The requirement for EPEs was agreed by the Board in September 2002 for members using exceptional access in capital account crises, and extended to any use of exceptional access in February 2003. The EPE requirements and procedures were slightly revised in 2009. Exceptional access in the GRA constitutes access levels beyond (i) an annual limit of 200 percent of quota; and (ii) a cumulative limit of 600 percent of quota, net of scheduled repurchases.
This revises the earlier guidance note based on the decisions taken during the Board discussion of omnibus paper on easing work pressures. Note that an EPE is distinct from an ex post assessment of longer term program engagement (EPA). The latter is intended to provide the opportunity to step back from continuing program relations and analyze the economic problems facing a member, a critical and frank review of progress during Fund-supported programs, and a forward-looking assessment that takes into account lessons learned and presents a strategy for future Fund engagement. A revised guidance note is also concurrently being issued for EPAs, consistent with the Board discussion cited above.
Programs thus excluded are Georgia (approved 9/15/08) and Armenia (approved 3/6/09).
See staff paper on Access Policy in Capital Account Crises for a more complete description.
EPEs would not normally be expected to review the decision-making process that led to the approval of the arrangement as the IEO is better placed to consider the roles of staff, management, and members of the Board.
These criteria are developed in the policy paper on the GRA lending toolkit and conditionality). EPEs should confirm that the procedural elements of the policy have been followed, and comment if needed on them. These comprise: the early Board consultations; the report on liquidity and risks to the Fund; the separate report evaluating the four criteria; an ex-post evaluation within one year after the end of the arrangement; the discussions of exit strategies; and presentation of alternative metrics for access.
These programs comprise: Belarus (approved 1/12/09), El Salvador (1/16/09), Hungary (11/6/08), Iceland (11/19/08), Latvia (12/23/08), Pakistan (11/24/08), Serbia (12/19/08; augmented 1/16/09), and Ukraine (11/5/08).
See Ex Post Assessments of Members with a Longer-Term Program Engagement. Specifically, an EPE for a member should be undertaken by an interdepartmental team and led by a mission chief from a department other than the home area department. The team should include representatives from the home area department and one each from SPR and at least one other functional Department (in most cases FAD, FIN, MCM, RES, and/or STA), with the team leader nominated by the home area department. The SPR representative will generally be nominated by the SPR Senior Personnel Manager, but should not include the review officer or the economist assigned to the country (unless the assignment has been for less than one year). The other functional department(s) to be included in the team will be selected by the home area department, but the choice of representative will be made by the functional department and will not normally include the department’s review officer or economist assigned to the country unless the assignment has been for less than one year.
In view of the analytical content of EPEs, the report is normally expected to be 10-25 pages in length.
See the Guidance Note on the Fund’s Transparency Policy.
It is presumed that SPR would be better placed to lead multi-country EPEs, given its role and expertise in cross-country policy analysis (see “Review of Recent Crisis Programs,” available at http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2009/091409.pdf).
The non-objection basis comes into effect on March 17, 2010.