Article VIII, Section 5
- International Monetary Fund. Legal Dept.
- Published Date:
- September 2019
Furnishing of Information
Strengthening the Effectiveness of Article VIII, Section 5
1. Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 5, the Fund decides that all members shall provide the information listed in Annex A to this decision, which is necessary for the Fund to discharge its duties effectively. Members shall provide the data specified in Annex A for the periods commencing after December 31, 2004, except as provided in paragraph 1(a). Reviews of Annex A shall be conducted together with reviews of data provision to the Fund for surveillance purposes, and the next review of Annex A and data provision to the Fund for surveillance purposes shall take place no later than April 30, 2013.11
(a) Members shall provide the data specified in paragraph (viii) of Annex A for the periods commencing after December 31, 2008.
2. When a member fails to provide information to the Fund as specified in Article VIII, Section 5 or in a decision of the Fund adopted pursuant to that Article including information listed in Annex A (hereinafter information required under Article VIII, Section 5), the procedural framework set forth in paragraphs 5 through 17 below shall apply. Failure to provide information includes both the nonprovision of information and the provision of inaccurate information.
3. A member has an obligation to provide information required under Article VIII, Section 5 to the best of its ability. Therefore, there is no breach of obligation if the member is unable to provide information required under Article VIII, Section 5 or to provide more accurate information than the information it has provided. However, a member that is unable to provide final data is obligated to provide provisional data to the best of its ability until it is in a position to provide the Fund with final data. When assessing a member’s ability to provide information, the Fund will give the member the benefit of any doubt.
4. In the context of performance criteria associated with the use of the Fund’s general resources, a member may be found in breach of its obligation under Article VIII, Section 5 only if (i) it has reported that a performance criterion was met when in fact it was not, or that a performance criterion was not observed by a particular margin and it is subsequently discovered that the margin of non-observance was greater than originally reported, and (ii) a purchase was made on the basis of the information provided by the member, or the information was reported to the Executive Board in the context of a review which was subsequently completed or of a decision of the Executive Board to grant a waiver for non-observance of the relevant performance criterion.
Procedures Prior to Report by the Managing Director to the Executive Board
5. Whenever it appears to the Managing Director that a member is not providing information required under Article VIII, Section 5, the Managing Director shall call upon the member to provide the required information; before making a formal representation to the member, the Managing Director shall inform, and enlist the cooperation of, the Executive Director for the member. If the member persists in not providing such information and has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Managing Director that it is unable to provide such information, the Managing Director shall notify the member of his intention to make a report to the Executive Board under Rule K-l for breach of obligation unless, within a specified period of not less than a month, such information is provided or the member demonstrates to his satisfaction that it is unable to provide such information.
6. Whenever it appears to the Managing Director that a member has provided inaccurate data on information required under Article VIII, Section 5, the Managing Director shall consult with the member to assess whether the inaccuracy is due to a lack of capacity on the part of the member; provided however, that in de minimis cases, as defined in paragraph 1 of Decision No. 13849, the preliminary communications and consultations with the member may be conducted by the Area Department. If, after the consultation with the member, the Managing Director finds no reason to believe that the inaccuracy is due to a lack of capacity on the part of the member, he shall notify the member of his intention to make a report to the Executive Board for breach of obligation under Rule K-l unless the member demonstrates to his satisfaction within a period of not less than one month that it was unable to provide more accurate information.
7. If the Managing Director concludes that the nonprovision of information or the provision of inaccurate information is due to the member’s inability to provide the required information in a timely and accurate fashion, he may so inform the Executive Board. In that case, the Executive Board may decide to apply the provisions of paragraph 10 below.
Report by the Managing Director
8. After the expiration of the period specified in the Managing Director’s notification to the member, the Managing Director shall make a report to the Executive Board under Rule K-l for breach of obligation, unless the Managing Director is satisfied that the member’s response meets the requirements specified in his notification. The report shall identify the nature of the breach and include the member’s response (if any) to the Managing Director’s notification, and may recommend the type of remedial actions to be taken by the member.
Consideration of the Report
9. Within 90 days of the issuance of the Managing Director’s report, the Executive Board will consider the report with a view to deciding whether the member has breached its obligations. Before reaching a decision, the Executive Board may request from the staff and the authorities additional clarification of the facts respecting the alleged breach of obligation; the Executive Board will specify a deadline for the provision of such clarification.
10. If the Executive Board finds that the member’s failure to provide information required under Article VIII, Section 5 is due to its inability to provide the information in a timely and accurate fashion, the Executive Board may call upon the member to strengthen its capacity to provide the required information and ask the Managing Director to report periodically on progress made by the member in that respect. The member may request technical assistance from the Fund.
11. (a) If the Executive Board finds that the member has breached its obligation, the Executive Board may call upon the member to prevent the recurrence of such a breach in the future and to take specific measures to that effect. Such measures may include the implementation of improvements in the member’s statistical systems or any other measures deemed appropriate in view of the circumstances.
(b) In addition, if the Executive Board finds that the member is still not providing the required information, the Executive Board will call upon the member to provide such information.
(c) The Executive Board will specify a deadline for taking any remedial actions specified under (a) and (b); in principle, the deadline will not exceed 90 days for actions specified under (b). The decision may note the intention of the Managing Director to recommend the issuance of a declaration of censure if the specified actions are not implemented within the specified period. In order to assist the Executive Board in identifying the appropriate actions to address a breach of obligation under Article VIII, Section 5, the member may, before the Board meeting, provide the Executive Board with a statement specifying the remedial actions it intends to take and a proposed timeframe. The member may also request technical assistance from the Fund.
(d) At the expiration of the period specified by the Executive Board, the Managing Director shall report to the Executive Board on the status of the specified actions. If the member has not taken the specified actions within the specified period, and depending on the circumstances of such failure, the Managing Director may recommend and the Executive Board may decide: (1) to extend the period before further steps under the procedural framework are taken; (2) to call upon the member to take additional remedial actions within a specified timeframe; or (3) to issue a declaration of censure against the member.
Declaration of Censure
12. If a member fails to implement the actions specified by the Executive Board before the established deadline, the Managing Director may recommend and the Executive Board may decide to issue a declaration of censure. Before the adoption of a declaration of censure, the Executive Board may issue a statement to the member setting out its concerns and giving the member a specified period to respond.
13. The declaration of censure will identify the breach of obligation under Article VIII, Section 5 and the specified remedial actions the member has failed to take within the specified timeframe. The declaration may specify a new deadline for the implementation by the member of the specified remedial actions; in addition, the declaration may identify further remedial actions for the member to implement before the specified deadline. It will note that the member’s failure to implement any of the actions called for in the declaration within the specified timeframe may result in the issuance of a complaint for ineligibility under Article XXVI(a) and the imposition of this measure. At the expiration of the period specified by the Executive Board, the Managing Director shall report to the Executive Board on the status of the specified actions.
Sanctions under Article XXVI
14. Following the adoption of a declaration of censure, if the Executive Board finds that the member has failed to implement any of the actions called for in the declaration within the specified time-frame, the Managing Director may issue a complaint to the Executive Board and recommend that the Executive Board declare the member ineligible to use the general resources of the Fund for its breach of obligation under Article VIII, Section 5. The Executive Board decision declaring the member ineligible to use the general resources of the Fund will note that the member’s persistence in its failure to fulfill its obligations under Article VIII, Section 5 following the declaration of ineligibility may result in the issuance of a complaint for the suspension of the member’s voting and related rights and in the imposition of this measure.
15. If the member persists in its failure to fulfill its obligations under Article VIII, Section 5 for six months after the declaration of ineligibility, the Managing Director may issue a complaint and recommend that the Fund suspend the member’s voting and related rights. The Executive Board decision suspending the member’s voting and related rights will note that the member’s persistence in its failure to fulfill its obligations under Article VIII, Section 5 following the declaration of suspension of voting and related rights may result in the issuance of a complaint for compulsory withdrawal and in the initiation of the proceedings for the compulsory withdrawal of the member from the Fund.
16. If the member persists in its failure to fulfill its obligation under Article VIII, Section 5 for six months after the suspension of its voting rights, the Managing Director may initiate proceedings for the compulsory withdrawal of the member from the Fund.
17. All the Executive Board decisions arising from a breach of obligation taken under the procedures described above, including a decision to issue the statement of concern referred to in paragraph 12 above, will give rise to a public announcement with prior review of the text by the Executive Board.
18. (a) The following procedures shall apply to cases in which a member provides inaccurate information required under Article VIII, Section 5:
(i) for the purposes of a performance criterion under an arrangement in the General Resources Account, or
(ii) for another purpose in circumstances where the relevant information is reported to the Fund with respect to a performance criterion under an arrangement under a facility of the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust, a quantitative target under a Policy Coordination Instrument, or an assessment criterion under a Policy Support Instrument, and understandings have been reached between Fund staff and the relevant member that such reporting shall be made not only for the purposes of the relevant arrangement or instrument but for such other purposes as well, and where the deviation from the relevant performance criterion or assessment criterion, as the case may be, is judged to be de minimis as defined in paragraph 1 of Decision No. 13849.
(b) Whenever the Managing Director considers a deviation described in paragraph 18 (a) to be de minimis in nature:
(i) the consultations and notifications contemplated in paragraph 6 may be made by a representative of the relevant Area Department, and
(ii) the report of the Managing Director contemplated in paragraph 8 shall, wherever possible, be included in a staff report on the relevant member that deals with issues other than the potential breach of Article VIII, Section 5 and, with respect to potential remedial actions for such breach of obligation, shall include a recommendation that no further action by taken by the Fund. In those rare cases in which such a document cannot be issued to the Board promptly after the Managing Director concludes that a breach of obligation under Article VIII, Section 5 has arisen, the Managing Director shall consult Executive Directors and, if deemed appropriate by the Managing Director, a stand-alone report under Rule K-1 will be prepared for consideration by the Executive Board normally on a lapse-of-time basis.
(c) Whenever the Executive Board, under paragraph 1l(a), finds that a breach of obligation under Article VIII, Section 5 has occurred but that the relevant deviation was de minimis in nature as defined in paragraph 1 of Decision No. 13849,
(i) the Executive Board shall decide that no further action be taken by the Fund with respect to the breach, and
(ii) under paragraph 17, the finding of breach of obligation shall not be published by the Fund.
The data referred to in paragraph 1 of this decision are the national data on the following matters:
(i) reserve, or base money;
(ii) broad money;
(iii) interest rates, both market-based and officially deter-mined, including discount rates, money market rates, rates on treasury bills, notes and bonds;
(iv) revenue, expenditure, balance and composition of financing (i.e., foreign financing and domestic bank and nonbank financing) for the general and central governments respectively1; the stocks of central government and central government-guaranteed debt, including currency and maturity composition and, if the debt data are amenable to classification on the basis of the residency or nonresidency of the holder, the extent to which the debt is held by residents or nonresidents;
(v) balance sheet of the central bank;
(vi) external current account balance;
(vii) exports and imports of goods and services;
(viii) for the monetary authorities: international reserve assets (specifying separately any reserve assets that are pledged or otherwise encumbered), reserve liabilities, short-term liabilities linked to a foreign currency but settled by other means, and the notional values of financial derivatives to pay and to receive foreign currency (including those linked to a foreign currency but settled by other means);
(ix) gross domestic product, or gross national product;
(x) consumer price index;
(xi) gross external debt1; and
(xii) consolidated balance sheet of the banking system.
Decision No. I3I83-(04/10),
January 30, 2004,
as amended by Decision Nos.I38I4-(06/98), November 15, 2006,
13849-(06/I08), December 20, 2006,
14107-(08/38), May 2, 2008,
I4354-(09/79), July 23, 2009, effective January 7, 2010, and
16235-(I7/62), July 14, 2017
Summing Up by the Acting Chair—Review of Data Provision to the Fund for Surveillance Purposes Executive Board Meeting 04/25, March 15, 2004
Executive Directors welcomed the further opportunity to review progress in the provision of data to the Fund by members. Better data not only support strengthened Fund surveillance and crisis prevention, but they also allow members to formulate sounder economic policies. In this context, Directors expressed their appreciation to the staff and country authorities for the substantial progress achieved in recent years in improving data provision to the Fund. They reaffirmed the principles underlying the policy on data provision to the Fund for surveillance purposes, namely: that timely, accurate, and comprehensive data are essential for effective surveillance; that data needs vary according to members’ circumstances; and that data requirements evolve over time with changes in the scope and focus of surveillance.
In taking stock of developments in the coverage and frequency of data provision by members, Directors were encouraged by the finding that a rising share of the membership now provides data that are deemed adequate for Fund surveillance, and that most members—including virtually all countries with market access—now report core statistical indicators on a timely basis. At the same time, Directors recognized that in just under one-third of the Fund’s membership—consisting mostly of countries with small populations or low per capita incomes—severe data deficiencies continue to hamper policy analysis and Fund surveillance. A number of Directors considered that efforts to strengthen data provision, going forward, should focus on these countries. Directors acknowledged that, in many cases, more time will be needed to overcome long-standing statistical capacity constraints, requiring national efforts and international support calibrated to the circumstances of each case.
Directors viewed favorably the current framework for data provision to the Fund, and agreed that it should be essentially preserved. They noted that the core statistical indicators had been replaced by a set of common indicators required for surveillance, following the recent decision adopted by the Executive Board pursuant to Article VIII, Section 5. Directors supported addressing data quality issues in the Statistical Issues Appendix based on available Reports on the Observance of Standards and Codes (ROSCs). Most Directors also agreed that the table of common indicators required for surveillance should include summary assessments of data quality when available from data modules of ROSCs. Some Directors were concerned about the adequacy of data ROSCs for providing assessments of data quality, especially because the quality of the individual common indicators is not directly assessed in the ROSCs, and about the risk that these assessments could be inappropriately viewed as a rating of members’ statistics.
Directors called for strengthened implementation of the framework for data provision to the Fund. In particular, they stressed that Article IV consultation reports should identify data shortcomings, indicate where the analysis of key issues is significantly affected by these shortcomings or where important policy conclusions may be subject to unusual uncertainty due to data weaknesses, and recommend remedial actions where data prove inadequate for effective surveillance. In general, Directors encouraged staff to seek full compliance with existing guidelines on treatment of data issues in staff reports, while noting that coverage of these issues will of course vary from report to report, depending upon the adequacy of data provision to the Fund in each case. Most Directors supported the continued inclusion in Article IV summings up of a paragraph assessing the adequacy of data provision to the Fund, in particular in cases where there are shortcomings.
Directors also called for greater elaboration of remedial strategies in Article IV staff reports for countries where severe and long-standing data deficiencies hamper policy analysis and Fund surveillance. They emphasized that these member countries should be encouraged to participate in the GDDS, which provides a structured framework for statistical improvement. Directors stressed the importance of technical assistance to strengthen these countries’ statistical systems as well as the need for country authorities to demonstrate ownership of these institution-building efforts by committing the necessary local resources. Generally, Directors were of the view that technical assistance priorities in the area of statistics should continue to be guided by identified deficiencies in data provision to the Fund.
Directors had a wide-ranging discussion on how best to meet the data needs of the Fund, as the framework for Fund surveillance evolves and gives rise to new data provision requirements. They focused on the data implications of the work the Fund is doing in four areas to strengthen Fund surveillance, namely, the balance sheet approach, the framework for debt sustainability assessments, liquidity management, and financial soundness indicators for financial sector surveillance. Most Directors agreed that a priority in the period ahead is to improve data availability to conduct balance sheet analysis, as contemplated in these four areas of work. They emphasized the importance of breakdowns of assets and liabilities to gauge currency and maturity mismatches in sectoral balance sheets and the need to address weaknesses in public debt data.
Directors recognized that improving the availability of data needed for balance sheet analysis will involve costs for member countries and the Fund. In this context, some Directors emphasized the need to balance the benefits of improved data against the resource costs involved, including the costs to member countries. Taking account of these considerations, most Directors endorsed a pragmatic action plan to improve data availability to serve the needs of the various balance sheet initiatives. This plan involves (a) the continuation of current efforts to improve external debt data, foreign direct investment data, and compilation of financial soundness indicators; and (b) the seven additional steps outlined in paragraph 43 of the staff report.1 It was suggested that a reduced set of core financial soundness indicators be included within the SDDS.
Directors expressed satisfaction that significantly increased dissemination of macroeconomic data by the Fund has been a vital part of efforts in recent years to strengthen the international financial architecture. To minimize the risk of misperceptions about the accuracy and reliability of Fund data that may arise from the publication of different data series for a given variable, Directors endorsed several approaches. These will include: efforts to strengthen metadata and explain data differences; work to promote common sourcing and better sharing of data across the Fund; and inclusion of a general disclaimer on published staff reports. Directors generally supported the acceleration and extension of the Integrated Monetary Database Project, pointing to the prospective significant medium-term efficiency of such an exercise.
Directors reviewed the resource implications of the measures endorsed in this review and, more broadly, of steps to improve availability of data for policy analysis and Fund surveillance. They noted that many of the steps to strengthen availability of data are compatible with medium-term budget plans, if the current pace of implementation is maintained. Some other steps—particularly the expanded reporting of public domestic debt data, enhanced collection of monetary and financial data, and review of the International
Financial Statistics (IFS)—will involve additional costs. The majority of the Board felt that these additional costs should be accommodated within the existing budget envelope. The preferred course of action, for these Directors, is to boost the efficiency of existing data initiatives and to prioritize statistical activities. In this context, it was suggested that the review of the contents of the IFS could be delayed. A number of other Directors, however, were in favor of expanding the resource envelope to accommodate the additional costs, emphasizing the need to protect the effectiveness and high quality of the Fund’s data work while not crowding out other important activities, including data ROSCs.
Directors agreed that the next review of data provision to the Fund should be conducted in about two years’ time.1
March 22, 2004
The Acting Chair’s Summing Up—Review of Data Provision to the Fund for Surveillance Purposes Executive Board Meeting 08/38, May 2, 2008
Executive Directors welcomed the opportunity to review progress in members’ provision of data to the Fund for surveillance purposes, and the expanded data list adopted under the 2004 Decision on Strengthening the Effectiveness of Article VIII, Section 5. Directors stressed that timely and good quality data are crucial to Fund surveillance. Directors agreed with the thrust of the staff paper’s analysis and findings, and broadly endorsed the staff’s recommendations.
Data Provision Trends
Directors welcomed the progress made by members in providing adequate data to the Fund. They noted that significant data challenges remain in developing countries that have yet to attain market access, particularly in low-income or small countries. These challenges will require continued capacity building by the countries themselves, as well as the coordinated support of the international community. In this connection, Directors stressed the importance of targeted Fund technical assistance, within the established budgets, and of promoting dissemination of the core indicators required for surveillance under the General Data Dissemination System. They also encouraged donors to provide more targeted support to strengthening countries’ capacity to produce and disseminate statistics.
Treatment of Data Issues
Directors considered that there is room for improvement in the treatment of data issues in Article IV staff reports, and called for more candid assessments of data adequacy across countries. They agreed that, in cases where shortcomings in data provision significantly hamper surveillance, staff should highlight the implications of these deficiencies for its analysis and policy conclusions. In addition, in cases of severe deficiencies and where staff have had to construct key data based on limited information, staff should discuss with the authorities specific and prioritized remedial measures, and should report on this discussion. Most Directors supported the proposed new classification system for data adequacy as set out in paragraph 19 of the paper. Directors also supported the proposal that Statistical Issues Appendices be more focused and expanded to include financial sector data issues where warranted.
Handling of Potential Breaches of Article VIII, Section 5
Directors stressed that members should abide by their obligation to provide the Fund with data covered under Article VIII, Section 5 to the best of their ability. They encouraged management and staff to address vigorously this responsibility of members, while emphasizing the importance of a cooperative approach and of paying due attention to capacity limitations. Directors noted that the approach followed in recent years has been largely effective in resolving concerns that members may not be sharing data to the best of their ability. They pointed, however, to the wide variance in staff’s handling of such cases as an area for improvement, and stressed that staff must follow up expeditiously in cases where concerns arise. They endorsed the proposal to clarify guidance to staff regarding steps to follow when there is a concern that a member may not be complying with Article VIII, Section 5, to ensure consistent and evenhanded treatment. In cases of non-provision of data, most Directors agreed that there should be no delay in implementing the formal procedures specified under the 2004 Decision—including the “letter stage” where management notifies the member of its intention to inform the Board of a breach of obligation—once the criteria for moving to the letter stage are met, namely where the data are not provided and the member appears to have the capacity to provide the data. However, some Directors emphasized that staff should take care not to move to the letter stage prematurely. In cases where there are concerns that data are being provided late or inaccurately, staff should prepare a plan and timetable for following up on these concerns, including moving to the letter stage when necessary.
Evolving Data Needs
Directors had a wide-ranging discussion on how best to meet the evolving data needs of surveillance to keep pace with the changing global economic environment. Ongoing data initiatives have focused appropriately on positions and exposures across domestic sectors and vis-à-vis the rest of the world. These data are critical in assessing vulnerabilities, and have gained further prominence in light of recent global economic developments. Directors therefore broadly agreed that priority should remain on moving current initiatives forward and adapting them to absorb the new data provision requirements, rather than creating new ones. At the same time, a number of Directors noted the costs of enhanced data initiatives, for both the Fund and member countries, and emphasized that the costs and benefits of additional data collection should be carefully assessed. Many Directors stressed the importance of data on cross-border and intersectoral exposures and risks in advanced economies.
Directors were broadly supportive of the proposed approach to evolving data needs related to Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs), Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves (COFER), and assessing financial sector stability. On SWFs, many Directors supported the various data initiatives the Fund is undertaking as part of a wider effort to facilitate and coordinate work on a set of voluntary principles for SWFs, while at the same time, many Directors emphasized that data initiatives should not run ahead of collaborative and voluntary efforts to identify such principles. Noting the importance of COFER data for surveillance over the global economy and reserve currency economies, a number of Directors encouraged members who do not yet report such data to do so. Some Directors stressed that provision of COFER data should remain voluntary and confidential. In view of the increasing importance of data on intersectoral positions and exposures, Directors agreed that high priority should be attached to increasing the number of countries that report monetary and financial data using the Standardized Report Forms (SRFs), expanding the coverage of financial institutions in the monetary and financial statistics, and introducing additional information in SRFs for assessing financial sector stability. Current and planned efforts in the Fund with regard to Financial Soundness Indicators (FSIs) will also support better financial sector surveillance.
Directors endorsed the proposals in paragraph 42 of the paper to clarify and enhance the requirements for data provision to the Fund. Most Directors supported the proposal to incorporate International Investment Position (IIP) data into the Table of Common Indicators Required for Surveillance, although a number of Directors cautioned that close monitoring of reporting of IIP data should be accompanied by continued regard for the capacity constraints many countries face in producing them, and some Directors did not support the proposal on this account. Directors also agreed to expand the coverage of reserve liabilities and derivatives in the Annex of the 2004 Decision to include those linked to a foreign currency but settled in domestic currencies, for closer alignment with the practice in the template for International Reserves and Foreign Currency Liquidity-the internationally accepted methodology for reserve reporting.
Directors agreed that with the discussions today, the Board concluded the review of Annex A envisaged under the 2004 Decision, and that future reviews of Annex A should be conducted together with the reviews of data provision to the Fund for surveillance purposes.
The next reviews are expected to be conducted in 2013, unless a need arises earlier.
May 12, 2008
The Acting Chair’s Summing Up—2012 Review of Data Provision to the Fund for Surveillance Purposes Executive Board Meeting 12/98, November 1, 2012
Executive Directors welcomed the timely review of data provision to the Fund for surveillance purposes. They noted that significant progress has been made since the last review in 2008, and considered that the current data provision framework remains adequate. Nevertheless, Directors agreed that there remains scope for strengthening its implementation within the existing resource envelope, drawing on the conclusions of the 2011 Triennial Surveillance Review and the data gaps revealed by the global financial crisis. To this end, Directors broadly supported the recommendations to further strengthen data provision and encouraged staff to continue to improve the treatment of data issues in surveillance.
Directors saw merit in improving clarity and candor in assessing and communicating the adequacy, quality, and timeliness of data provision to the Fund, along the lines proposed in the staff report. They generally considered that, while a new classification of data adequacy introduced in 2008 has worked relatively well, clearer instructions on how to draw distinction among the different categories would help ensure uniform application. Directors also supported the proposals to identify more prominently in Article IV staff reports the main data deficiencies that hamper surveillance, progress in implementing past recommendations, and data sources. Directors supported efforts to ensure consistency in addressing data deficiencies among Article IV staff reports, the General Data Dissemination System, and Fund technical assistance on statistics.
Directors stressed the importance of financial sector data for both the Fund and the member countries, noting that data limitations may impede financial and external stability assessments. They supported modifying the Statistical Issues Appendix to focus more on data for financial sector surveillance and, where relevant, progress on the G-20/IMFC Data Gaps Initiative and on adherence to the recently approved SDDS Plus for countries that have indicated their intention to adhere to the initiative, while also making further progress in areas where the conceptual statistical framework needs development.
Directors broadly supported further efforts to improve key data sets: International Investment Position, Currency Composition of Foreign Exchange Reserves (COFER), financial soundness indicators, general government debt, and monetary and financial data, including through the adoption of standardized reporting forms. Directors underscored the need for close cooperation and consultation with member countries, mindful of the reporting burden, capacity constraints, and country-specific settings, including institutional arrangements, and with due regard to the confidentiality of information. They welcomed ongoing efforts to broaden country participation in the COFER database and encouraged non-reporters to do so. Some Directors noted that data on foreign exchange intervention could also prove useful for Fund surveillance.
Directors considered that procedures for following up on potential breaches of Article VIII, Section 5, have been broadly effective and that no changes to the framework are necessary at this time. However, they saw merit in drawing lessons from a review of prolonged open cases, with a few seeking scope for shortening the resolution process.
Directors stressed the importance of working closely with other international agencies to fill data gaps while minimizing the reporting burden for countries. In particular, they encouraged staff to continue to cooperate closely with the Financial Stability Board (FSB) in developing a dataset for global systemically important financial institutions (G-SIFIs), with appropriate data sharing procedures among official institutions on a strictly confidential basis. A number of Directors noted that legal challenges remain to be taken into account with respect to the Fund’s access to G-SIFI individual-to-aggregate data, and looked forward to a decision on this issue at the upcoming FSB plenary. Directors also saw a need to liaise more with relevant institutions with expertise to address labor market data deficiencies. Directors looked forward to an updated guidance note on data provision reflecting today’s discussion. They agreed that the next review of data provision should take place in 2017.
November 6, 2012
The Special Data Dissemination Standard (SDDS), the SDDS Plus, and the Enhanced General Data Dissemination Standard (e-GDDS).
[Ed. Note: The IMF website on the Dissemination Standards Bulletin Board (https://dsbb.imf.org) contains a comprehensive set of documents on IMF data dissemination standards, including the Executive Board’s discussions on and assessment of the Special Data Dissemination Standard (SDDS), the SDDS Plus, and the Enhanced General Data Dissemination Standard (e-GDDS) (https://www.imf. org/external/np/sta/dsbb/list.htm).
Ed. Note: Pursuant to Decision No. 13814-(06/98), November 15, 2006, future reviews will be conducted on an “as needed” basis. The expectation going forward is that “as needed” would generally mean a lag of at least five years between any such reviews.
The general government consists of the central government (budgetary funds, extrabudgetary funds, and social security funds) and state and local governments.
Gross external debt is the outstanding amount of those actual current, and not contingent, liabilities that require payment(s) of principal and/or interest by the debtor at some point(s) in the future and that are owed to nonresidents by residents of an economy. (SM/03/386, Sup. 1, 1/23/04).
These additional steps are: development of a standard set of tables to help guide reporting of public debt data to the Fund, including appropriate breakdowns; enhanced collection of monetary and financial sector data, including through development and use of standard reporting forms; promotion of greater coherence of data needs across policy initiatives, such as FSIs and the balance sheet approach; review of the contents of the International Financial Statistics to explore the scope for reflecting data needed for policy initiatives; continued experimentation with the use of nonfinancial corporate data from a variety of sources; continued elaboration of internationally agreed methodologies to incorporate pertinent breakdowns and details; and initiation of consultations on the SDDS prescriptions for public debt in the context of the next review of the Fund’s Data Standards Initiatives.
Ed. Note: Pursuant to Decision No. 13814-(06/98), November 15, 2006, future reviews will be conducted on an “as needed” basis. The expectation going forward is that “as needed” would generally mean a lag of at least five years between any such reviews. Decision No. 14036-(08/1), December 27, 2007, extended the deadline for the next review to end-June 2008.