevelopmentsRisk of Debt Distress and Date of the assessmentPRSP StatusIMF Program and Macroeconomic StatusDecision-Point Date
EritreaEritrea’s political situation remains fragile. Border tensions with Ethiopia still remain. Eritrea’s continued support of a Somali militant group associated with Al Qaeda terror network led the UN Security Council to vote for sanctions in December 2009 straining its relationship with its neighbors Djibouti, Kenya, Uganda and Sudan.In debt distress December 2009There is no recent PRSP and no work ongoing towards its preparation.There are no ongoing discussions for a Fund-supported program. The 2009 Article IV Consultation was concluded in December 2009.Uncertain
Kyrgyz RepublicWith the approval of the new Constitution in June 2010, the Kyrgyz Republic changed from the presidential to the parliamentary system. Ms. Roza Otunbaeva was elected as the President for the transition period until January 2012. The Parliamentary elections were held in October 2010 and the new Presidential elections are scheduled for October 30, 2011.Moderate June 2011The new Government that took office in December 2010 has just approved its Medium-Term Development Program for 2012–2014 and submitted to the Parliament for approval.A three year Extended Credit Facility (ECF) arrangement was approved on June 20, 2011. The first review of the performance under the arrangement is expected to be completed in December 2011.No intention*1
SomaliaThe political situation continues to be highly fragile. The Transitional Federal Government lacks popular support and legitimacy.N/AThere is no PRSP in place in Somalia and one is not expected in the near term.Somalia has not had an IMF supported program since 1987. Lack of economic data precludes an assessment of the macroeconomic situation and prospects for Fund re-engagement—either via surveillance or an arrangement—in the foreseeable future are minimal.Uncertain
SudanOn July 9, 2011 South Sudan became independent following the results of a referendum in January 2011. Pending completion of the overall negotiations, the two parties agreed that the North would take on all debt as the continuing state, under two conditions: 1) the parties will undertake a joint outreach to the creditors; 2) the international community will give a "firm commitment" to debt relief. If HIPC Decision point cannot be reached within two-years, the South would take on a portion of the debt, details of which are not yet agreed.In Debt Distress June 2010The authorities are in the process of finalizing an Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (I-PRSP).A Staff-Monitored Program (SMP) for July 2009 – December 2010 expired at end-December 2010. The Board concluded the Second Review under the 2009–2010 SMP on February 9, 2011. Staff is currently discussing a new SMP with the authorities, which finalization awaits for more clarity regarding the relations with South Sudan.Within two years, but starting point unclear.

* The decision-point document was prepared in February 2007 but withdrawn at the request of the Government, based on its intention to not move to decision-point. Based on 2010 debt data, the Kyrgyz Republic appears well below the HIPC thresholds.

* The decision-point document was prepared in February 2007 but withdrawn at the request of the Government, based on its intention to not move to decision-point. Based on 2010 debt data, the Kyrgyz Republic appears well below the HIPC thresholds.

Table 2A:Interim Countries: Summary by Country
CountryPRSP StatusRisk of Debt Distress and Date of the AssessmentIMF ProgramCompletion-Point Date (Planned)
ChadA PRSP covering the period from 2008 to 2011 was approved in April 2008. The PRSP and related Bank-Fund JSAN were discussed by the Bank and the IMF boards in May and June 2010, respectively. Currently, Government is preparing the new PRSP for 2012–2015.Moderate June 2011The last PRGF-supported program, approved in February 2005 and later extended to May 2008, expired without completion of a review. An SMP for April-October 2009 also expired without completion of a review. Progress on fiscal policy and public financial management will be key to discussions of a future SMP.2013
ComorosA PRSP covering the period from 2010 to 2014 was approved in September 2009. The IMF and IDA boards discussed it, along with the corresponding JSAN, in February and March 2010, respectively. The first annual progress report on the implementation of the PRSP was finalized in May 2011.In debt distress May 2010The IMF approved a three year arrangement under the ECF in September 2009. The first review was completed in June 2010.Late – 2012
Cote D’IvoireThe authorities adopted a full PRSP in February 2009. The second annual report which will cover 2 years (2010 and 2011) is expected in the first half of 2012.In debt distress November 2011The 2009 ECF arrangement has been cancelled. An RCF assistance has been provided in July 2011. A Negotiation mission for a new ECF arrangement was in the country in September 2011 and is scheduled for the IMF Board approval in October/November 2011.Mid – 2012
GuineaThe PRSP-II was approved in August 2007 and has been extended to cover 2011–12 while preparing a PRSP III to be launched in the near term.In debt distress December 2010An SMP was approved by the Fund Board in July 2011 and is expected to be succeeded by an ECF program most likely to begin January 1, 2012.Late – 2012
Table 2B:Interim Countries: Status of Completion-Point Triggers
CountryPRSPMacroeconomic StabilityPublic Financial Management (PFM)Social SectorDebt ManagementGovernance/Transparency/AnticorruptionStructural Reforms
Chad1Partially completedWeak progressSlow progress. Some progress in budget preparation, but execution continues to be slow in priority sectors. The public expenditure tracking survey for primary education is being undertaken.Good progress on the education trigger but earlier made progress has been reversed on the health trigger. The quality of spending in health and education sectors remain a problem.N/AEarlier made progress has deteriorated. The implementation of the governance strategy and action plan needs to be accelerated. Chad was accepted in April 2010 as an EITI candidate. However, progress is slow.N/A
ComorosGood progress: the first annual progress report has been transmitted to the IMF and the World Bank in May 2011.Discussions toward conclusion of an IMF ECF review could resume in 2012 once final fiscal data for 2011 are available.Good Progress. The budget execution report is produced, the terms of reference for an integrated public finance management is finalized; a new public procurement code is submitted to the parliament.Slow progress: the progress in the social sector are hard to monitor, namely in the education and health sector.Good progress: the installation of the debt management software is expected to be effective in Spring 2012. Satisfactory report on public debt was produced in June 2011, covering period of 2010. A decree to establish the debt management office has been adopted.Good progress: the civil service reforms are underway. In addition, the government has recently established a new anti-corruption commission.Good progress : the business plan for the privatization of Comoros telecom is underway.
Cote D’IvoireSlow progress on the PRS implementation, due to the post-electoral crisis. A progress report which will cover 2010 and 2011 is planned to be prepared by April 2012.The IMF ECF Program went off-track due to the post-electoral crisis and has been cancelled. Discussions for a new three years ECF supported program are in progress.Good progress; the medium term PFM action plan has been implemented until the crisis in late 2010 and Q120.1. The regulatory entity for public procurement is effectively operational.Good progress on health. Some additional effort is needed to improve the education trigger.Limited progress on quarterly publication of data on external and domestic public and publicly-guaranteed debt. The publication will resume in Q320.1.Good progress; first EITI report has been prepared and is being validated. A second EITI report for the years 2008 and 2009 is on the way.

The MoF is leading a training program on the new procurement code, as well as the rules which govern the public procurement system.
The draft of the cocoa sector reform strategy is currently circulating for comments from donors, the private sector operators and the farmers association.

The Government expects the strategy to be ready for implementati on by December 2011.
GuineaPartially completedThe Fund has agreed an SMP for 2011 as of June 30, 2011 that is intended to pave the way for a new ECF.N/AThere are some measurement issues regarding the triggers in the education and health sectors.N/AProgress has been mixed partly due to political instability since the beginning of 2008.N/A

Assessment of progress in more recent years continues to be constrained by the lack of data covering the years 2006, 2007, and 2008.

Assessment of progress in more recent years continues to be constrained by the lack of data covering the years 2006, 2007, and 2008.

Table 3.HIPC Completion-Point Countries: Progress towards Achieving the MDGs1
CountryEradicate Extreme Poverty and HungerAchieve Universal Primary EducationPromote Gender Equality and Empower WomenReduce Child MortalityImprove Maternal HealthCombat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other DiseasesEnsure Environmental SustainabilityDevelop a Global Partnership for Development
AfghanistanOff trackPossibly on trackOff trackOn trackPossibly on trackOn trackPossibly on trackPossibly on track
BeninOff trackOn trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOn trackOn trackOff track
BoliviaOn trackOff trackOn trackOn trackOn trackOn trackOn trackOff track
Burkina FasoOff trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOn trackOn trackOff track
BurundiOff trackPossibly on trackOn trackOff trackOff trackOn trackOff trackOff track
CameroonOff trackOn trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOff track
CAROff trackOff trackPossibly on trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOff track
Congo, Rep. ofNo informationOn trackOff trackPossibly on trackPossibly on trackNo informationPossibly on trackNo information
DRCNo informationOff trackOff trackOff trackOff trackPossibly on trackPossibly on trackNo information
EthiopiaOn trackOn trackPossibly on trackOn trackPossibly on trackOn trackPossibly on trackOn track
Gambia (the)Off trackPossibly on trackOff trackPossibly on trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOff track
GhanaOn trackOn trackOn trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOn track (except for sanitation)Off track
Guinea -BissauNo informationOn trackOn trackPossibly on trackPossibly on trackPossibly on trackPossibly on trackNo information
GuyanaOff trackOn trackOn trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOff track
HaitiNo informationPossibly on trackPossibly on trackOff trackNo informationOff trackOff trackNo information
HondurasOff trackOn trackOn trackOn trackOff trackOff trackOn trackOff track
LiberiaOff trackPossibly on trackPossibly on trackPossibly on trackPossibly on trackPossibly on trackPossibly on trackNo information
MadagascarOff trackOn trackPossibly on trackOn trackOff trackPossibly on trackPossibly on trackOff track
MalawiOn trackPossibly on trackOff trackOn trackOff trackOn trackOn trackOff track
MaliOff trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOn trackOn track (except for sanitation)No information
MauritaniaOff trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOff track
MozambiqueOn trackOff trackOff trackOn trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOff track
NicaraguaOn trackOn trackPossibly on trackOn trackPossibly on trackOff trackOff track (but recent progress)Off track (but recent progress)
NigerOff trackPossibly on trackOff trackPossibly on trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOff track
RwandaOff trackOn trackOn trackOff trackOff trackOn trackOn trackOff track
STPOff trackOn trackOn trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOff trackOff track
SenegalOff trackOn trackPossibly on trackOff trackOff trackOn trackOn trackOff track
Sierra LeoneNo informationOn trackOn trackNo informationNo informationOn trackNo informationNo information
TanzaniaOff trackOn trackOff trackOn trackOff trackPossibly on trackOff trackOff track
TogoNo informationPossibly on trackOff trackOff trackOff trackPossibly on trackNo informationNo information
UgandaOn trackSlow/Off trackOn trackOff trackOff trackSlow/Off trackSlow/Off trackPartially on track
ZambiaOn trackOn trackOn trackPossibly on trackPossibly on trackPossibly on trackOff trackOff track

The World Bank determines whether a country is on or off track to meet a given MDG by 2015 when at least two observations are available after 1990, with a sufficient number of years separating them. To do so, it compares the progress recorded so far with that needed to reach the MDG, under the assumption that progress becomes increasingly difficult the closer countries get to the goal. Technically, this is equivalent to comparing the annual growth rate between 1990 and today with the constant growth rate required to reach the MDG in 2015 from the situation in 1990.

The World Bank determines whether a country is on or off track to meet a given MDG by 2015 when at least two observations are available after 1990, with a sufficient number of years separating them. To do so, it compares the progress recorded so far with that needed to reach the MDG, under the assumption that progress becomes increasingly difficult the closer countries get to the goal. Technically, this is equivalent to comparing the annual growth rate between 1990 and today with the constant growth rate required to reach the MDG in 2015 from the situation in 1990.

Annex IV. Country Coverage, Data Sources, and Assumptions for the HIPC Initiative and MDRI Costing Exercise

Country Coverage

  • The costing analysis for the 36 post-decision-point countries includes: Afghanistan, Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, and Zambia.
  • The costing analysis for the pre-decision-point countries is based on 3 HIPCs: Eritrea, Somalia, and Sudan.1

Data Sources

Assumptions for the HIPC Initiative and MDRI Costing Exercise

  • Calculations of total costs include costs under the original and enhanced HIPC Initiative frameworks and the MDRI.
  • Cost estimates for the HIPC Initiative are based on debt data after full use of traditional debt-relief mechanisms.
  • The following exchange rates have been used for the MDRI calculations:
    • o IDA and AfDF. The initial MDRI Trust Fund replenishment rate of 1.477380 U.S. dollars per SDR was applied for the period FY07 – FY08. Cost estimates for FY09-FY11 (corresponding to the period covered by the IDA 15 replenishment round) are based on the IDA15 foreign exchange reference rate of 1.524480 U.S. dollars per SDR. Cost estimates for FY11 onward are based on the IDA16 provisional foreign exchange reference rate of 1.50233 U.S. dollars per SDR.
    • o IMF. The exchange rate of the date that debt relief was delivered, and, in cases where debt was not yet delivered, the rate as of end-December 2010 was used.
    • o IaDB. Currency units in U.S. dollars at end-2006.

Update of Cost Estimates in Present Value Terms

The cost of HIPC Initiative assistance calculated in PV terms at the time of the decision-point is discounted to end-2010 using the average interest rate applicable to the debt relief. This rate was estimated at 3.9 percent and corresponds to the implicit long-term interest rate of currencies that comprise the SDR basket over the period 2008–2010, calculated as a 6-month average of the Commercial Interest Reference Rate (CIRR) over this period, weighted by the participation of the currencies in the SDR basket. The same rate was used to calculate MDRI debt relief in end-2010 PV terms.

Table 1.Summary of Debt Service and Poverty Reducing Expenditures 2001–2015 1/(In millions of U.S. dollars, unless otherwise indicated)
200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015
Prel.Projections
Debt Service
Paid/Due after Enhanced HIPC and MDRI 2/3,2663,3333,9334,1374,1723,7553,1333,4122,9062,8872,7832,3552,5482,5653,747
Debt Service Savings from MDRI 3/9531,0091,038710630
Poverty Reducing Expenditures 4/6,5047,5328,81210,93415,10918,72422,86128,88632,41734,90534,31238,58041,61643,54346,791
Average Ratios (in percent)
Debt Service/Exports13.012.411.211.29.66.45.44.94.73.92.92.83.13.83.4
Debt Service/GDP3.12.72.62.52.21.71.31.21.00.90.90.80.91.00.9
Poverty-Reducing Expenditure/Government Revenue 4/44.546.244.642.348.247.145.950.554.152.053.855.257.758.761.2
Poverty-Reducing Expenditure/GDP 4/6.26.56.87.07.88.08.28.69.39.59.510.310.811.411.8
Sources: HIPC country documents, and World Bank and IMF staff estimates.

Data refer to 36 post-decision-point HIPCs, unless specified otherwise.

Debt service paid covers 2001–2010, and debt service due covers 2011–2015. For post-completion point HIPCs, debt service due assumes full HIPC Initiative debt relief, additional debt relief, provided by some Paris Club Creditors on a voluntary basis, and MDRI. For pre-completion-point countries, debt service due includes interim debt relief and full HIPC Initiative and MDRI assistance expected at the projected completion point. See Appendix Table 2 for a detailed breakdown.

Excludes Afghanistan, Benin, Chad, Ethiopia, the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, and Zambia for which data is not avaiable.

As defined in PRSPs; excludes data for years in countries for which data is not available. See Appendix Table 3 for a country breakdown.

Sources: HIPC country documents, and World Bank and IMF staff estimates.

Data refer to 36 post-decision-point HIPCs, unless specified otherwise.

Debt service paid covers 2001–2010, and debt service due covers 2011–2015. For post-completion point HIPCs, debt service due assumes full HIPC Initiative debt relief, additional debt relief, provided by some Paris Club Creditors on a voluntary basis, and MDRI. For pre-completion-point countries, debt service due includes interim debt relief and full HIPC Initiative and MDRI assistance expected at the projected completion point. See Appendix Table 2 for a detailed breakdown.

Excludes Afghanistan, Benin, Chad, Ethiopia, the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, and Zambia for which data is not avaiable.

As defined in PRSPs; excludes data for years in countries for which data is not available. See Appendix Table 3 for a country breakdown.

Table 2.Debt Service of 36 Post-Decision-Point HIPCs, 2001–2015(In millions of U.S. dollars, unless otherwis e indicated)
200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015
Prel.Projections
A. Post-Completion-Point HIPCs Afghanistan
Paid1.17.57.79.211.012.33.019.8
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiativerelief 1/
Due after MDRI13.714.719.033.350.7
In percent of export0.40.40.50.60.60.10.70.40.40.50.91.2
In percent of GDP0.00.20.10.10.10.10.00.10.10.10.10.10.2
Benin
Paid41.044.449.258.037.921.590.037.445.548.4
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiativerelief 1/-
Due after MDRI63.673.476.892.9104
In percent of export11.011.510.110.17.03.49.63.24.54.14.85.15.15.86
In percent of GDP1.61.61.41.40.90.51.60.60.70.70.80.90.91.01.1
Bolivia
Paid289.7329.3343.4340.8403.2404.7395.9470.2428.0578.0
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiativerelief 1/429.7402.8419.7529.6581.0
Due after MDRI380.5349.7362.4457.6491.9
In percent of export19.121.117.513.312.39.38.06.77.88.35.04.24.35.35.5
In percent of GDP3.64.2 423.94.23.53.02.82.53.01.71.41.41.71.7
Burkina Faso
Paid35.133.548.945.744.541.345.747.349.051.2
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative77.089.093.5100.0110.7
Due after MDRI48.862.869.176.085.8
In percent of export13.511.413.48.38.36.26.45.84.63.12.42.73.03.13.3
In percent of GDP1.21.01.20.90.80.70.70.60.60.60.50.60.60.60.7
Burundi
Paid14.228.523.664.831.710.75.63.31.71.5
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiativerelief 1/10.417.619.818.516.9
Due after MDRI4.610.512.514.413.7
In percent of export31.473.647.2101.934.311.56.73.51.91.23.56.78.09.110.0
In percent of GDP2.14.54.09.84.01.20.60.30.10.10.30.60.60.60.6
Cameroon
Paid260.9240.4284.8259.1406.2260.1101.6102.180.454.4
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative102.4101.9107.5120.8155.3
Due after MDRI69.271.185.998.8135.6
In percent of export9.68.88.77.210.05.11.61.41.50.91.01.01.11.11.4
In percent of GDP2.82.22.11.62.41.40.50.40.40.20.30.30.30.30.4
Congo, Democratic Republic of
Paid34.2363.8175.4373.0212.9170.7254.4191.9213.1
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative105.1117.1136.4149.3182.2
Due after MDRI87.997.6111.2120.4153.8
In percent of export2.924.58.815.47.82.63.63.82.40.80.90.91.01.2
In percent of GDP0.66.42.75.22.41.72.21.71.60.60.60.60.60.7
Congo, Republic of
Paid517.9614.9473.0529.2608.4868.6672.8458.1326.3153.1
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative214.4363.6348.8308.8309.9
Due after MDRI208.8357.7342.9302.1304.1
In percent of export23.424.716.015.912.013.110.55.24.91.51.52.62.52.42.5
In percent of GDP18.520.413.511.410.011.28.13.93.41.31.32.22.11.81.8
Central African Republic
Paid32.840.542.646.134.645.561.053.445.079.5
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiativerelief 1/12.224.526.429.237.5
Due after MDRI7.219.521.424.232.5
In percent of export20.525.027.626.420.021.725.424.724.037.82.76.46.56.98.7
In percent of GDP3.54.13.73.62.63.13.62.72.33.90.30.80.80.81.0
Ethiopia 2/
Paid195.7101.386.580.439.841.586.089.279.592.2
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative
Due after MDRI274.2308.5429.5629.0852.1
In percent of export20.010.37.65.42.12.03.52.92.42.34.64.65.67.49.1
In percent of GDP2.41.31.00.80.30.30.40.30.20.30.80.81.01.41.7
The Gambia
Paid20.834.316.823.824.425.326.520.919.319.9
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative
Due after MDRI19.620.120.921.621.8
In percent of export12.820.110.112.011.911.411.59.28.48.58.07.87.77.57.2
In percent of GDP3.46.43.24.13.83.83.22.02.01.91.81.81.81.71.6
Ghana
Paid457.3435.6417.752.5439.1601.6192.4256.9267.2265.0
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative
Due after MDRI327.2277.2291.0374.4436.8
In percent of export19.116.713.515.111.211.83.23.63.52.82.21.71.61.92.3
In percent of GDP6.34.73.83.72.62.90.80.91.00.90.90.60.60.70.8
Guinea-Bissau 3/
Paid1.42.65.76.24.25.15.64.111.33.8
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative2.93.78.415.815.5
Due after MDRI1.11.56.213.613.3
In percent of export2.04.17.67.54.26.04.73.08.72.90.50.73.06.46.1
In percent of GDP0.40.61.21.20.70.90.80.51.40.50.10.10.61.11.1
Guyana
Paid57.145.251.245.335.327.619.022.519.328.9
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli54.661.079.185.490.9
Due after MDRI35.341.549.156.964.1
In percent of export8.66.87.66.25.13.82.32.32.02.62.52.93.33.63.9
In percent of GDP5.13.84.33.62.71.91.11.21.01.31.51.61.71.92.0
Haiti 2/
Paid36.640.767.048.4104.252.165.268.536.118.8
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli
Due after MDRI9.019.137.462.188.2
In percent of export8.39.314.39.517.37.58.38.23.92.30.91.83.24.86.2
In percent of GDP1.01.22.31.42.41.11.11.00.60.30.10.20.40.50.7
Honduras 3/
Paid189.6224.6232.6197.7170.6148.4112.284.7195.589.9
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli199.8204.9202.7
Due after MDRI101.897.392.6
In percent of export4.85.25.43.83.02.51.71.23.41.31.31.11.0
In percent of GDP2.52.92.82.21.81.40.90.61.40.60.60.50.5
Liberia 2/
Paid0.60.60.61.20.20.70.54.2
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli39.958.472.074.471.8
Due after MDRI7.17.06.810.010.7
In percent of export0.40.30.20.30.00.10.10.81.00.80.60.80.6
In percent of GDP0.10.10.10.20.00.10.10.40.60.50.50.60.6
Madagascar 3/
Paid46.754.669.071.268.981.822.363.247.740.6
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli132.1126.9131.0148.1155.6
Due after MDRI81.276.775.488.292.8
In percent of export3.57.75.65.05.15.01.02.52.11.93.32.62.42.52.4
In percent of GDP1.01.21.31.61.41.50.30.70.60.50.90.80.70.80.8
Malawi 3/
Paid93.778.794.8102.7103.186.316.112.812.317.5
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli41.752.461.4
Due after MDRI26.733.040.8
In percent of export19.517.020.019.018.514.52.01.21.21.32.93.44.3
In percent of GDP5.52.93.93.93.62.70.50.30.30.30.40.50.6
Mali 3/
Paid79.067.367.278.257.546.9109.0108.776.081.9
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli153.0139.9158.0167.5172.2
Due after MDRI102.388.2107.0114.1115.1
In percent of export9.06.35.86.54.32.65.74.33.33.53.52.83.13.23.2
In percent of GDP2.62.11.61.61.00.81.61.40.90.90.90.70.80.80.8
Mauritania 3/
Paid33.828.928.922.030.426.424.568.035.160.5
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli111.8100.5
Due after MDRI100.488.1
In percent of export9.58.79.15.04.91.91.73.82.62.83.42.8
In percent of GDP3.02.52.21.51.60.90.71.91.21.72.52.0
Mozambique 3/
Paid27.162.071.858.166.623.335.181.149.866.1
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli114.3121.8144.5
Due after MDRI77.197.4104.0
In percent of export2.85.45.33.33.20.81.22.52.02.32.32.52.4
In percent of GDP0.71.51.51.01.00.30.40.80.50.70.60.70.7
Nicaragua 3/
Paid153.3158.098.376.387.298.3150.2100.0104.698.3
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli165.2194.0206.7243.3
Due after MDRI102.3125.6140.5182.5
In percent of export13.713.97.54.64.44.15.53.43.72.72.42.82.93.5
In percent of GDP3.73.92.41.71.81.92.71.61.71.51.51.71.82.1
Niger 3/
Paid32.648.845.343.131.613.814.519.120.215.4
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli73.885.888.986.887.7
Due after MDRI45.760.468.169.471.9
In percent of export9.914.110.98.15.62.31.91.82.01.33.13.03.02.42.2
In percent of GDP1.82.41.71.50.90.40.30.40.40.30.70.80.80.80.8
Rwanda 3/
Paid22.215.915.519.914510.210.18.89.516.2
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli46.648.559.381.694.0
Due after MDRI38.537.851.173.486.1
In percent of export11.28.68.27.24.42.92.41.31.82.75.34.65.77.47.9
In percent of GDP1.31.00.80.90.60.30.30.20.20.30.60.60.71.01.0
São Tome and Principe 3/
Paid0.71.73.22.39.75.83.32.43.90.7
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli1.71.5
Due after MDRI1.10.9
In percent of export6.311.218.215.461.235.929.817.426.23.24.02.9
In percent of GDP0.91.83.22.28.54.72.31.52.20.30.50.4
Senegal 3/
Paid130.3145.6159.6164.0168.860.761.868.691.1136.0
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli435.7295.0291.6292.2268.1
Due after MDRI346.0210.4208.8210.6185.2
In percent of export9.39.58.77.57.22.52.12.03.13.46.84.03.83.63.0
In percent of GDP2.72.72.32.01.90.60.50.50.71.12.31.31.21.20.9
Sierra Leone
Paid94.214.314.324.525.9118.615.041.115.116.0
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli47.057.154.953.151.0
Due after MDRI19.931.036.938.642.5
In percent of export73.08.76.29.98.95.24.311.04.53.84.21.82.02.22.4
In percent of GDP11.81.51.52.32.11.30.92.10.80.81.00.91.01.11.1
Tanzania 2/3/
Paid92.090.383.2241.7175.2107.276.686.056.0108.5
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli233.1237.3241.1
Due after MDRI60.566.673.2
In percent of export6.46.04.810.56.33.42.11.91.21.90.90.90.9
In percent of GDP0.90.80.71.91.20.70.40.40.30.50.30.30.3
Togo
Paid17.81.42.72.32.53.58.771.046.7l41.5
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli46.352.156.778.6
Due after MDRI13.919.723.944.8
In percent of export4.70.30.50.30.40.61.17.45.13.51.01.31.52.7
In percent of GDP1.30.10.20.10.10.20.32.21.51.30.40.50.61.0
Uganda 2/3/4/
Paid56.362.859.780.594.257.331.822.941.539.6
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli102.3116.5143.3157.2179.6
Due after MDRI34.638.959.170.889.9
In percent of export8.39.08.08.27.83.71.60.50.81.10.91.01.41.51.7
In percent of GDP1.01.00.91.01.00.60.30.20.30.20.20.20.30.30.4
Zambia 3/
Paid138.5122.7191.5373.21165.666.061.697.586.549.3
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli
Due after MDRI111.7102.8138.6174.2229.7
In percent of export13.110.815.217.96.51.61.31.91.90.61.00.91.11.41.8
In percent of GDP3.83.24.46.92.30.60.50.70.70.30.60.50.60.70.8
B. Interim HIPCs
Chad
Paid19.936.452.445.557.269.861.6136.565.359.2
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli
Due after MDRI104.9115.2168.0176.1177.6
In percent of export7.914.47.82.01.82.01.63.12.21.52.02.33.53.83.9
In percent of GDP1.21.81.91.01.01.10.91.60.90.71.11.21.71.71.7
Comoros
Paid2.52.42.64.44.13.56.09.18.45.9
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli4.15.04.85.15.2
Due after MDRI1.62.42.22.22.3
In percent of export7.36.04.98.37.96.59.212.811.07.21.92.52.12.01.9
In percent of GDP1.10.90.81.21.10.91.31.71.61.00.30.40.30.30.3
Cote d’Ivoire
Paid1.9274.5189.5118.072.0240.8318.6243.9269.9
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli778.6284.8429.9530.21,792.4
Due after MDRI778.6261.7397.1496.21,755.9
In percent of export0.03.92.51.40.72.33.02.12.47.22.23.23.812.7
In percent of GDP0.02.01.20.70.41.21.41.11.23.31.01.41.65.2
Guinea 3/
Paid74.988.483.882.7123.7124.1121.6120.176.162.4
Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative reli184.3199.0190.0184.6177.0
Due after MDRI
In percent of export9.311.39.79.613.010.910.18.06.74.6
In percent of GDP2.52.82.42.34.24.42.92.71.71.3
Sources: HIPC country documents, and World Bank and IMF staff estimates.Note: Data corresponding to years of decision and completion points under the enhanced HIPC Initiative are in thin and thick boxes, respectively.

Debt service due after the full use of traditional debt relief and assistance under the enhanced HIPC Initiative. For completion-point HIPCs, figures are after additional bilateral assistance beyond the HIPC Initiative.

Data reported on a fiscal year basis.

Reached decision point in 2000.

Reached completion point in 2000.

Sources: HIPC country documents, and World Bank and IMF staff estimates.Note: Data corresponding to years of decision and completion points under the enhanced HIPC Initiative are in thin and thick boxes, respectively.

Debt service due after the full use of traditional debt relief and assistance under the enhanced HIPC Initiative. For completion-point HIPCs, figures are after additional bilateral assistance beyond the HIPC Initiative.

Data reported on a fiscal year basis.

Reached decision point in 2000.

Reached completion point in 2000.

Table 3.Poverty-Reducing Expenditure of 36 Post-Decision-Point HIPCs 2001–2015 1/(In millions of U.S. dollars, unless otherwise indicated)
200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015
Prel.Projections
A. Post-Completion-Point HIPCs
Afghanistan
In millions of U.S. dollars244.1307.8375.1492.1606.2660.0705.4793.7891.7
In percent of government revenue 3/58.753.455.960.647.041.436.735.434.5
In percent of GDP3.84.03.94.24.23.93.73.83.9
Benin
In millions of U.S. dollars147.8138.2202.1221.9211.5224.0242.7327.4337.3592.2288.4289.6
In percent of government revenue 3/38.629.333.132.828.728.121.225.127.548.720.419.0
In percent of GDP5.94.95.75.54.84.74.44.95.19.03.83.6
Bolivia
In millions of U.S. dollars989.61,018.9941.61,041.31,183.81,528.91,886.22,330.72,471.32 ,9063 ,4173 ,7843 ,9464 ,1004 ,362
In percent of government revenue 3/55.160.456.149.542.740.943.337.344.9464544434242
In percent of GDP12.112.911.611.812.413.314.214.014.0151515151515
Burkina Faso
In millions of U.S. dollars109.8156.8201.1274.8307.2320.0381.6445.3505.6609.7656.1718.0804.5903.0920.6
In percent of government revenue 3/35.439.035.639.046.540.539.044.342.143.544.245.645.445.942.1
In percent of GDP3.94.94.85.75.65.35.65.46.06.86.76.87.17.47.0
Burundi 2/
In millions of U.S. dollars28.530.342.048.858.482.4126.7209.0274.8323.8372.6453.4530.0621.8703.7
In percent of government revenue 3/22.423.833.436.636.547.469.796.9111.0109.9117.7123.0128.7137.6143.4
In percent of GDP4.34.87.17.37.39.013.017.920.721.822.423.825.127.028.6
Cameroon 2/
In millions of U.S. dollars335.6365.0258.2824.1974.91,154.81,442.01,704.61,879.22,079.4
In percent of government revenue 3/20.520.012.035.635.534.436.838.747.755.0
In percent of GDP3.63.41.95.25.96.47.17.28.59.2
Congo, Democratic Republic of
In millions of U.S. dollars480.6599.1727.4736.51889.6980.31,058.81,154.61,251.41,359.6
In percent of government revenue 3/42.640.634.039.436.132.732.731.429.828.9
In percent of GDP5.46.06.36.66.86.46.46.56.56.5
Congo, Republic of 2/
In millions of U.S. dollars142.9194.8293.4382.8619.5769.6851.4923.71,230.31,463.71,686.01,992.82,281.9
In percent of government revenue 3/12.612.913.110.617.815.129.020.617.319.722.226.729.7
In percent of GDP4.14.24.84.97.46.58.97.77.99.010.112.113.5
Central African Republic
In millions of U.S. dollars33.244.263.939.040.0
In percent of government revenue 3/17.913.918.610.510.1
In percent of GDP2.02.23.22.01.8
Ethiopia 2/7/
In millions of U.S. dollars733.4884.01,001.41,180.41,618.62,106.92,542.73,387.83,885.53,503.93,649.14,447.54,591.45,140.75,474.7
In percent of government revenue 3/47.858.954.756.869.575.473.979.681.888.193.994.889.088.386.4
In percent of GDP9.011.311.711.713.213.913.012.712.012.412.713.012.312.412.3
The Gambia 2/
In millions of U.S. dollars19.618.416.321.519.721.729.031.729.229.732.534.837.540.543.2
In percent of government revenue 3/31.130.228.225.621.719.220.820.120.020.721.221.521.320.820.8
In percent of GDP3.33.43.13.73.13.33.53.13.02.82.93.13.23.23.2
Ghana 2/
In millions of U.S. dollars241.3294.0493.6680.7911.01,350.21,408.91,497.61,308.52,796.63,253.63,808.94,470.75,213.05,896.7
In percent of government revenue 3/25.126.531.234.532.948.842.839.131.436.129.929.528.928.427.3
In percent of GDP4.54.86.57.78.510.69.49.08.49.08.78.79.29.810.1
Guinea-Bissau 2/5/
In millions of U.S. dollars10.08.610.714.215.815.716.716.816.418.525.545.849.552.956.8
In percent of government revenue 3/28.325.627.428.331.225.032.124.723.319.625.338.738.438.538.9
In percent of GDP2.42.12.22.62.72.62.42.02.02.22.64.34.44.54.5
Guyana 4/
In millions of U.S. dollars144.3151.0159.5157.2173.8192.3
In percent of government revenue 3/62.465.061.653.757.256.8
In percent of GDP12.812.813.312.613.213.2
Haiti 7/
In millions of U.S. dollars166.6240.3306.0
In percent of government revenue 3/23.330.532.6
In percent of GDP2.53.63.9
Honduras 2/
In millions of U.S. dollars564.9493.5520.8616.8744.0758.1954.0964.21,107.71,113.41,128.11,332.01,519.7
In percent of government revenue 3/48.440.940.533.035.532.537.031.737.329.228.831.934.9
In percent of GDP7.46.36.47.07.77.07.76.97.87.36.57.27.5
Liberia 4/
In millions of U.S. dollars224.9238.6263.0316.7355.2385.6
In percent of government revenue 3/65.065.065.065.065.065.0
In percent of GDP22.720.719.421.323.022.1
Madagascar 2/
In millions of U.S. dollars190.9190.9202.9134.5528.8604.1764.3933.9907.2916.3925.5953.2981.81,011.31,041.6
In percent of government revenue 3/41.851.135.425.6103.692.084.981.397.2117.8158.0124.5153.6127.7145.9
In percent of GDP4.24.33.73.110.511.010.49.910.610.49.99.69.39.08.7
Malawi 4/
In millions of U.S. dollars161.9189.7182.5164.9218.6269.0388.7551.2626.9710.1613.2645.3685.3728.5774.2
In percent of government revenue 3/56.063.052.337.343.249.957.773.065.653.043.442.742.742.742.8
In percent of GDP9.47.17.56.37.68.511.213.513.313.210.110.010.010.010.0
Mali 2/
In millions of U.S. dollars155.4190.0322.5367.4325.7411.1487.2541.2629.3611.7723.0854.61,010.21,194.11,411.4
In percent of government revenue 3/43.442.450.446.037.744.146.045.055.337.539.041.644.548.052.7
In percent of GDP5.15.97.67.45.96.77.37.07.66.56.57.27.98.89.7
Mauritania 2/
In millions of U.S. dollars79.1105.0214.0179.5129.1185.7243.2326.8370.7318.8375.9402.2430.4460.5
In percent of government revenue 3/35.229.754.739.028.723.432.542.749.535.637.137.237.437.7
In percent of GDP7.09.116.612.07.06.66.99.212.28.89.49.39.59.9
Mozambique
In millions of U.S. dollars590.6642.4760.21,007.0899.61,138.81,416.21,990.82,194.52,119.5
In percent of government revenue 3/145.5127.1123.6113.0101.6109.5102.0132.7130.4109.6
In percent of GDP14.515.316.117.713.715.817.420.122.321.6
Nicaragua 2/
In millions of U.S. dollars361.5410.7467.5536.0620.7632.3771.1850.1837.0847.9941.11,012.41,081.41,156.41,129.4
In percent of government revenue 3/70.171.671.572.465.070.871.973.147.548.950.450.951.447.1
In percent of GDP8.810.211.412.012.712.113.813.613.612.913.313.413.513.612.5
Niger
In millions of U.S. dollars169.8221.5280.6291.5339.0376.0430.1401.5353.4626.2702.4783.7860.8992.1
In percent of government revenue 3/67.975.479.085.368.154.765.049.645.565.454.054.354.452.0
In percent of GDP8.28.49.78.69.38.88.07.66.49.69.39.79.910.6
Rwanda 2/
In millions of U.S. dollars90.6105.7109.9128.3178.9231.4286.5356.7422.4689.8659.3835.4926.01,025.01,560.3
In percent of government revenue 3/48.153.751.349.555.061.061.652.363.495.180.392.991.791.5125.0
In percent of GDP5.46.36.06.16.97.47.67.68.112.411.012.913.113.318.7
São Tome and Principe 2/
In millions of U.S. dollars11.910.49.511.013.214.215.217.620.423.727.531.836.9
In percent of government revenue 3/120.484.063.261.174.656.957.668.071.562.864.378.685.3
In percent of GDP15.611.49.710.211.511.410.411.111.811.011.814.315.4
Senegal
In millions of U.S. dollars303.6313.2456.3648.9732.6795.71,010.61,180.41,161.81,290.91,296.01,381.51,472.61,569.81673.3
In percent of government revenue 3/37.030.433.840.946.041.039.949.346.551.245.745.645.645.044.6
In percent of GDP6.25.96.68.18.48.58.98.99.110.09.39.39.39.29.2
Sierra Leone
In millions of U.S. dollars36.757.459.749.953.561.653.4108.693.899.3117.7132.0131.3132.3133.3
In percent of government revenue 3/37.351.952.439.135.535.528.349.448.341.439.632.829.728.226.3
In percent of GDP4.66.26.14.74.44.33.25.65.05.25.63.93.63.63.5
Tanzania 3/7/
In millions of U.S. dollars545.3780.3915.51,067.61,275.91,948.02,344.93,628.65,104.75,918.07,405.38,188.38,924.79,246.210211.4
In percent of government revenue 3/53.773.080.076.381.0114.9108.6117.9154.5171.8209.3209.2205.3191.5190.9
In percent of GDP5.37.27.68.28.712.613.217.623.925.731.432.432.330.630.8
Togo
In millions of U.S. dollars69.264.075.493.5106.7137.6161.4201.2254.9291.6396.0458.1519.6556.90
In percent of government revenue 3/35.432.524.326.633.834.935.844.345.448.756.463.267.367.60
In percent of GDP5.24.34.54.85.06.26.46.38.19.210.711.612.412.5
Uganda 6/7/
In millions of U.S. dollars235.3335.7343.1377.7448.5475.4614.4559.9676.8348.4
In percent of government revenue 3/36.048.147.940.540.139.036.628.837.218.6
In percent of GDP4.05.45.24.84.94.85.23.94.32.0
Zambia
In millions of U.S. dollars45.735.346.8111.11,198.9906.41,109.01,494.01,554.01,037.41,295.91,628.01,664.01,794.11959.9
In percent of government revenue 3/7.05.35.911.274.660.450.070.669.936.034.940.236.535.233.9
In percent of GDP1.30.91.12.016.78.59.610.211.96.46.87.67.06.96.8
B. Interim HIPCs
Chad
In millions of U.S. dollars64.384.8113.0132.4326.0558.0806.4892.8942.7887.41,106.01,233.81,242.11,303.1
In percent of government revenue 3/51.648.648.432.762.352.250.540.484.044.039.546.247.749.4
In percent of GDP3.84.34.13.05.58.811.510.613.810.411.412.412.312.6
Comoros
In millions of U.S. dollars41.639.437.853.6
In percent of government revenue 3/63.151.046.066.9
In percent of GDP7.87.46.69.2
Cote d’Ivoire
In millions of U.S. dollars134.5156.1199.6251.1890.1976.81,178.01,629.41,734.41,790.61,814.82,109.42,278.92,459.1
In percent of government revenue 3/7.47.07.98.633.529.029.240.140.840.856.841.639.938.7
In percent of GDP1.31.41.51.65.45.65.96.97.77.87.67.97.97.9
Guinea 5/
In millions of U.S. dollars102.9131.5121.9116.3114.4112.7177.2227.2238.3322.0297.0312.3340.0374.0
In percent of government revenue 3/30.334.032.331.733.129.329.834.632.851.039.935.534.634.2
In percent of GDP3.44.13.53.23.94.04.35.05.26.96.46.36.46.7
Sources: HIPC country documents, and World Bank and IMF staff estimates.Note: Data corresponding to years of decision and completion points under the enhanced HIPC Initiative are in thin and thick boxes, respectively.

The coverage of poverty-reducing expenditures varies across countries, but is generally consistent with the definition in the PRSP and the budget of each HIPC. In some countries, the definition of poverty-reducing expenditures has evolved over time to include more sectors; therefore, some of the increase in such spending over the 2001–2003 period may reflect changes in the definition. In the majority of countries expenditures on health and education are included but beyond that there are wide variations in the sectoral spending included.

Data refer to health and education spending.

Central government revenue excluding grants.

Currently fiscal data reported by authorities does not allow monitoring of poverty reduction expenditures.

Reached decision point in 2000.

Reached completion point in 2000.

Data reported on a fiscal year basis.

Sources: HIPC country documents, and World Bank and IMF staff estimates.Note: Data corresponding to years of decision and completion points under the enhanced HIPC Initiative are in thin and thick boxes, respectively.

The coverage of poverty-reducing expenditures varies across countries, but is generally consistent with the definition in the PRSP and the budget of each HIPC. In some countries, the definition of poverty-reducing expenditures has evolved over time to include more sectors; therefore, some of the increase in such spending over the 2001–2003 period may reflect changes in the definition. In the majority of countries expenditures on health and education are included but beyond that there are wide variations in the sectoral spending included.

Data refer to health and education spending.

Central government revenue excluding grants.

Currently fiscal data reported by authorities does not allow monitoring of poverty reduction expenditures.

Reached decision point in 2000.

Reached completion point in 2000.

Data reported on a fiscal year basis.

Table 4.HIPC Initiative and MDRI: Committed Debt Relief and Outlook 1/Status as of end-July 2011 (In millions of U.S. dollars)
Decision Point DateCompletion Point DateAssistance under the HIPC InitiativeAssistance Delivered under MDRI 2/Total HIPC and MDRI Assistance
In PV Terms as of Decision Point 3/4/In Nominal TermsIn Nominal TermsIn Nominal Terms
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)=(4)+(5)
32 Post-Completion-Point HIPCs71,76746,793117,702
AfghanistanJul-07Jan-105821,280391,319
BeninJul-00Mar-032624601,1361,596
Bolivia 5/Feb-00Jun-011,3302,0602,8164,876
Burkina Faso 5/6/Jul-00Apr-025539301,2172,147
BurundiAug-05Jan-098331,3661021,468
CameroonOct-00Apr-061,2674,9171,2856,202
Central African RepublicSep-07Jun-095788043011,105
Congo, Dem. Rep. of theJul-03Jul-107,25215,2221,05116,273
Congo, Rep. ofMar-06Jan-101,5751,7382041,942
Ethiopia 6/Nov-01Apr-041,9353,2753,2806,555
Gambia, TheDec-00Dec-0767112383495
GhanaFeb-02Jul-042,1873,5003,8687,368
Guinea-Bissau 6/Dec-00Dec-10489790146790
Guyana 5/Nov-00Dec-036101,3547072,061
HaitiNov-06Jun-091402139591,172
HondurasJun-00Apr-055561,0002,7143,714
Liberia 8/Mar-08Jun-102,7394,6002664,866
MadagascarDec-00Oct-048361,9002,3934,293
Malawi 6/Dec-00Aug-069391,6281,5773,205
Mali 5/Sep-00Mar-035398951,9922,887
MauritaniaFeb-00Jun-026221,1008831,983
Mozambique 5/Apr-00Sep-012,1434,3002,0326,332
NicaraguaDec-00Jan-043,3084,5001,9046,404
Niger 6/Dec-00Apr-046441,1901,0622,252
Rwanda 6/Dec-00Apr-056511,3165121,827
São Tomé and Príncipe 6/Dec-00Mar-0711726369333
SenegalJun-00Apr-044888502,4703,320
Sierra LeoneMar-02Dec-066759946651,659
TanzaniaApr-00Nov-012,0263,0003,8106,810
TogoNov-08Dec-10282360713360
Uganda 5/Feb-00May-001,0271,9503,4935,443
ZambiaDec-00Apr-052,4993,9002,7476,647
4 Interim HIPCs4,6114,611
ChadMay-01170260260
ComorosJun-10145136136
Cote d’IvoireMar-093,0053,4153,415
GuineaDec-00545800800
2 Non-HIPCs 7/182182
Cambodia8282
Tajikistan100100
Total Debt Relief Committed76,37846,976122,495
Sources: HIPC documents, and World Bank and IMF staff estimates.

Committed debt relief under the assumption of full participation of creditors.

Nominal MDRI costs include principal and interest foregone for all multilaterals participating in the Initiative, except IMF, which only include principal. The estimated costs for IMF reflect the stock of debt eligible for MDRI relief, which is the debt outstanding (principal only) as of end-2004 and that has not been repaid by the member and is not covered by HIPC assistance.

Topping-up assistance and assistance provided under the original HIPC Initiative are expressed in PV-terms as of the time of the decision point.

No totals are shown because the amounts are in different PV terms (according to the date of the decision point).

Also reached completion point under the original HIPC Initiative. The assistance includes original debt relief.

Assistance includes topping up at completion point.

IMF MDRI debt relief to Cambodia and Tajikistan.

Liberia received MDRI-type (beyond-HIPC) debt relief at end-June 2010, which was financed from the Liberia Administered Account.

Sources: HIPC documents, and World Bank and IMF staff estimates.

Committed debt relief under the assumption of full participation of creditors.

Nominal MDRI costs include principal and interest foregone for all multilaterals participating in the Initiative, except IMF, which only include principal. The estimated costs for IMF reflect the stock of debt eligible for MDRI relief, which is the debt outstanding (principal only) as of end-2004 and that has not been repaid by the member and is not covered by HIPC assistance.

Topping-up assistance and assistance provided under the original HIPC Initiative are expressed in PV-terms as of the time of the decision point.

No totals are shown because the amounts are in different PV terms (according to the date of the decision point).

Also reached completion point under the original HIPC Initiative. The assistance includes original debt relief.

Assistance includes topping up at completion point.

IMF MDRI debt relief to Cambodia and Tajikistan.

Liberia received MDRI-type (beyond-HIPC) debt relief at end-June 2010, which was financed from the Liberia Administered Account.

Table 5.HIPC Initiative: Cost Estimates to Multilateral Creditors and Status of their Commitments and Delivery to Post-Completion-Point HIPCsStatus as of mid-July 2011 (In millions of U.S. dollars, in end-2010 PV terms)
CreditorsNumber of Completion Point DebtorsHIPC Assistance CostsHIPC Assistance delievered 1/
TotalRelief CommitedIn millions of U.S. dollars, in end-2010 PV TermsPercent of Total CostIn millions of U.S. dollars, in end-2010 PV TermsPercent of Cost
Delivering or Committed to Deliver Debt Relief 2/26,95499.416,47761.1
World Bank Group323212,59246.47,26657.7
African Development Bank (AfDB) Group26264,63917.12,85661.6
International Monetary Fund (IMF)32324,45816.43,44077.2
Inter-American Development Bank (IaDB)551,7156.396656.3
European Union/European Investment Bank (EU/EIB)27279993.781982.0
Central American Bank for Economic Integration (CABEI)227502.837249.7
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)31314501.736380.5
Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa (BADEA)25253161.2154.7
OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID)32322671.0
Islamic Development Bank (IsDB)12111620.613986.2
Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (AFESD)11930.3
Corporación Andina de Fomento (CAF)111360.513297.2
West African Development Bank (BOAD)33810.37794.8
Caricom Multilateral Clearing Facility (CMCF)55890.3
Asian Development Bank (AsDB)11670.233.9
Nordic Development Fund (NDF)99410.12560.8
Fund for the Financial Development of the River Plate Basin (FONPLATA)11360.1
Caribbean Development Bank (CDB)11260.1
Arab Monetary Fund (AMF)11180.1
Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)3190.0
Nordic Investment Bank (NIB)1150.0485.0
East African Development Bank (EADB)2250.0
Shelter Afrique2110.0
Banco Interamericano de Ahorro y Préstamo (BIAPE)1100.0
Have not Indicated Intention to Provide Relief under the HIPC Initiative159.70.600.0
Banque des Etats de l’Afrique Centrale (BEAC)1045.10.200.0
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)8023.40.100.0
Banque de Développement des Etats de l’Afrique Centrale (BDEAC)2012.70.000.0
Eastern and Southern African Trade and Development Bank (PTA Bank)2013.00.000.0
Banque de Dévelopment des Etats des Grands Lacs (BDEGL)2057.80.200.0
Conseil de L’Entente (FEGECE)304.10.000.0
Fondo Centroamericano de Estabilización Monetaria (FOCEM)102.50.000.0
Islamic Solidarity Fund for Development (ISFD)101.00.000.0
Total27,113100.016,47761.1
Sources: HIPC documents, country authorities, and World Bank and IMF staff estimates.

Total delivered assistance to end-2010. The information is based on a survey sent to 35 MDBs in May/June 2011, which was responded by 11.

Estimates bas ed on end-December 2010 data in PV terms.

Sources: HIPC documents, country authorities, and World Bank and IMF staff estimates.

Total delivered assistance to end-2010. The information is based on a survey sent to 35 MDBs in May/June 2011, which was responded by 11.

Estimates bas ed on end-December 2010 data in PV terms.

Table 6A.Status of Delivery of HIPC Initiative and MDRI Assistance by the World BankStatus as of end-September 2011 (In millions of U.S. dollars)
World Bank Assistance under the HIPC InitiativeAssistance under the MDRI (IDA only)Total Committed Assistance under the HIPC Initiative and MDRI in end-2010 PV TermsTotal Delivered Assistance under the HIPC Initiative and MDRI in end-2010 PV Terms
Committed Assistance in Nominal TermsCommitted Assistance in PV Terms as of Decision PointCommitted Assistance in end-2010 PV TermsDelivered Assistance in end-2010 PV Terms 1/Delivered Assistance in Nominal Terms 2/Delivered Assistance in end-2010 PV Terms
(I)(II)(III)(IV)(V)(VI)(III) + (VI)(IV) + (VI)
32 Post-Completion-Point HIPCs
TOTAL 3/15,653.112,591.87,266.131,667.919,715.331,878.126,552.3
Afghanistan125.876.085.212.838.620.1105.332.9
Benin124.384.4123.794.5703.4474.1597.7568.6
Bolivia 4/287.2197.4289.1231.11,554.71,029.51,318.61,260.6
Burkina Faso 4/5/419.5231.7339.5240.5755.8472.3811.8712.8
Burundi774.8425.2514.6130.764.739.8554.5170.6
Cameroon297.0176.1258.0152.1838.5526.9784.9679.0
Central African Republic291.8206.9241.0107.0187.4122.7363.7229.6
Congo, Dem. Rep. of1,435.4878.71,148.0602.9895.1449.91,598.01,052.9
Congo, Republic of67.447.056.917.8179.1106.7163.7124.6
Ethiopia 5/1,288.4807.21,138.3509.82,398.31,337.52,475.81,847.3
Gambia, The35.922.332.719.6201.8130.8163.5150.4
Ghana1,445.7781.61,102.1516.83,065.81,924.33,026.42,441.1
Guinea-Bissau 5/263.7116.7177.766.873.436.2177.766.8
Guyana 4/132.870.2102.869.0193.7125.2228.0194.2
Haiti54.552.861.561.8470.2319.8381.3381.6
Honduras171.697.8143.2156.21,214.2781.0924.2937.2
Liberia394.1373.6403.2417.070.649.4452.6466.4
Madagascar444.4256.2375.4213.91,814.51,160.31,535.61,374.2
Malawi 5/993.5538.7789.3342.61,260.6732.91,522.21,075.5
Mali 4/291.8184.1269.8216.31,293.7850.61,120.41,066.9
Mauritania172.899.9146.386.4563.2354.9501.2441.3
Mozambique 4/1,055.1438.6642.5657.61,342.3873.51,516.01,531.1
Nicaragua382.6190.9279.6119.5791.1451.1730.8570.7
Niger 5/410.1231.0338.4165.3765.1443.3781.7608.6
Rwanda 5/709.4353.2517.5202.6366.9188.1705.5390.6
São Tomé and Príncipe 5/61.129.843.617.226.515.158.732.3
Senegal163.9123.6181.1181.81,897.81,283.91,465.01,465.7
Sierra Leone234.5123.4167.581.2395.1224.2391.8305.4
Tanzania1,157.1694.51,017.5579.92,882.71,827.92,845.42,407.7
Togo98.0101.5109.6106.2588.2392.9109.6106.2
Uganda 4/983.6527.8773.3540.52,847.81,826.72,600.02,367.2
Zambia885.2493.2722.6348.61,927.21,143.81,866.41,492.4
4 Interim HIPCs
TOTAL 1/824.4799.0438.7799.0438.7
Comoros66.145.146.81.346.81.3
Côte d’Ivoire412.7402.3434.2289.2434.2289.2
Chad 6/106.768.196.141.296.141.2
Guinea 6/238.9151.4221.9107.0221.9107.0
Total Debt Relief Committed 1/16,477.513,390.97,704.831,667.919,715.332,677.126,991.0
Sources: HIPC documents, and World Bank staff estimates.

Total delivered HIPC assistance to end-2010.

Nominal MDRI costs include principal and interest foregone.

The total amounts shown are only indicative, as they represent the sum of individual commitments expressed in different PV terms, corresponding to the time of the decision point of each HIPC.

Also reached completion point under the original HIPC Initiative. The assistance includes original debt relief.

The assistance includes topping-up at completion point.

Countries that reached the interim period HIPC debt relief limit. For these countries , the committed assistance in nominal terms will be modified at completion point.

Sources: HIPC documents, and World Bank staff estimates.

Total delivered HIPC assistance to end-2010.

Nominal MDRI costs include principal and interest foregone.

The total amounts shown are only indicative, as they represent the sum of individual commitments expressed in different PV terms, corresponding to the time of the decision point of each HIPC.

Also reached completion point under the original HIPC Initiative. The assistance includes original debt relief.

The assistance includes topping-up at completion point.

Countries that reached the interim period HIPC debt relief limit. For these countries , the committed assistance in nominal terms will be modified at completion point.

Table 6B.World Bank Group Debt Service after HIPC Initiative and MDRI Debt Relief, 2000–2015(In millions of U.S. dollars)
2000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015
Actual 1/Projected 1/
Debt Service before HIPC Initiative Debt Relief
Afghanistan---31455666677101719
Benin15141416192122242527293032333436
Bolivia31212327333537404552565963697881
Burkina Faso14101416202324262729303541434547
Burundi13141619202522232727293132343536
Cameroon921158874595789464144444545454745
Central African Republic 2/990---66151616181919202020
Chad9151112152228226826262829313335
Comoros--------44444455
Congo, Dem. Rep. of 2/--32943476037536259616070828888
Congo, Republic of12821211996888789101113
Côte d’Ivoire 2/--------307389756968687073
Ethiopia343843556773768096104108123130138143148
Gambia, The444566677991010101111
Ghana5763707791102104117128138146160170176182191
Guinea19222226283233364132484953535354
Guinea-Bissau665677891010111212131313
Guyana768666666789991010
Haiti104--15218202020212121202022
Honduras636558454111045434441354044475161
Liberia 2/-------42244488777
Madagascar28323238454852586671768386889498
Malawi36383743485154576168727678838586
Mali23212125313436404346505760606365
Mauritania1291011131516172021242628293032
Mozambique15111216252830333641505560657075
Nicaragua12121012161819212327293035363840
Niger16171518202226293233343739404142
Rwanda12151619212325262830323637404042
São Tomé and Príncipe1122222232333344
Senegal36342936444649556268758285868791
Sierra Leone4579121314141415161618212324
Tanzania68606979939497108115122140155165170181188
Togo 2/-------982628262828282828
Uganda35344255697575809098108120134141146150
Zambia273435395051556064697383869296102
TOTAL719809105287096411671182170016751789158117131817190319982082
Debt Service after HIPC Initiative Debt Relief
Afghanistan---3145542224451012
Benin12779111214151618192021222736
Bolivia31211414202122232733353841466181
Burkina Faso11378111313161718192327293032
Burundi1314161920172243344567
Cameroon92866958595778302427272829293029
Central African Republic990----137677782020
Chad9116791621186826262829212331
Comoros--------44211122
Congo, Dem. Rep. of---2815260121922181723313838
Congo, Republic of12821211993444445667
Côte d’Ivoire--------5097646934343565
Ethiopia34361826361615172529314042464953
Gambia, The4223356746667777
Ghana576337324249475663707585919499106
Guinea19111114161918223732484633333441
Guinea-Bissau5101222233311111
Guyana7454433334455566
Haiti104--1-16121915142121202022
Honduras57464545419216181922233144475161
Liberia-------5544488777
Madagascar28171721272932364247515760626771
Malawi36211822262729111214161717192021
Mali21111113182022252730333841414465
Mauritania734578891112151618181921
Mozambique8569161820222538505560657075
Nicaragua127236778912141517181920
Niger16868878101112121415151617
Rwanda12324663455688101011
São Tomé and Príncipe1000010000111111
Senegal31201425332830344045698285868791
Sierra Leone45323444555578910
Tanzania40222633454647556165789198102111119
Togo--------2628262828282828
Uganda2623283542464650586572839399103106
Zambia27151314211717202427323838404245
TOTAL65156039950256262655661777784791510331062111112101365
Debt Service after HIPC Initiative Debt Relief and MDRI
Afghanistan---314554222334911
Benin1277911127222334457
Bolivia3121141420211223455681113
Burkina Faso11378111384566910111214
Burundi1314161920172241122344
Cameroon92866958595771171011111212131310
Central African Republic990----1373000111
Chad9116791621186826262829556
Comoros--------44211000
Congo, Dem. Rep. of---281526012192214611172323
Congo, Republic of12821211993444211222
Côte d’Ivoire--------5097646925444
Ethiopia3436182636161061012142123262933
Gambia, The4223356711112222
Ghana5763373242492491112142022242631
Guinea19111114161918223732484619555
Guinea-Bissau5101222233300000
Guyana7454432000000000
Haiti104--1-16121910000001
Honduras574645454192933347781020
Liberia-------5544244444
Madagascar28171721272918689101215162124
Malawi36211822262719111333456
Mali2111111318201234571011111213
Mauritania7345785222345668
Mozambique85691618127810151822222528
Nicaragua12723674233434456
Niger16868874222234456
Rwanda12324662222245667
São Tomé and Príncipe1000010000000000
Senegal31201425332816568111517171820
Sierra Leone4532344111112233
Tanzania40222633454626111416222932344047
Togo--------26282601111
Uganda262328354246255810131923252728
Zambia27151314211792445788910
TOTAL651560399502562626375243355359345369335300348397
Sources: HIPC country documents, and World Bank staff estimates.

From 2001 to 2010, information corresponds to debt service actually paid to the World Bank. Debt service projections from 2011 onwards are based on stocks as of end-December 2010.

Debt Service before HIPC Initiative Debt Relief includes accumulated arrears for Central African Republic – USD 65.9 mil, Democratic Republic of Congo -USD 328.6 mil., Côte d’Ivoire -USD 256.9 mil., Haiti-USD 52.3 mil, Liberia – USD 366.9 mil., and Togo – USD 98.0 mil.

Sources: HIPC country documents, and World Bank staff estimates.

From 2001 to 2010, information corresponds to debt service actually paid to the World Bank. Debt service projections from 2011 onwards are based on stocks as of end-December 2010.

Debt Service before HIPC Initiative Debt Relief includes accumulated arrears for Central African Republic – USD 65.9 mil, Democratic Republic of Congo -USD 328.6 mil., Côte d’Ivoire -USD 256.9 mil., Haiti-USD 52.3 mil, Liberia – USD 366.9 mil., and Togo – USD 98.0 mil.

Table 7A.Implementation of the HIPC Initiative and MDRI by the IMF(In millions of SDRs; as of end-May 2011)
HIPC Initiative AssistanceMDRI Debt Relief 2/Total HIPC and MDRI Debt Relief Delivered
MemberDecision PointCompletion PointAmount CommittedAmount Disbursed into HIPC Umbrella Account 1/Delivery dateMDRI Trusts
(A)(B)(A+B)
32 Completion Point HIPCs2,3332,5132,3084,821
AfghanistanJul. 2007Jan. 2010----Jul. 2007----
BeninJul. 2000Mar. 20031820Jan. 20063454
BoliviaFeb. 2000Jun. 200162 3/65Jan. 2006155220
Burkina FasoJul. 2000Apr. 200244 3/46Jan. 200657103
BurundiAug. 2005Jan. 20091922Jan. 2009931
CameroonOct. 2000Apr. 20062934Apr. 2006149183
Central African RepublicSep. 2007Jun. 20091718Jul. 2009220
Congo, Dem. Rep. ofJul. 2003Jul. 2010280331Jul. 2010-331
Congo, Republic ofMar. 2006Jan. 201056Jan. 2010511
EthiopiaNov. 2001Apr. 20044547Jan. 200680126
Gambia, TheDec. 2000Dec. 200722Dec. 2007710
GhanaFeb. 2002Jul. 20049094Jan. 2006220314
Guinea-BissauDec. 2000Dec. 201099Dec. 201009
GuyanaNov. 2000Dec. 200357 3/60Jan. 20063291
HaitiNov. 2006Jun. 200922-- 4/--2
HondurasJun. 2000Apr. 20052326Jan. 200698125
LiberiaMar. 2008Jun. 2010441452Jun. 2010116 5/568
MadagascarDec. 2000Oct. 20041516Jan. 2006128145
MalawiDec. 2000Aug. 20063337Sep. 20061552
MaliSep. 2000Mar. 200346 3/49Jan. 200662112
MauritaniaFeb. 2000Jun. 20023538Jun. 20063069
MozambiqueApr. 2000Sep. 2001107 3/108Jan. 200683191
NicaraguaDec. 2000Jan. 20046471Jan. 200692163
NigerDec. 2000Apr. 20043134Jan. 20066094
RwandaDec. 2000Apr. 20054751Jan. 20062071
São Tomé and PríncipeDec. 2000Mar. 200711Mar. 200712
SenegalJun. 2000Apr. 20043438Jan. 200695133
Sierra LeoneMar. 2002Dec. 2006100107Dec. 200677183
TanzaniaApr. 2000Nov. 20018996Jan. 2006207303
TogoNov. 2008Dec. 20100.20.2----0.2
UgandaFeb. 2000May. 2000120 3/122Jan. 200676198
ZambiaDec. 2000Apr. 2005469508Jan. 2006398907
4 Decision point HIPCs672929
ChadMay. 2001Floating1499
ComorosJun. 2010Floating3----
Côte d’IvoireMar. 2009Floating251010
GuineaDec. 2000Floating241010
1 HIPC under the Original HIPC Initiative
Côte d’IvoireMar. 1998--17 3/6/----
2 Non-HIPCs126126
Cambodia--------Jan. 20065757
Tajikistan--------Jan. 20066969
Total2,4162,5422,4344,976
Source: International Monetary Fund.

Includes interest on amounts committed under the enhanced HIPC Initiative.

Excludes remaining HIPC Initiative assistance delivered.

Includes commitment under the original HIPC Initiative.

Haiti received from the Post-Catastrophe Debt Relief Trust SDR 178 million on July 21, 2010.

Liberia received MDRI-type (beyond-HIPC) debt relief at end-June 2010, which was financed from the Liberia Administered Account.

Côte d’Ivoire reached its decision point under the original HIPC Initiative in 1998; but did not reach its completion point under the original HIPC Initiative.

Source: International Monetary Fund.

Includes interest on amounts committed under the enhanced HIPC Initiative.

Excludes remaining HIPC Initiative assistance delivered.

Includes commitment under the original HIPC Initiative.

Haiti received from the Post-Catastrophe Debt Relief Trust SDR 178 million on July 21, 2010.

Liberia received MDRI-type (beyond-HIPC) debt relief at end-June 2010, which was financed from the Liberia Administered Account.

Côte d’Ivoire reached its decision point under the original HIPC Initiative in 1998; but did not reach its completion point under the original HIPC Initiative.

Table 7B.IMF HIPC Initiative and MDRI Debt Relief, 1998–2011 1/(In millions of US dollars; as of end-May 2011)
19981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011Total
Jan-May
HIPC Initiative debt relief
Afghanistan---------------
Benin--2.44.74.86.05.12.32.9-----28.2
Bolivia5.510.79.78.610.49.718.814.49.0-----96.7
Burkina Faso--2.96.06.014.317.114.67.5-----68.3
Burundi-------0.10.10.10.132.9--33.3
Cameroon--1.21.20.40.05.11.339.8-----49.0
Central African Republic----------5.522.7--28.1
Chad---1.82.84.01.22.00.00.00.00.00.0-11.9
Comoros---------------
Congo, Dem. Rep. of-----0.81.71.70.90.00.022.5467.6-495.2
Congo, Republic of----------0.10.19.6-9.7
Cote d’Ivoire-----------7.87.7-15.5
Ethiopia---0.75.35.63.96.047.7-----69.2
Gambia, The ---0.00.00.10.00.00.03.5----3.6
Ghana----9.518.920.324.466.8-----139.9
Guinea---3.11.22.20.40.00.01.16.50.1--14.7
Guinea Bissau---0.70.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.013.6-14.3
Guyana-7.78.510.47.29.313.811.319.8-----88.0
Haiti--------0.00.10.23.3--3.6
Honduras---1.34.60.05.713.413.6-----38.5
Liberia----------17.610.2642.5-670.3
Madagascar---0.91.94.11.72.612.9-----24.1
Malawi---2.90.02.54.23.841.3-----54.8
Mali--0.76.78.911.314.012.418.6-----72.5
Mauritania--5.07.910.411.08.44.96.6-----54.2
Mozambique-14.029.726.517.212.113.615.734.6-----163.4
Nicaragua----0.92.69.024.071.7-----108.1
Niger---0.51.44.27.610.726.1-----50.6
Rwanda---8.64.30.04.78.147.9-----73.6
São Tomé and Príncipe---------1.4----1.4
Senegal--1.94.34.47.214.814.98.2-----55.7
Sierra Leone----30.633.322.06.061.0-----152.9
Tanzania--15.419.420.917.116.210.939.8-----139.8
Togo----------0.00.10.2-0.3
Uganda8.215.527.626.622.123.125.017.217.5-----182.8
Zambia---170.4155.1165.52.4229.06.1-----728.4
TOTAL13.747.9105.0313.1330.3364.9236.8451.7600.36.230.099.71 ,141.3-3,740.8
IMF MDRI debt relief
To HIPCs
Afghanistan---------------
Benin--------49.3-----49.3
Bolivia--------223.7-----223.7
Burkina Faso--------82.4-----82.4
Burundi-----------13.4--13.4
Cameroon--------219.4-----219.4
Central African Republic-----------2.9--2.9
Chad---------------
Comoros---------------
Congo, Dem. Rep. of---------------
Congo, Republic of------------7.5-7.5
Côte dTvoire--------------
Ethiopia--------115.1-----115.1
Gambia, The---------11.6----11.6
Ghana--------317.9-----317.9
Guinea---------------
Guinea Bissau---------------
Guyana--------45.6-----45.6
Haiti 2/---------------
Honduras--------141.9-----141.9
Liberia 3/------------177.3-177.3
Madagascar--------185.6-----185.6
Malawi--------21.6-----21.6
Mali--------90.2-----90.2
Mauritania--------44.5-----44.5
Mozambique--------120.0-----120.0
Nicaragua--------132.6-----132.6
Niger--------86.4-----86.4
Rwanda--------29.1-----29.1
São Tomé and Príncipe---------1.6----1.6
Senegal--------136.9-----136.9
Sierra Leone--------115.2-----115.2
Tanzania--------299.0-----299.0
Togo---------------
Uganda--------109.6-----109.6
Zambia--------575.7-----575.7
-
To non-HIPCs-
Cambodia--------82.1-----82.1
Tajikistan--------100.1-----100.1
TOTAL--------3,324.013.2-16.4184.8-3,538.3
Source: International Monetary Fund.

The figures in this table were converted from SDR amounts using annual average US$/SDR exchange rates for the HIPC disbursements and the exchange rate on the date of delivery of final debt relief disbursement.

Haiti also received from the Post-Catastrophe Debt Relief Trust SDR 178 million on July 21, 2010.

Liberia received MDRI-type (beyond-HIPC) debt relief at end-June 2010, which was financed from the Liberia Administered Account.

Source: International Monetary Fund.

The figures in this table were converted from SDR amounts using annual average US$/SDR exchange rates for the HIPC disbursements and the exchange rate on the date of delivery of final debt relief disbursement.

Haiti also received from the Post-Catastrophe Debt Relief Trust SDR 178 million on July 21, 2010.

Liberia received MDRI-type (beyond-HIPC) debt relief at end-June 2010, which was financed from the Liberia Administered Account.

Table 8A.Status of Delivery of HIPC Initiative and MDRI Assistance by the African Development Bank (AfDB) GroupStatus as of end-July 2011 (In millions of U.S. dollars)
AfDB Group Assistance under the HIPC InitiativeAssistance under the MDRI (AfDF only)Total Committed Assistance under the HIPC Initiative and MDRI in end-2010 PV TermsTotal Delivered Assistance under the HIPC Initiative and MDRI in end-2010 PV Terms
Committed Assistance in PV Terms as of Decision PointCommitted Assistance in end-2010 PV TermsDelivered Assistance in end-2010 PV Terms 1/Delivered Assistance in Nominal Terms 2/Delivered Assistance in end-2010 PV Terms
(I)(II)(III)(IV)(V)(II) + (V)(III) + (V)
26 Post-Completion-Point HIPCs 3/
TOTAL3,410.74,638.62,855.77,672.84,218.88,755.06,972.1
Benin37.655.053.7389.4229.8284.8283.5
Burkina Faso81.9119.974.4385.7204.8324.7279.2
Burundi150.2181.838.029.312.8194.650.8
Cameroon78.8115.5111.0234.0122.5238.0233.6
Central African Republic84.798.712.3114.067.2165.979.5
Congo, Dem. Rep. of1,009.71,319.2829.9155.578.01,397.2907.9
Congo, Republic of 4/40.048.448.49.96.855.255.2
Ethiopia331.2467.1269.5792.7410.5877.6680.0
Gambia, The15.823.216.2171.497.9121.1114.1
Ghana131.2185.0159.4516.8292.1477.0451.5
Guinea-Bissau72.4110.141.760.129.2110.141.7
Liberia 4/237.2256.0256.019.212.8268.8268.8
Madagascar60.188.069.1408.4230.5318.4299.6
Malawi119.5175.073.7310.2157.7332.7231.3
Mali69.1101.296.7618.6366.7467.9463.4
Mauritania72.8106.699.6280.2160.1266.7259.7
Mozambique149.5219.132.2580.3314.7533.8346.9
Niger47.970.230.6218.7113.1183.4143.8
Rwanda108.5159.064.5122.765.4224.4129.9
São Tomé and Príncipe40.859.819.541.820.780.540.3
Senegal56.983.379.5449.6261.7345.0341.3
Sierra Leone43.458.924.8158.882.1141.1106.9
Tanzania124.9183.0114.4654.4352.2535.2466.6
Togo 4/17.919.419.4124.573.219.419.4
Uganda82.6121.075.0561.9314.7435.7389.7
Zambia146.1214.1146.2264.6141.5355.6287.6
4 Interim HIPCs 3/
TOTAL355.4423.5108.8423.5108.8
Chad37.052.120.152.120.1
Comoros34.635.935.935.935.9
Côte d’Ivoire 4/208.5225.10.0225.10.0
Guinea75.3110.452.8110.452.8
Total Debt Relief Committed3,766.15,062.12,964.57,672.84,218.89,178.57,080.9
Sources: African Development Bank Group, World Bank and IMF staff estimates.

Total delivered enhanced HIPC assistance to end 2010.

Nominal MDRI costs include principal and interest foregone.

Includes only HIPCs that owe debt to AfDB Group.

The total amount of HIPC Initiative debt relief has been provided through an arrears clearance operation in Congo, Rep. of in 2004; Côte d’Ivoire in 2009; Liberia in 2007; Togo in 2008.

Sources: African Development Bank Group, World Bank and IMF staff estimates.

Total delivered enhanced HIPC assistance to end 2010.

Nominal MDRI costs include principal and interest foregone.

Includes only HIPCs that owe debt to AfDB Group.

The total amount of HIPC Initiative debt relief has been provided through an arrears clearance operation in Congo, Rep. of in 2004; Côte d’Ivoire in 2009; Liberia in 2007; Togo in 2008.

Table 8B.AfDB Group Debt Service after HIPC Initiative and MDRI Debt Relief, 2000–2015(In millions of U.S. dollars)
2000200120022003200420052006200720082009