FY2020—Output Cost Estimates and Budget Outturn

International Monetary Fund. Office of Budget and Planning

doi:10.5089/9781513559735.007.A001

Author:

International Monetary Fund. Office of Budget and Planning

International Monetary Fund. Office of Budget and Planning
Search for other papers by International Monetary Fund. Office of Budget and Planning in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed

Publication Date:: 23 Oct 2020

eISBN:: 9781513559735

ISBN:: 9781513559735

Language:: English

Keywords:: PP; expenditures FY; dollar spending; spending execution; unspent FY 18; digitalization strategy; management fee; Medium-term budget; Budget planning and preparation; Capital spending; Financial Sector Assessment Program; COVID-19; Middle East and Central Asia; Global; Asia and Pacific; Western Hemisphere; fund finances; trust fund; lower-than-projected spending; fourth quarter; fund policy

Download PDF (1.5 MB)

The paper presents highlights from the FY 2020 budget, followed by a discussion of outputs based on the Fund Thematic Categories and of inputs.

Abstract

The paper presents highlights from the FY 2020 budget, followed by a discussion of outputs based on the Fund Thematic Categories and of inputs.

FY2020 Highlights

Overview

1. Implementation of the FY2020 budget was affected by the immediate impact of the COVID-19 crisis late in the fiscal year. Total net administrative expenditures were $1,150 million, or 99.3 percent of the approved structural budget of $1,158 million (Table 1). This is broadly in line with expectations, as discussed in the FY 21–23 Medium-term Budget and Supplement.¹ Relative to total net available resources (which included $31 million in carry forward for general use and $15 million for OED and IEO from FY 19), the utilization rate was 95.4 percent. Utilization of the net Fund-financed budget was 99.3 percent, with the underrun reflecting the impact of the COVID-19 related crisis, including on travel expenditures. Given Board approval in April of an increase in the Fund’s general administrative carry forward limit from 3 to 5 percent, $45 million in carry forward resources will be available for general use under the FY 21 budget.²

^{Table 1.}

Overview of Administrative Budget and Expenditures, FY19–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars, unless otherwise noted)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add up due to rounding.

^{^1/}The difference between total net expenditures and Fund-financed net expenditures in FY 19 reflects a $3 million difference between IMF02 spending and receipts (see Table 7). This is due to: i) use of standard cost benefits for externally funded long-term field-based experts and ii) timing differences for take up of benefits and their scale relative to standard costs. Reconciliation of these accounts with actual expenditures is reflected in figures for FY 20.

^{Table 1.}

Overview of Administrative Budget and Expenditures, FY19–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars, unless otherwise noted)

		FY 19			FY 20
		Budget	Outturn	Utilization (percent)	Budget	Outturn	Utilization (percent)
Total gross expenditures		1,371	1,346	98.1	1,397	1,350	96.6
	Fund-financed ^1/	1,175	1,170	99.6	1,197	1,182	98.7
	Externally financed ^1/	196	175	89.3	200	168	84.0
Total net expenditures		1,135	1,131	99.7	1,158	1,150	99.3
	Of which: Fund-financed	1,135	1,134	99.9	1,158	1,150	99.3
Carry forward from previous year		46			47
Total net available resources		1,181	1,131	95.8	1,205	1,150	95.4

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add up due to rounding.

^{Table 1.}

Overview of Administrative Budget and Expenditures, FY19–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars, unless otherwise noted)

		FY 19			FY 20
		Budget	Outturn	Utilization (percent)	Budget	Outturn	Utilization (percent)
Total gross expenditures		1,371	1,346	98.1	1,397	1,350	96.6
	Fund-financed ^1/	1,175	1,170	99.6	1,197	1,182	98.7
	Externally financed ^1/	196	175	89.3	200	168	84.0
Total net expenditures		1,135	1,131	99.7	1,158	1,150	99.3
	Of which: Fund-financed	1,135	1,134	99.9	1,158	1,150	99.3
Carry forward from previous year		46			47
Total net available resources		1,181	1,131	95.8	1,205	1,150	95.4

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add up due to rounding.

2. The shortfall in externally financed CD spending was in line with projections in the FY2021-FY2023 budget supplement. Gross externally financed expenditures were $168 million, about $32 million (16 percent) below the $200 million budgeted level and $10 million (6 percent) below last year. The underspend reflects a variety of factors; in Q4 specifically, travel restrictions and capacity constraints in recipient countries impeded delivery.

Spending by Outputs

A. Crisis-Impact on Budget Execution

3. Spending execution in the first ten months of FY 20 was on track to end the year at budgeted levels. In country operations, 117 Article IV consultations were held in May 2019 to February 2020, compared to 109 in the same period in FY 19. Lending was increasing, consistent with greater budgetary resources that had been provided. CD spending was addressing priorities as highlighted in the FY2020–2022 Medium-term Budget. The Board Work Program was being implemented, with interim discussions under the Comprehensive Surveillance Review and FSAP review, stepped up engagement on risk management, preliminary discussions on the Integrated Policy Framework, work on topical policy items such as monetary and macrofinancial policies, debt in low income countries, engagement with fragile states, IMF advice on social spending, fintech and digital currencies, and discussion of recurrent items including flagships and regional briefings.

4. The COVID-19 outbreak late in the fiscal year resulted in an unprecedented number of members requesting emergency financing. Within two months at end FY 20, the Board approved 41 emergency financing cases across all regions (Figure 1). These continue in FY 21, with over 100 members having approached the Fund about possible emergency financing.

5. The rapid response by Fund staff is reflected in stepped up activity in FY 20 Q4. Total recorded staff time on main outputs increased by 10 percent from the same period last year (Figure 2), including a 40 percent increase in recorded overtime hours. These efforts were particularly evident in lending (red segment) and non-country work (blue), which covers supporting analytical and policy work. Together these categories increased by over 30 percent in FY 20 Q4 relative to FY 19 Q4.

6. With unchanged total staff resources, immediate crisis response needs were met in large part through reprioritization, informal reallocations, and staff overtime and untaken leave. For example, the increase in lending was supported through reallocation from Article IVs, FSAPs and CD, which declined a combined 8 percent during this period. Delays in non-crisis related policy reviews and analytical work also contributed, as well as streamlining of operational procedures. Informal and temporary staff reallocations also took place, notably from functional CD departments to provide direct support to teams in area departments, Finance (FIN), and Strategy, Policy and Review Departments (SPR). These adjustments were necessary to respond to the crisis but point to limits and increased workload going forward.

B. Spending by Thematic Category, Relative to Budget

7. While time spent on country engagement increased in the context of the COVID-19 crisis, dollar spending was below budget. Overall spending for country operations (including bilateral surveillance, lending, and CD) was below the Fund-financed budget by some $19 million, largely reflecting travel. Higher-than-expected spending on lending of $4 million was more than fully offset by the lower-than-projected spending on bilateral surveillance and CD. Analytical work was below budget by $4 million, notwithstanding some increase late in the year (see below). Other expenditures (including multilateral surveillance, global cooperation, Fund policies, and Fund finances) were broadly as planned. Governance and membership related work was below budget, partly due to the virtual Spring Meetings.

Table 2.

Gross Administrative Fund-Financed Resources by Thematic Categories, FY19–20

(Millions of FY 20 U.S. dollars)

Source: OBP estimates, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

^{^1/}Global cooperation captures standard setting, and work with other international organizations and the G-groupings.

^{^2/}Governance and membership encompasses work supporting the Board of Governors, the Executive Board, Management, and internal functions such as risk management and internal audit; it also covers work on quota and voice.

^{^3/}Miscellaneous includes payments to some separating staff and reconciliation items. Fund-financed only.

Table 2.

Gross Administrative Fund-Financed Resources by Thematic Categories, FY19–20

(Millions of FY 20 U.S. dollars)

				FY 20
			FY 19 Outturn	Estimated Structural Resources	Transitional Resources	Total	Outturn
Total			1,201	1,197	26	1,223	1,182
Country operations			417	413	10	423	404
		FSAPs	23	20	0	20	19
		Lending	83	93	4	97	101
		Surveillance	197	192	5	197	181
		Non financial arrangements and debt relief	29	25	0	25	25
		CD delivery	86	83	2	84	79
Multilateral surveillance			65	68	0	69	69
Global Cooperation ^1/			44	42	1	43	42
Analytical work			87	94	2	96	92
Fund policies			38	38	1	39	38
Governance and membership ^2/			115	118	1	119	110
Fund finances			21	20	0	21	20
General outreach			40	38	0	38	37
Internal support			352	327	10	336	339
Miscellaneous ^3/			21	24	. . .	24	30
Contingency			. . .	15	. . .	15	. . .
Memorandum item:
	Externally financed activities		180	200	0	200	168

Source: OBP estimates, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

^{^1/}Global cooperation captures standard setting, and work with other international organizations and the G-groupings.

^{^3/}Miscellaneous includes payments to some separating staff and reconciliation items. Fund-financed only.

Table 2.

Gross Administrative Fund-Financed Resources by Thematic Categories, FY19–20

(Millions of FY 20 U.S. dollars)

				FY 20
			FY 19 Outturn	Estimated Structural Resources	Transitional Resources	Total	Outturn
Total			1,201	1,197	26	1,223	1,182
Country operations			417	413	10	423	404
		FSAPs	23	20	0	20	19
		Lending	83	93	4	97	101
		Surveillance	197	192	5	197	181
		Non financial arrangements and debt relief	29	25	0	25	25
		CD delivery	86	83	2	84	79
Multilateral surveillance			65	68	0	69	69
Global Cooperation ^1/			44	42	1	43	42
Analytical work			87	94	2	96	92
Fund policies			38	38	1	39	38
Governance and membership ^2/			115	118	1	119	110
Fund finances			21	20	0	21	20
General outreach			40	38	0	38	37
Internal support			352	327	10	336	339
Miscellaneous ^3/			21	24	. . .	24	30
Contingency			. . .	15	. . .	15	. . .
Memorandum item:
	Externally financed activities		180	200	0	200	168

Source: OBP estimates, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

^{^1/}Global cooperation captures standard setting, and work with other international organizations and the G-groupings.

^{^3/}Miscellaneous includes payments to some separating staff and reconciliation items. Fund-financed only.

C. Spending on FY 20 Priority Topics

8. Spending in priority areas identified in the FY2020-FY2022 Medium-term Budget was supported by incremental budgetary resources, in some cases from a low starting base. Table 3 provides partial estimates for non-CD spending by priority topics, with similar information on CD spending provided in Annex I:³

Financial surveillance. Total spending was around $77 million in FY 20, or 15 percent of bilateral and multilateral surveillance. These estimates include spending on financial surveillance by country teams, as well as functional departments. Overall, FY 20 saw a decline in estimated functional department spending relative to FY 19, mainly because of lower Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) spending (¶9). Non-CD spending on fintech and cyber risk reached $6 million in FY 20.
Fragile states. Fragile states received $1.2 million in additional budgetary non-CD resources in FY 20. Aggregate non-CD spending on fragile states reached an estimated $64 million in FY 20 (Table 3), including increases in surveillance and lending. CD delivery in fragile states declined from FY 19 to $36 million, reflecting absorptive capacity issues in the context of the crisis, as well as remote delivery challenges. (Annex I, Table 4).
Anti-corruption/governance represented 13 percent of bilateral surveillance and lending, inclusive growth, 10 percent, social spending, 9 percent, and gender, 3 percent. Separately, despite declining overall CD spending, delivery on anti-corruption issues (a targeted growth area) grew by almost 70 percent from a relatively low base (Annex I, Table 4).
Climate. Spending in FY 20 is estimated at $16 million, broadly consistent with earlier estimates, as the Fund has begun to ramp up work in this area.
International taxation. Spending on these issues is estimated at $4 million. This excludes policy and analytical work.
Debt. Policy and analytical work is estimated at $8 million, for debt-related items in the Board’s Work Program discussed in FY 20. OBP will begin tracking debt-related work in future surveys.

^{Table 3.}

Estimated Non-CD Spending on Priority Topics, FY 20

(Millions of FY 20 U.S. dollars)

Source: ACES, survey of country teams, staff estimates.

^{^1/}“Other” captures specific topical work outside of country teams, as highlighted in footnote 3. Blank cells indicate data gaps.

^{Table 3.}

Estimated Non-CD Spending on Priority Topics, FY 20

(Millions of FY 20 U.S. dollars)

	Country teams	Other ^1/	Total
Financial surveillance	38	38	77
Fragile states	64		64
Anti-corruption/governance	37	6	43
Inclusive growth	28		28
Social spending	25		25
Climate change	14	2	16
Gender	8	1	9
Fintech/cyber risk	5	1	6
International taxation	4		4

Source: ACES, survey of country teams, staff estimates.

^{^1/}“Other” captures specific topical work outside of country teams, as highlighted in footnote 3. Blank cells indicate data gaps.

^{Table 3.}

Estimated Non-CD Spending on Priority Topics, FY 20

(Millions of FY 20 U.S. dollars)

	Country teams	Other ^1/	Total
Financial surveillance	38	38	77
Fragile states	64		64
Anti-corruption/governance	37	6	43
Inclusive growth	28		28
Social spending	25		25
Climate change	14	2	16
Gender	8	1	9
Fintech/cyber risk	5	1	6
International taxation	4		4

Source: ACES, survey of country teams, staff estimates.

^{^1/}“Other” captures specific topical work outside of country teams, as highlighted in footnote 3. Blank cells indicate data gaps.

D. Spending Relative to FY 19

Spending by Thematic Categories

9. Within country operations, lending activity rose by $18 million in FY 20, with declines in bilateral surveillance and CD (Figure 3). Total country operations declined by $30 million, about half of which reflects the change in country status, as countries moved from surveillance to program engagement, as well as the suspension of FSAPs and Article IV consultations late in the year. The decline in spending on non-financial programs of $4 million partly reflects a similar shift into programs (e.g., Haiti, Somalia). In addition, some programs were augmented in the last two months of the financial year (e.g., Madagascar, Pakistan). Fund and externally financed CD also fell by some $23½ million, reflecting travel restrictions, albeit with delivery continuing virtually. Some resources originally planned for CD delivery were also diverted to analytical work (e.g. COVID-19 notes), given CD delivery constraints. Looking ahead, the next Committee on Capacity Building meeting has been delayed to January 2021, to better assess the impact of the crisis on members’ CD needs. FSAP spending declined by $4½ million (20 percent), partly from the crisis-linked FSAP suspension, some conversion to virtual missions, but also reflecting the tail end of the cycle of mandatory FSAPs. Overall, 9 FSAPs were completed in FY 20 vs. 12 in FY 19. This decline was partly offset by an increase in Monetary and Capital Markets Department (MCM) spending on other bilateral surveillance of $1 million (15 percent).

10. The COVID-19 outbreak also contributed to reduced spending on governance and internal support, which declined by close to $19 million relative to FY 19. COVID-19 related reductions totaled $8 million, including reduced spending on the April 2020 Spring Meetings, utilities, and settlement travel. Lower publication costs from moving toward digital products and a one-time reimbursement of legal fees also contributed to this reduction.

11. Spending on analytical and policy work increased, reflecting priority topics and crisis work (Figure 4). A $5½ million (6 percent) increase in Analytical Work reflects a ramp up in modeling and other macro-financial work in MCM, including on the Integrated Policy Framework and other MCM issues (light grey segment). Increases related to Multilateral Surveillance and Cooperation reflect work on analyzing the impact of COVID-19 in FY 20 Q4. In this context, work on vulnerability and imbalances (medium brown right most segment in the multilateral surveillance block), grew by $2.3 million (19 percent). A decline in work on statistical information/data, as seen in a drop in the Global Cooperation category, reflects restructuring of Statistics Department’s (STA) data function, which has entailed temporary vacancies which are being filled gradually during FY 20 and FY 21 as STA builds up its new data analytics capabilities.⁴ Spending on Fund policies increased slightly in net terms ($0.5 million), reflecting reduction in policy work related to surveillance and CD (medium orange segment) and increase on work related to lending (Low-Income Countries (LIC) and General Resource Account (GRA), light and dark orange segments) which were urgently adapted for the COVID-19 situation (e.g. conditions for emergency financing, Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust (CCRT), new Short-term Liquidity Line).

Box 1.

Spending Patterns by Departments

Typical spending patterns vary by department groups (text chart). Area departments focus on surveillance (light blue) and lending (red), and regional and other cross-country analytical work, as captured in multilateral surveillance (orange). Functional CD departments deliver CD (dark and light green), while also preparing flagships (Fiscal Affairs Department (FAD), MCM) and supporting area departments in surveillance and lending through direct participation in country teams and review. Non-CD functional departments’ outputs are more varied; multilateral surveillance (orange) captures flagship and other analytical work (Research (RES), also on vulnerabilities and imbalances (SPR), and general outreach (Comunications (COM). The Fund’s global oversight role (purple) is carried out by multiple functional departments (SPR, FIN, Legal (LEG), MCM, STA).

The departmental spending patterns show how the aggregate trends translated across the Fund, with area departments seeing increases in spending on lending (text chart), with knock-on effects, particularly to SPR and FIN, in reviewing a high volume of cases in a short period of time. CD departments reallocated from CD spending to support other areas (e.g. MCM’s work on modeling and the integrated policy framework).

1/ The text charts here present disaggregated information according to traditional output-based categories, and cover core outputs only (not including support functions and internal governance-related work). Aggregate information throughout Section 1 is based on the draft “Fund Thematic Framework,” which updates these categories. Further work is required to make this available at a departmental level. The definition of “multilateral surveillance” has been narrowed in the FTF, with analytical work and global cooperation reported separately. Items captured under “Oversight of Global Systems” are captured in the FTF under Analytical Work, Fund Policies, Global Cooperation, and Fund finances.

Average Spend per Country

12. Though the average spend per country declined (reflecting the travel suspension), there were variations among country groups (Figure 5). Average country spending across the membership declined 7 percent relative to FY 19, to $2.1 million. The increase in lending activity was more than offset by the declines in bilateral surveillance (including FSAPs) and CD. The increment in average spend between surveillance and program status remains the same, as noted in the Supplement to the FY 21–23 Medium-term Budget, at $1–2 million. Subgroups showed more varied patterns, with a 5 percent increase in average spending in vulnerable countries (Panel 2), particularly vulnerable program cases, where CD does not appear to have been affected. Spending in small states remained broadly stable at $1.2 million on average (Panel 3), while spending in the African region increased and remained higher than in all other regions because of high lending and CD spending; average spending in all other regions declined (Panel 4).

13. The decline in spending in FY 20 was smallest for low-income developing countries (Figure 6). This reflects in part the significant work by relevant country teams to prepare emergency financing requests and functional department support to country teams. Reallocation within departments and some informal support from other departments have also buttressed these resources.

14. A quarterly breakdown of spending on country operations (surveillance, lending, and CD) shows that labor costs stayed stable in Q4 relative to Q3 and relative to the same period in FY 19, and that travel costs account for most of the decline in spending.

Spending by Inputs

A. Details by Major Budget Category

Table 4.

Administrative Budget and Expenditures, Breakdown by Major Expense Category, FY 20

(Millions of U.S. dollars, unless otherwise noted)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Outturn reflects reconciliation of accounts with actual expenditures for: (i) some standard cost benefits for externally funded long-term field-based experts and (ii) the timing of take up of benefits and their scale relative to standard costs.

^{^2/}Includes the contingencies for staff, OED, and IEO.

Table 4.

Administrative Budget and Expenditures, Breakdown by Major Expense Category, FY 20

(Millions of U.S. dollars, unless otherwise noted)

			Total Resources				Fund-financed			Externally-financed
			Budget A	Outturn B	Gap C=A-B	Utilization (percent) D=B/A	Structural Budget E	Outturn F	Utilization (percent) G=F/E	Operational Target H	Outturn I	Utilization (percent) J=I/H
Net administrative budget			1,158	1,150	8	99.3	1,158	1,150	99.3	…	…	…
	Gross administrative budget		1,397	1,350	48	96.6	1,197	1,182	98.7	200	168	84.0
		Personnel ^1/	1,025	1,028	-3	100.3	893	911	102.0	132	117	88.5
		Travel	134	97	37	72.3	81	60	73.3	52	37	70.7
		Buildings and other expenses	224	225	-1	100.5	208	211	101.1	15	14	91.6
		Contingency ^2/	15	0	15	…	15	0	…	…	...	…
	Receipts		-239	-199	-40	83.4	-39	-31	80.2	-200	-168	84.0
Carry forward			47				47	…
	of which: general carry forward		31				31
Total net available resources			1,205	1,150		95.4	1,205	1,150	95.4	…	…	…

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^2/}Includes the contingencies for staff, OED, and IEO.

Table 4.

Administrative Budget and Expenditures, Breakdown by Major Expense Category, FY 20

(Millions of U.S. dollars, unless otherwise noted)

			Total Resources				Fund-financed			Externally-financed
			Budget A	Outturn B	Gap C=A-B	Utilization (percent) D=B/A	Structural Budget E	Outturn F	Utilization (percent) G=F/E	Operational Target H	Outturn I	Utilization (percent) J=I/H
Net administrative budget			1,158	1,150	8	99.3	1,158	1,150	99.3	…	…	…
	Gross administrative budget		1,397	1,350	48	96.6	1,197	1,182	98.7	200	168	84.0
		Personnel ^1/	1,025	1,028	-3	100.3	893	911	102.0	132	117	88.5
		Travel	134	97	37	72.3	81	60	73.3	52	37	70.7
		Buildings and other expenses	224	225	-1	100.5	208	211	101.1	15	14	91.6
		Contingency ^2/	15	0	15	…	15	0	…	…	...	…
	Receipts		-239	-199	-40	83.4	-39	-31	80.2	-200	-168	84.0
Carry forward			47				47	…
	of which: general carry forward		31				31
Total net available resources			1,205	1,150		95.4	1,205	1,150	95.4	…	…	…

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^2/}Includes the contingencies for staff, OED, and IEO.

15. Personnel: Total spending (Fund- and externally financed) on personnel was $1,028 million, about $3 million above the total structural budget. Fund-financed personnel spending exceeded the structural budget by about $18 million, mainly reflecting the hiring into approved transitional positions (Annex II, Table 3). This also reflects one-off benefits to separating staff (mostly related to reorganization of HR functions and ITD) and $1.6 million in costs related to lower-than-projected chargebacks due to crisis-related impact on externally funded CD activities. Overall, externally financed personnel cost was about $15 million below budget (see Box 2 and Annex I). Personnel levels in staff and contractual employees mirrored this outcome (Figure 8, Panels 1 and 3).

^{Box 2.}

Externally Financed Activities and the Fund-Financed Budget

Underspend in most externally funded categories (including travel; long-term and short-term experts) generally does not affect the Fund-financed budget, as there is neither an expense nor a “chargeback” in the absence of delivery. However, under-delivery can affect the Fund-financed budget in two ways:

• Personnel costs need to be absorbed when chargebacks for regular staff, HQ-based experts, and contractual employees fall below externally funded budget levels. In FY 20, with the crisis hitting late in the financial year, most departments met or exceeded their budgeted chargebacks for regular staff. However, there was an underrun in HQ-based expert chargebacks of about $1.6 million. This will be an important issue to monitor for FY 21.

• Lower-than-planned Trust Fund management (TFM) fees have a negative effect on the net budget; these fees in FY 20 were about $2 million below budget, at $12 million.

16. Overtime rates increased sharply late in the financial year, reflecting pressures due to COVID-19 (Figure 8, panels 5 and 6; Figure 9). Overtime was especially high in area departments, FAD, FIN, LEG, SEC, and SPR, with the average rate for B-level staff exceeding the 15 percent red-light threshold in most departments.

17. The underspend in Fund-financed travel was $21 million, mainly due to lower than planned business travel ($19 million), which was a combination of already lower travel volume before the crisis and the impact of the travel ban effective mid-March. The travel ban also affected spending on other travel, including seminars, interview, and settlement travel. These declines were partially offset by evacuation expenses for about 150 staff, long-term experts and their dependents. Relative to last year, spending on externally financed missions declined by about 23 percent. In CD departments, externally financed travel expenses in the last two months of FY 20 were 60 percent lower than in the same period in FY 19.

Table 5.

Travel, FY18–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Includes an estimated $5.4 million of costs related to travel to the Annual Meetings in Bali.

^{^2/}Includes travel expenditures related to interviews, settlement, and evacuations.

Table 5.

Travel, FY18–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

			FY 18	FY 19	FY 20
					Budget	Outturn
Expenditures			122	126	134	97
	Fund-financed		76	79	81	60
		Business travel	59	65 ^1/	65	46
		Seminars	6	5	6	4
		Other travel ^2/	11	10	11	10
	Externally financed		46	47	52	37
		Business travel	33	34	43	26
		Seminars and other travel	13	13	10	11

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Includes an estimated $5.4 million of costs related to travel to the Annual Meetings in Bali.

^{^2/}Includes travel expenditures related to interviews, settlement, and evacuations.

Table 5.

Travel, FY18–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

			FY 18	FY 19	FY 20
					Budget	Outturn
Expenditures			122	126	134	97
	Fund-financed		76	79	81	60
		Business travel	59	65 ^1/	65	46
		Seminars	6	5	6	4
		Other travel ^2/	11	10	11	10
	Externally financed		46	47	52	37
		Business travel	33	34	43	26
		Seminars and other travel	13	13	10	11

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Includes an estimated $5.4 million of costs related to travel to the Annual Meetings in Bali.

^{^2/}Includes travel expenditures related to interviews, settlement, and evacuations.

The number of missions fell by over 1,100 relative to FY 19, mainly due to the travel ban. This affected both Fund-financed and externally financed missions.
Area departments experienced the highest decline, at around 18 percent, followed by functional departments at 16 percent (Annex II, Table 5). The average mission length remained constant at 11.3 person days.⁵
All regions were affected, with an average of 15 percent fewer and shorter missions than FY 19. Due to an earlier effective date of the travel ban to China and its neighboring countries, the number of missions fell more sharply in the Asia Pacific region.

Table 6.

Travel Metrics by Region, FY18–20^1/

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Excludes Annual Meetings, IEO, OED.

Table 6.

Travel Metrics by Region, FY18–20^1/

		FY 18	FY 19	FY 20
Number of missions		8,296	7,858	6,693
	Africa region	1,991	1,970	1,673
	Asia Pacific region	1,495	1,615	1,257
	European region	1,805	1,645	1,517
	Middle East and Central Asia region	751	675	611
	Western Hemisphere region	2,254	1,953	1,635
Mission nights		91,255	88,985	75,761
	Africa region	29,172	27,781	24,394
	Asia Pacific region	16,264	18,306	16,104
	European region	16,332	15,167	12,782
	Middle East and Central Asia region	11,127	10,681	8,265
	Western Hemisphere region	18,360	17,050	14,216
Mission persons		13,490	12,947	11,191
	Africa region	3,279	3,174	2,830
	Asia Pacific region	2,418	2,571	2,107
	European region	3,133	2,786	2,556
	Middle East and Central Asia region	1,375	1,330	1,152
	Western Hemisphere region	3,285	3,086	2,546

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Excludes Annual Meetings, IEO, OED.

Table 6.

Travel Metrics by Region, FY18–20^1/

		FY 18	FY 19	FY 20
Number of missions		8,296	7,858	6,693
	Africa region	1,991	1,970	1,673
	Asia Pacific region	1,495	1,615	1,257
	European region	1,805	1,645	1,517
	Middle East and Central Asia region	751	675	611
	Western Hemisphere region	2,254	1,953	1,635
Mission nights		91,255	88,985	75,761
	Africa region	29,172	27,781	24,394
	Asia Pacific region	16,264	18,306	16,104
	European region	16,332	15,167	12,782
	Middle East and Central Asia region	11,127	10,681	8,265
	Western Hemisphere region	18,360	17,050	14,216
Mission persons		13,490	12,947	11,191
	Africa region	3,279	3,174	2,830
	Asia Pacific region	2,418	2,571	2,107
	European region	3,133	2,786	2,556
	Middle East and Central Asia region	1,375	1,330	1,152
	Western Hemisphere region	3,285	3,086	2,546

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Excludes Annual Meetings, IEO, OED.

18. Buildings and other services: Spending on building and other services (Fund-financed) exceeded the structural budget by about $2 million (Figure 10). The outturn was higher than forecasted in April largely because of additional spending on remote working capabilities; contractual services, including virtual setups for interpretation; and lower than expected savings in building operations. Savings from the virtual Spring Meetings of $2.3 million were as anticipated. Spending on contractual services plus subscriptions and printing, in aggregate, was in line with FY 19, reflecting a structural shift in the accounting treatment of commercial data subscription.

19. Security-related spending was about $38 million, a slight increase over FY 19 (Figure 11). The increase in IT security was mostly attributed to spending on infrastructure vulnerability and privileged access control management systems. The increase in Business continuity⁶ was due to COVID-19 related demands. Despite higher evacuation costs (~$1.2 million) in Field security, spending in this category remained stable.⁷ Guard costs in HQ security category were only slightly lower than FY 19.

20. Total receipts were about $40 million below budget, a decrease of $15 million compared to FY 19 (Table 7). Receipts from externally financed capacity development ($168 million) were 6 percent lower than FY 19 and also below the budgeted level for reasons explained in ¶15, and Box 2. General receipts ($31 million) were also below the FY 19 levels, mainly due to lower income from TFM fees as a result of lower externally financed CD as well as a decline in publication income, reflecting the Fund’s digitalization strategy and policy on free data–—the FY 21 publication budget was rebased in line with this strategy.

^{Table 7.}

Receipts, FY18–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Externally financed receipts for FY 18 and FY 19 do not match actual outturn expenditures due to use of standard cost benefits for externally funded long-term field-based experts and timing differences for take up of benefits and their scale relative to standard costs. Reconciliation with actual expenditures is reflected in FY 20.

^{^2/}Trust fund management fee of 7 percent under the new financing instrument.

^{^3/}Includes reimbursements principally provided by the World Bank for administrative services provided under sharing agreements.

^{^4/}Includes lease of space to the World Bank, Credit Union and retail tenants.

^{Table 7.}

Receipts, FY18–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

			FY 18	FY 19	FY 20
					Budget	Outturn
Total			211	214	239	199
Externally financed capacity development (direct cost only) ^1/			174	178	200	168
General receipts			37	36	39	31
	Of which:
		Administrative and trust fund management fees ^2/	12	12	14	12
		Publications income	2	1	3	0
		Fund-sponsored sharing agreements ^3/	3	3	4	3
		HQ2 lease ^4/	5	2	1	1
		Concordia	3	3	4	3

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^2/}Trust fund management fee of 7 percent under the new financing instrument.

^{^3/}Includes reimbursements principally provided by the World Bank for administrative services provided under sharing agreements.

^{^4/}Includes lease of space to the World Bank, Credit Union and retail tenants.

^{Table 7.}

Receipts, FY18–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

			FY 18	FY 19	FY 20
					Budget	Outturn
Total			211	214	239	199
Externally financed capacity development (direct cost only) ^1/			174	178	200	168
General receipts			37	36	39	31
	Of which:
		Administrative and trust fund management fees ^2/	12	12	14	12
		Publications income	2	1	3	0
		Fund-sponsored sharing agreements ^3/	3	3	4	3
		HQ2 lease ^4/	5	2	1	1
		Concordia	3	3	4	3

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^2/}Trust fund management fee of 7 percent under the new financing instrument.

^{^3/}Includes reimbursements principally provided by the World Bank for administrative services provided under sharing agreements.

^{^4/}Includes lease of space to the World Bank, Credit Union and retail tenants.

B. Carry Forward

21. The carry forward resources that were made available to finance transitional needs remain intact, as use by some departments was offset by underspending by others (Figures 12 and 13). The FY 20 budget included $31 million in carry forward, available for general use, plus $15 million for Offices of the Executive Directors (OED) and the Independent Evaluation Office(IEO). Of the carry forward for general use, $22 million was distributed upfront to departments to meet transitional needs, and an additional $7 million during the year to meet unanticipated demands. However, most departments had a lower-than-expected need, predominately because of mission cancellations. Financing for transitional needs was provided to the following priority areas:

Modernization initiatives (support departments): Comprehensive Compensation and Benefit Review (CCBR); 1HR; Digital Workplace; knowledge management; CDMAP and iData; and additional costs related to information security access control and infrastructure vulnerability management on systems for these projects.
Fragile states (most area departments): intensified country engagement.
Other priority areas (mainly functional departments): enhanced governance framework; international taxation; trade; digital economy; Sustainable Developmental Goals (SDG); bilateral financial surveillance; and various policy and analytical initiatives including macro-financial issues and a modeling unit in MCM (e.g. integrated policy framework), and a structural reform unit in RES.

Capital Spending

22. Spending on capital investments amounted to $107 million in FY 20, a reduction of $34 million from last year (Table 8). Approximately $88 million in remaining appropriated funds will carry over to FY 21.⁸ FY 20 saw the substantial completion of the HQ1 renewal project, investments to reoccupy the HQ buildings with updated furnishing and equipment, and progression of the IT modernization program.

The utilization of available capital budgets for IT (62 percent) and Facilities (47 percent) were broadly in line with pre-COVID-19 projections. On the IT side, there was some minor repurposing of budget to enhance security for the business continuity center, which supports the heavy remote work environment.

^{Table 8.}

Capital Expenditures, FY 20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning

^{^1/}Approved capital funding is available for three consecutive years, except for HQ1 Renewal which is available until April 2025.

^{^2/}Represents the unspent amount of the budget appropriation in the period concerned. Those funds can be used for authorized projects in the period covered by the appropriation.

^{Table 8.}

Capital Expenditures, FY 20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

	Facilities	IT	Total Facilities and IT	HQ1 Renewal	Total Capital
Unspent FY 18 and FY 19 Funding	48	23	71	39	110
+ FY 20 Budget Appropriations	41	45	86	0	86
= Total funds available in FY 20 ^1/	89	68	157	39	196
Expenditures FY 20	42	42	84	23	107
Lapsed funds	2	0	2	0	2
Carry over into FY 21 ^2/	45	26	71	16	88
Memorandum item :
Expenditures FY 19	29	31	60	82	141

Source: Office of Budget and Planning

^{^1/}Approved capital funding is available for three consecutive years, except for HQ1 Renewal which is available until April 2025.

^{^2/}Represents the unspent amount of the budget appropriation in the period concerned. Those funds can be used for authorized projects in the period covered by the appropriation.

^{Table 8.}

Capital Expenditures, FY 20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

	Facilities	IT	Total Facilities and IT	HQ1 Renewal	Total Capital
Unspent FY 18 and FY 19 Funding	48	23	71	39	110
+ FY 20 Budget Appropriations	41	45	86	0	86
= Total funds available in FY 20 ^1/	89	68	157	39	196
Expenditures FY 20	42	42	84	23	107
Lapsed funds	2	0	2	0	2
Carry over into FY 21 ^2/	45	26	71	16	88
Memorandum item :
Expenditures FY 19	29	31	60	82	141

Source: Office of Budget and Planning

^{^1/}Approved capital funding is available for three consecutive years, except for HQ1 Renewal which is available until April 2025.

^{^2/}Represents the unspent amount of the budget appropriation in the period concerned. Those funds can be used for authorized projects in the period covered by the appropriation.

IT Capital Spending

Within overall IT capital expenditure of $42.2 million, 76 percent ($32.1 million) supported the implementation of the modernization projects (Figure 14).
1HR activities proceeded mostly as planned in FY 20, with expenditures of almost $18 million. The initial release to replace the HR inquiries system was deployed in February and helped HRD manage staff questions related to COVID-19. Coordination of testing activities during the work-from-home exercise contributed to the delay of Release 1, which is now expected to be completed in late October/Early November 2020 (versus April 2020 originally). Release 2, which will incorporate CCBR reforms, payroll and complex benefits, has shifted from October 2020 to the fourth quarter of FY 21.
The CDMAP project, with spending of $3.3 million, completed product acquisition and multiple design milestones. The project remains on target for implementation of two releases in FY 21 (planned for August and February). The first and second releases will deliver demand, planning and budget, management and project execution capabilities.
Of the other transformational projects, the iData initiative spent $0.8 million in the process of scoping and requirements gathering to facilitate product selection and completion of the cost-benefit analysis (CBA), presented to the Board in late July 2020. The iDW project spent $2.6 million on product evaluation and initial designs to define the project’s scope and To-Be requirements and to develop the associated CBA, which is now expected in mid FY 21. Expenditures of $2.5 million on Knowledge Management resulted in selection of the new document management platform and information architecture design with the iDW, completion of the initial country pages, implementation of an auto-tagging tool to enhance searching for documents, and the bulk of implementation for Enterprise Search, which was launched in May 2020. Additionally, $5 million was spent during the year for pre-requisite projects. Timelines for these projects are aligned with 1HR and CDMAP, to provide identity and access management, data warehousing and platform integration capabilities.
In addition to the modernization programs, other New Investments in IT totaled $5.2 million. Of this total, a large share ($2.7m) was related to improvements to the IT security posture, including improvements in security events logging and monitoring, and progress in migrating the business continuity center (BCC) to the cloud. . Other spending included work on the replacement of the language services system and upgrading of collaboration platforms that were no longer supported by the vendor.
IT lifecycle replacements totaled $4.9 million in FY 20 which includes purchase of network infrastructure equipment, servers and storage ($3.7 million) as well as a refresh of the Mac computer fleet. Remote office infrastructure upgrades began during the year and the remote access capabilities were also updated, which supported the heavy work from home volume in the fourth quarter.
The $26 million in appropriated but unspent funds will be carried over to FY 21 (per capital budget rules) and are budgeted primarily for the modernization program and information security projects to finalize the BCC cloud migration and improve privileged access management.

Facilities Capital Spending

Lifecycle replacements and repairs of $33.7 million comprised the majority of the $41.8 million in facilities capital spending (Figure 15). FY 20 expenditures were approximately $13 million higher, in nominal terms, than the previous year due mainly to the office furniture refresh and the tenant renovations needed to accommodate the move from swing to permanent spaces at the end of the HQ1 renewal.
Projects under the New Investment category provided enhancements to the HQ1 Atrium and audio-visual infrastructure for the boardroom, Executive Directors and management spaces.
Although the furniture refresh and reconfiguring of HQ office space as staff moved from swing to permanent spaces made up the majority of lifecycle replacement spending, other projects included the HQ1 window blast film replacement for improved physical security and audio-visual replacements and related construction work.
Starting in FY 20, the Board approved to fund vehicle purchases from the capital budget (previously funded from the administrative budget). The full appropriation of $1.2 million was utilized during the year to purchase 18 new vehicles for Fund offices overseas, including a small number armored for security needs.
About $1.8 million in FY 18 appropriated funds lapsed at year-end, for delayed projects including lifecycle replacements of equipment in HQ2, event furniture and equipment, and HQ1structural repairs—$0.6 million due to HQ shutdown and supply chain issues driven by COVID-19.
About $45 million in remaining appropriated funds will be carried over to FY 21 and mainly include projects for audio-visual lifecycle replacements and improvements, HQ1 Atrium enhancements, the final phase of the furniture refresh, and unused contingency and seed fund balances.

HQ1 Renewal

The HQ1 Renewal project was substantially completed, as expected, in September 2019. Total expenditures for the project through the end of FY 20 amounted to $546.8 million. Approximately $2–3 million of the remaining $16 million budget is estimated to be needed for final project closeout activities in FY 21.

Annex I. Capacity Development¹

1. This annex provides additional information on capacity development (CD) activities. It reports on overall spending on CD activities, CD distribution, training participation, and sources of external financing.²

A. Overall Spending on CD Activities

2. Spending was about $34 million (10 percent) below budget and $11 million (3½ percent) below FY 19 (Figure 1). Fund-financed CD was broadly in line with notional budget levels, with externally financed CD 16 percent below budget (and 6 percent below FY 19). The underspend reflects a range of factors, including importantly COVID-19 related impact on delivery in the final two months of the period. Lower-than-planned externally financed CD resulted in costs to the Fund’s budget from lower charge backs for personnel time ($1.6 million in lost HQ-based experts chargebacks, albeit offset by charges for regular staff) as well as a $2 million shortfall in Trust Fund Management Fees (see ^{Box 2} in the main text). In relative terms, CD remains around a third of the Fund’s output, but its share saw a decline of 1.5 percent against other Fund outputs.

3. Despite an intense shock, staff have continued to deliver CD to a wide range of member countries. Engagements have focused on following up on previous recommendations, desk reviews of authorities’ documents, HQ data work, and on-demand advice on technical crisis-related issues. This traditional work has been complemented by the production of special series of COVID-19 notes. Training and workshops have pivoted towards online while there has also been a ramping up of the Fund’s online learning program, including creating new online products. More generally, the rapid transition to virtual delivery is providing an opportunity to learn what works well and where the Fund can improve its toolkit and operating model to enhance delivery in the future.

B. CD Distribution

4. The CD prioritization framework, based on country demand and the Fund’s overall strategic priorities, guides the allocation of resources across regions and topic areas.³ The framework aims to provide the flexibility for the Fund to mobilize adequate resources to respond quickly to short-term, crisis-related CD needs. Looking ahead, the next CCB meeting has been delayed to January 2021, to better assess the impact of the crisis on members’ CD needs.

5. All regions, with the exception of APD, saw declines in year-on-year nominal CD spending (Table 1, Figure 2). EUR saw the most substantial decline, with a reduction of 14 percent. APD’s share of delivery grew, from 23 percent in FY 19 to 25 percent in FY20, as CD was delivered in line with expectations for the first three quarters of the year, in contrast to other regions. For the same reason, outturn relative to the budget observed a similar trend, with APD growing its share of delivery, with all other departments declining, to varying degrees. CD delivered to AFR witnessed the most substantial drop, reflecting the fact that it is the largest recipient of Fund CD and many authorities faced intense absorptive capacity constraints as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. This is also evidenced by analysis per income group, which shows that low-income developing countries, where issues around connectivity and organizational capacity are most acute, saw the largest reduction in CD delivery when delivery shifted to remote in the final months of the year.⁴ The fall in CD delivery to multiple regions reflects the decline in multi-regional training courses.

^{Table 1.}

Direct Delivery by Region and Income Group, FY 19–20

(Percent, unless otherwise indicated)

Source: Staff estimates as of May 2020.

^{^1/}CD spending to regional groups has been distributed evenly among member countries of each group.

^{Table 1.}

Direct Delivery by Region and Income Group, FY 19–20

(Percent, unless otherwise indicated)

		FY 19 Outturn	FY 20 Budget	FY 20 Outturn	FY 20 change in share (p.p.)		Nominal
		Share [1]	Share [2]	Share [3]	To FY19 [3]-[1]	To Budget [3]-[2]	Growth Rate
Total Direct Delivery		100.0	100.0	100.0			-7.1
Region ^1/
	Sub-saharan Africa	37.5	39.6	38.2	0.7	-1.5	-5.5
	Asia and Pacific	22.2	23.4	24.8	2.6	1.4	3.7
	Europe	9.6	9.7	8.9	-0.7	-0.8	-14.2
	Middle East and Central Asia	12.5	12.3	12.2	-0.4	-0.2	-9.8
	Western Hemisphere	12.6	13.5	13.2	0.5	-0.3	-3.2
	Multiple regions	5.3	1.5	2.9	-2.5	1.4	-50.1
Income Group
	Advanced economies	3.3	…	3.3	0.0	…	-6.9
	Emerging market and middle-income economies	44.3	…	45.1	0.9	…	-5.3
	Low-income developing countries	52.4	…	51.8	-0.7	…	-8.3

Source: Staff estimates as of May 2020.

^{^1/}CD spending to regional groups has been distributed evenly among member countries of each group.

^{Table 1.}

Direct Delivery by Region and Income Group, FY 19–20

(Percent, unless otherwise indicated)

		FY 19 Outturn	FY 20 Budget	FY 20 Outturn	FY 20 change in share (p.p.)		Nominal
		Share [1]	Share [2]	Share [3]	To FY19 [3]-[1]	To Budget [3]-[2]	Growth Rate
Total Direct Delivery		100.0	100.0	100.0			-7.1
Region ^1/
	Sub-saharan Africa	37.5	39.6	38.2	0.7	-1.5	-5.5
	Asia and Pacific	22.2	23.4	24.8	2.6	1.4	3.7
	Europe	9.6	9.7	8.9	-0.7	-0.8	-14.2
	Middle East and Central Asia	12.5	12.3	12.2	-0.4	-0.2	-9.8
	Western Hemisphere	12.6	13.5	13.2	0.5	-0.3	-3.2
	Multiple regions	5.3	1.5	2.9	-2.5	1.4	-50.1
Income Group
	Advanced economies	3.3	…	3.3	0.0	…	-6.9
	Emerging market and middle-income economies	44.3	…	45.1	0.9	…	-5.3
	Low-income developing countries	52.4	…	51.8	-0.7	…	-8.3

Source: Staff estimates as of May 2020.

^{^1/}CD spending to regional groups has been distributed evenly among member countries of each group.

6. CD on fiscal issues continues to account for the largest share of expenditures (Table 2). FAD CD was 37 percent of FY 20 expenditure, with MCM, STA and ICD the other large providers. FAD delivery was broadly stable in nominal terms, while all other departments declined. MCM and LEG both saw year-on-year declines of 11 percent, reflecting competing work pressures and delays in engagement with country authorities.

^{Table 2.}

Spending on CD by Department, FY 16–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, ACES.

^{^1/}Including area departments and other functional departments reporting CD-related activities.

^{Table 2.}

Spending on CD by Department, FY 16–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

		FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	FY 19	FY 20
						Budget Outturn
Total		264	274	311	316	339	305
	Fiscal Affairs Department	89	96	113	113	120	113
	Institute for Capacity Development	42	43	43	42	43	40
	Legal Department	12	13	14	12	12	11
	Monetary and Capital Markets	49	49	56	55	64	49
	Statistics Department	28	29	36	40	42	38
	Other ^1/	30	30	36	35	37	35
	ICD-governance/donors	14	13	14	18	14	19
	Unallocated	…	…	…	…	6	…

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, ACES.

^{^1/}Including area departments and other functional departments reporting CD-related activities.

^{Table 2.}

Spending on CD by Department, FY 16–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

		FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	FY 19	FY 20
						Budget Outturn
Total		264	274	311	316	339	305
	Fiscal Affairs Department	89	96	113	113	120	113
	Institute for Capacity Development	42	43	43	42	43	40
	Legal Department	12	13	14	12	12	11
	Monetary and Capital Markets	49	49	56	55	64	49
	Statistics Department	28	29	36	40	42	38
	Other ^1/	30	30	36	35	37	35
	ICD-governance/donors	14	13	14	18	14	19
	Unallocated	…	…	…	…	6	…

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, ACES.

^{^1/}Including area departments and other functional departments reporting CD-related activities.

7. Spending fell across most workstreams (Table 3), although there was significant heterogeneity on the depth of shortfalls. The core workstreams continue to make up the bulk of CD delivery. In broad terms, there was a more substantial drop in MCM workstreams than others, for reasons noted above. Tax policy, one of the identified growth areas, and macroeconomic frameworks, saw significant increases in both year-on-year and against budget expectations.

^{Table 3.}

Direct Delivery on Top Eight Workstreams, FY 19–20

(Percent, unless otherwise indicated)

Source: Staff estimates as of May 2020.

^{Table 3.}

Direct Delivery on Top Eight Workstreams, FY 19–20

(Percent, unless otherwise indicated)

		FY 19 Outturn	FY 20 Budget	FY 20 Outturn	FY 20 change in share (p.p.)		Nominal
		Share [1]	Share [2]	Share [3]	To FY19 [3]-[1]	To Budget [3]-[2]	Growth Rate
Total Direct Delivery		100.0	100.0	100.0			-7.1
Total Direct Delivery on Top Eight Workstreams		93.3	94.3	94.4	1.1	0.1	-6.0
	Revenue Administration	20.4	19.9	20.3	-0.1	0.4	-7.7
	Public Financial Management and Expenditure Policy	18.8	19.0	19.7	0.9	0.7	-2.8
	Macroeconomic Frameworks	13.8	14.1	15.6	1.8	1.5	5.3
	Macroeconomic Statistics	15.0	14.9	14.8	-0.2	-0.1	-8.1
	Financial Sector Stability	11.6	12.5	10.9	-0.6	-1.5	-12.2
	Central Bank Operations and Market Development	6.2	6.3	5.2	-1.0	-1.1	-22.3
	Tax Policy	3.3	3.7	4.1	0.8	0.5	15.3
	Financial Integrity and Financial/Fiscal Law Reform	4.2	3.9	3.7	-0.4	-0.2	-17.1
	Other workstreams	6.5	5.7	5.6	-0.9	-0.2	-20.2

Source: Staff estimates as of May 2020.

^{Table 3.}

Direct Delivery on Top Eight Workstreams, FY 19–20

(Percent, unless otherwise indicated)

		FY 19 Outturn	FY 20 Budget	FY 20 Outturn	FY 20 change in share (p.p.)		Nominal
		Share [1]	Share [2]	Share [3]	To FY19 [3]-[1]	To Budget [3]-[2]	Growth Rate
Total Direct Delivery		100.0	100.0	100.0			-7.1
Total Direct Delivery on Top Eight Workstreams		93.3	94.3	94.4	1.1	0.1	-6.0
	Revenue Administration	20.4	19.9	20.3	-0.1	0.4	-7.7
	Public Financial Management and Expenditure Policy	18.8	19.0	19.7	0.9	0.7	-2.8
	Macroeconomic Frameworks	13.8	14.1	15.6	1.8	1.5	5.3
	Macroeconomic Statistics	15.0	14.9	14.8	-0.2	-0.1	-8.1
	Financial Sector Stability	11.6	12.5	10.9	-0.6	-1.5	-12.2
	Central Bank Operations and Market Development	6.2	6.3	5.2	-1.0	-1.1	-22.3
	Tax Policy	3.3	3.7	4.1	0.8	0.5	15.3
	Financial Integrity and Financial/Fiscal Law Reform	4.2	3.9	3.7	-0.4	-0.2	-17.1
	Other workstreams	6.5	5.7	5.6	-0.9	-0.2	-20.2

Source: Staff estimates as of May 2020.

8. The share of delivery to topical growth areas grew from FY 19 (Table 4). FY 19 was the baseline year for the new prioritization framework, and the fact that delivery grew in spite of the issues caused by COVID-19 is promising.⁵ Overall growth was driven primarily by substantially increased share in delivery of anti-corruption and tax policy related CD, which were areas with high unmet demand in previous years. Delivery to Fragile States and Highly-Vulnerable countries, fell 14 percent and 7 percent in nominal terms, respectively, reflecting in part the absorptive capacity issues associated with the crisis and remote delivery. The decline in delivery to CCAM countries is in line with the original plans for FY 20, reflecting the closing of externally-financed projects that have benefitted this region in recent years. The delivery share is expected to pick-up in the near future as the new CCAMTAC starts its operations.

^{Table 4.}

Direct Delivery on Growth Areas, FY 19–20

(Percent, unless otherwise indicated)

Source: Staff estimates as of May 2020.

^{Table 4.}

Direct Delivery on Growth Areas, FY 19–20

(Percent, unless otherwise indicated)

			FY 19 Outturn	FY 20 Budget	FY 20 Outturn	FY 20 change in share (p.p.)		Nominal
			Share [1]	Share [2]	Share [3]	To FY1 9 [3]-[1]	To Budget [3]-[2]	Growth Rate
Total Direct Delivery			100.0	100.0	100.0			-7.1
Total Direct Delivery on Topic Growth Areas			7.8	9.4	9.4			12.4
	Topic Growth Areas, identified workstreams within:
		Anti-corruption	1.1	1.8	2.0	0.9	0.2	68.1
		Debt sustainability and debt statistics	1.1	1.5	0.8	-0.3	-0.7	-34.2
		Expenditure policy and public investment management	2.1	2.2	1.8	-0.4	-0.5	-22.8
		Tax policy	2.6	3.3	3.9	1.3	0.5	38.1
		Fintech and cyber risks	0.8	0.5	0.8	-0.1	0.3	-14.5
		Climate change	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.2	0.2	…
Country Group Growth Areas
	Highly-vulnerable countries		50.7	17.6	50.5	-0.1	32.9	-7.4
	Fragile states		29.3	23.9	27.1	-2.3	3.2	-14.3
	Caucasus, Central Asia, and Mongolia (CCAM)		6.7	4.9	6.5	-0.2	1.6	-10.2

Source: Staff estimates as of May 2020.

^{Table 4.}

Direct Delivery on Growth Areas, FY 19–20

(Percent, unless otherwise indicated)

			FY 19 Outturn	FY 20 Budget	FY 20 Outturn	FY 20 change in share (p.p.)		Nominal
			Share [1]	Share [2]	Share [3]	To FY1 9 [3]-[1]	To Budget [3]-[2]	Growth Rate
Total Direct Delivery			100.0	100.0	100.0			-7.1
Total Direct Delivery on Topic Growth Areas			7.8	9.4	9.4			12.4
	Topic Growth Areas, identified workstreams within:
		Anti-corruption	1.1	1.8	2.0	0.9	0.2	68.1
		Debt sustainability and debt statistics	1.1	1.5	0.8	-0.3	-0.7	-34.2
		Expenditure policy and public investment management	2.1	2.2	1.8	-0.4	-0.5	-22.8
		Tax policy	2.6	3.3	3.9	1.3	0.5	38.1
		Fintech and cyber risks	0.8	0.5	0.8	-0.1	0.3	-14.5
		Climate change	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.2	0.2	…
Country Group Growth Areas
	Highly-vulnerable countries		50.7	17.6	50.5	-0.1	32.9	-7.4
	Fragile states		29.3	23.9	27.1	-2.3	3.2	-14.3
	Caucasus, Central Asia, and Mongolia (CCAM)		6.7	4.9	6.5	-0.2	1.6	-10.2

Source: Staff estimates as of May 2020.

9. Recognizing this unprecedented uncertainty about country level demand and CD delivery stemming from the crisis, the FY21 resource allocation plan exercise was simplified. Rather than adopt a medium-term approach, departments were asked to focus on immediate CD priorities for FY 21, with the November CCB acting as an opportunity to embed some of the early lessons from remote delivery and seek to identify any emerging priorities that could supplement or replace existing ‘growth areas.’ Looking forward, the Fund also needs to focus on helping countries build sound institutions to boost resilience to shocks, while remaining able to sustain efforts to develop capacity in member countries, in particular low-income countries, fragile, and small states.

C. Training Participation

10. Training fell as a share of overall CD delivery (Table 5) in both year-on-year terms and against budget expectations. This was driven by the crisis-related Q4 suspension of face-to-face training, the vast bulk of which is provided by ICD. The significant increase in online delivery did not result in a material increase in costs due to the low delivery cost of this modality.

^{Table 5.}

Direct Delivery on Training by Department, FY 19–20

(Percent, unless otherwise indicated)

Source: Staff estimates as of May 2020.

^{^1/}Including area departments and other functional departments reporting CD-related activities.

^{Table 5.}

Direct Delivery on Training by Department, FY 19–20

(Percent, unless otherwise indicated)

		FY 19 Outturn	FY 20 Budget	FY 20 Outturn	FY 20 change in share (p.p.)		Nominal
		Share [1]	Share [2]	Share [3]	To FY19 [3]-[1]	To Budget [3]-[2]	Growth Rate
Total Direct Delivery		100.0	100.0	100.0			-7.1
Total Direct Delivery on Training		14.2	13.7	13.4
	Fiscal Affairs Department	1.0	1.0	1.2	0.2	0.2	8.6
	Institute for Capacity Development	9.4	8.3	8.6	-0.8	0.3	-15.3
	Legal Department	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.0	-0.1	-5.1
	Monetary and Capital Markets	0.8	0.8	0.6	-0.2	-0.2	-30.1
	Statistics Department	1.6	1.9	1.8	0.2	0.0	4.7
	Other CD delivery departments ^1/	1.0	1.5	0.9	-0.2	-0.6	-22.3

Source: Staff estimates as of May 2020.

^{^1/}Including area departments and other functional departments reporting CD-related activities.

^{Table 5.}

Direct Delivery on Training by Department, FY 19–20

(Percent, unless otherwise indicated)

		FY 19 Outturn	FY 20 Budget	FY 20 Outturn	FY 20 change in share (p.p.)		Nominal
		Share [1]	Share [2]	Share [3]	To FY19 [3]-[1]	To Budget [3]-[2]	Growth Rate
Total Direct Delivery		100.0	100.0	100.0			-7.1
Total Direct Delivery on Training		14.2	13.7	13.4
	Fiscal Affairs Department	1.0	1.0	1.2	0.2	0.2	8.6
	Institute for Capacity Development	9.4	8.3	8.6	-0.8	0.3	-15.3
	Legal Department	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.0	-0.1	-5.1
	Monetary and Capital Markets	0.8	0.8	0.6	-0.2	-0.2	-30.1
	Statistics Department	1.6	1.9	1.8	0.2	0.0	4.7
	Other CD delivery departments ^1/	1.0	1.5	0.9	-0.2	-0.6	-22.3

Source: Staff estimates as of May 2020.

^{^1/}Including area departments and other functional departments reporting CD-related activities.

11. Participation in IMF training fell by around 9 percent in FY 20 notwithstanding a substantial increase in online training. ICD remains the largest provider of training, followed by STA and FAD (Table 5). Training participation fell in all regions, bar Asia Pacific. For the first time, training participants in Asia Pacific represent the largest share, closely followed by Africa, which experienced a significant fall in training participation (17 percent decline) This was driven by a decline in face-to-face training. The increased participation in Asia Pacific was driven by online learning, which grew by 150 percent, much more than other regions. The impact of COVID-19 is clear with a substantial fall in in-person training, at HQ, RTCs and other locations (Table 6). In terms of income groups, participation fell amongst EMEs and LIDCs, likely a reflection of halting in-person delivery and constraints around access to robust digital infrastructure. Nevertheless, EMEs continue to receive the largest share of training at a little over 53 percent, followed by LIDCs at almost 39 percent (Figure 3).

^{Table 6.}

Total Training Participation by Department and Region of Origin, FY 16–20

(Number of participants)

Sources: PATS; and staff estimates.

^¹Includes reported training not attributed to above.

^{Table 6.}

Total Training Participation by Department and Region of Origin, FY 16–20

(Number of participants)

		FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	FY 19	FY 20
Total		14,468	13,825	16,597	16,993	15,542
Department
	Fiscal Affairs Department	2 ,263	2 ,410	3 ,183	3 ,353	2 ,933
	Ins. for Capacity Development	7 ,381	7 ,272	8 ,852	8 ,461	6 ,440
	Legal Department	625	546	489	384	501
	Monetary and Capital Markets	1 ,492	1 ,220	1 ,369	1 ,657	1 ,606
	Statistics Department	2 ,230	2 ,202	2 ,465	3 ,003	3 ,894
	Other including RTACs¹	477	175	239	135	168
Region
	Sub-saharan Africa	3 ,996	4 ,353	4 ,711	4 ,948	4 ,060
	Asia and Pacific	2 ,882	2 ,504	3 ,674	4 ,284	4 ,440
	Europe	2 ,077	1 ,809	1 ,815	1 ,613	1 ,548
	Middle East and Central Asia	2 ,552	2 ,831	3 ,524	3 ,402	2 ,966
	Western Hemisphere	2 ,961	2 ,328	2 ,873	2 ,746	2 ,528

Sources: PATS; and staff estimates.

^¹Includes reported training not attributed to above.

^{Table 6.}

Total Training Participation by Department and Region of Origin, FY 16–20

(Number of participants)

		FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	FY 19	FY 20
Total		14,468	13,825	16,597	16,993	15,542
Department
	Fiscal Affairs Department	2 ,263	2 ,410	3 ,183	3 ,353	2 ,933
	Ins. for Capacity Development	7 ,381	7 ,272	8 ,852	8 ,461	6 ,440
	Legal Department	625	546	489	384	501
	Monetary and Capital Markets	1 ,492	1 ,220	1 ,369	1 ,657	1 ,606
	Statistics Department	2 ,230	2 ,202	2 ,465	3 ,003	3 ,894
	Other including RTACs¹	477	175	239	135	168
Region
	Sub-saharan Africa	3 ,996	4 ,353	4 ,711	4 ,948	4 ,060
	Asia and Pacific	2 ,882	2 ,504	3 ,674	4 ,284	4 ,440
	Europe	2 ,077	1 ,809	1 ,815	1 ,613	1 ,548
	Middle East and Central Asia	2 ,552	2 ,831	3 ,524	3 ,402	2 ,966
	Western Hemisphere	2 ,961	2 ,328	2 ,873	2 ,746	2 ,528

Sources: PATS; and staff estimates.

^¹Includes reported training not attributed to above.

12. Regional training centers saw a large decrease in number of participants (Table 6). Participation in training taking place at Regional Training Centers (RTCs) decreased by 19 percent compared to FY 19. This decrease was observed across nearly all regions and centers. This is the second consecutive year of decline in RTC participation. SARTTAC remains the largest training center with 1,331 participants in FY 20.

13. Total participation in online learning, grew dramatically in FY 20, with a substantial shift in composition toward government official participants. At the same time, however, FY 20 saw a continuing decline in government officials who complete the courses, which now stands at around of a quarter of those who initially enroll. Training for officials under the online learning program stood at 38 percent of total IMF training in FY 20, up from 26 percent in FY 19.

14. Participation from priority country groups changed modestly in FY 20 (Figure 4). The upward trend in participation from fragile states and program countries discontinued in FY 20, with both groups experiencing relatively larger decreases in the respective shares of participation. This was driven by a decline in in-person classroom training, which fell by nearly 70 and 80 per cent respectively in Q4. Online participation actually rose for fragile states and program countries, albeit from a low base. The share of participation from highly vulnerable countries and small developing states remained broadly flat.⁶

D. Sources of External Funding

15. Over the last three years, the top 25 partners contributed 93 percent of the total external funding for CD (Table 7). Other key characteristics of external funding are as follows:

Partner contributions are made to multi-partner vehicles—including regional CD centers, thematic and country funds, and bilateral programs. In addition, host countries manage a few regional training programs, where Fund staff provide training (Table 8).
Contributions to multi-partner vehicles remain relatively concentrated (Table 9). In general, a few large partners for Regional Technical Assistance Centers (RTACs) and thematic funds account for a significant share of the total contribution in each group of vehicles. While the increased share of recipient members’ contributions to RTACs to 30 percent has strengthened the financial sustainability of these centers, looking ahead, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on member country budgets raises some funding risks.

^{Table 7.}

Partner Contributions, FY 18–20¹

Source: Capacity Development Information Management System (CDIMS). Note: Figures adjusted for RTC costs covered directly by the hosts, which are not reflected in IMF accounts. They may not add to totals due to rounding.

^¹Contributions received during FY18–20.

^{Table 7.}

Partner Contributions, FY 18–20¹

		Contributions	Share
Donor		(Mil. of U.S. dollars)	(Percent of total)
European Commission		132	19
Japan		97	14
China		51	7
Germany		48	7
Switzerland		43	6
United Kingdom		41	6
Kuwait		32	5
The Netherlands		30	4
Canada		28	4
India		18	3
Austria		16	2
Norway		16	2
Australia		15	2
Korea		14	2
Luxembourg		13	2
New Zealand		8	1
Sweden		8	1
Singapore		8	1
Denmark		7	1
France		7	1
Belgium		5	1
Ghana		5	1
Caribbean Development Bank		4	1
European Investment Bank		4	1
Italy		4	1
Other donors and institutions		48	7
	of which: private foundations	1	0
Total		702	100

^¹Contributions received during FY18–20.

^{Table 7.}

Partner Contributions, FY 18–20¹

		Contributions	Share
Donor		(Mil. of U.S. dollars)	(Percent of total)
European Commission		132	19
Japan		97	14
China		51	7
Germany		48	7
Switzerland		43	6
United Kingdom		41	6
Kuwait		32	5
The Netherlands		30	4
Canada		28	4
India		18	3
Austria		16	2
Norway		16	2
Australia		15	2
Korea		14	2
Luxembourg		13	2
New Zealand		8	1
Sweden		8	1
Singapore		8	1
Denmark		7	1
France		7	1
Belgium		5	1
Ghana		5	1
Caribbean Development Bank		4	1
European Investment Bank		4	1
Italy		4	1
Other donors and institutions		48	7
	of which: private foundations	1	0
Total		702	100

^¹Contributions received during FY18–20.

^{Table 8.}

Capacity Development Vehicles Top 10 Partner Contributions, FY 18–20¹

Source: CDIMS. Note: Figures adjusted for RTC costs covered directly by the hosts, which are not reflected in IMF accounts. They may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Funds received during FY 18–20.

^{Table 8.}

Capacity Development Vehicles Top 10 Partner Contributions, FY 18–20¹

		Contribution	Share
		(Millions of U.S. dollars)	(Percent of Total)
Multi-partner		496	71
	Thematic (and country) Trust Funds (TTFs)	143	29
	Regional Technical Assistance Centers (RTACs)	286	58
	Regional Training Centers (RTCs)	67	13
Bilateral		205	29
Total		702	100

Source: CDIMS. Note: Figures adjusted for RTC costs covered directly by the hosts, which are not reflected in IMF accounts. They may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Funds received during FY 18–20.

^{Table 8.}

Capacity Development Vehicles Top 10 Partner Contributions, FY 18–20¹

		Contribution	Share
		(Millions of U.S. dollars)	(Percent of Total)
Multi-partner		496	71
	Thematic (and country) Trust Funds (TTFs)	143	29
	Regional Technical Assistance Centers (RTACs)	286	58
	Regional Training Centers (RTCs)	67	13
Bilateral		205	29
Total		702	100

Source: CDIMS. Note: Figures adjusted for RTC costs covered directly by the hosts, which are not reflected in IMF accounts. They may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Funds received during FY 18–20.

^{Table 9.}

RTACs and TTFs: Partner and Member Contributions to Current Phase¹

Source: CDIMS. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Signed contributions and pledges for current cycle as of April 30, 2020.

^{Table 9.}

RTACs and TTFs: Partner and Member Contributions to Current Phase¹

	RTACs		TTFs
	(Millions of U.S. dollars)	(Percent of total)	(Millions of U.S. dollars)	(Percent of total)
Top 3 donors	167	37	105	42
Other (other donors and international institutions)	150	33	145	58
Members (RTAC recipients)	138	30
Total	454	100	249	100

Source: CDIMS. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Signed contributions and pledges for current cycle as of April 30, 2020.

^{Table 9.}

RTACs and TTFs: Partner and Member Contributions to Current Phase¹

	RTACs		TTFs
	(Millions of U.S. dollars)	(Percent of total)	(Millions of U.S. dollars)	(Percent of total)
Top 3 donors	167	37	105	42
Other (other donors and international institutions)	150	33	145	58
Members (RTAC recipients)	138	30
Total	454	100	249	100

Source: CDIMS. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

^{^1/}Signed contributions and pledges for current cycle as of April 30, 2020.

16. The emergence of the COVID-19 crisis highlighted some risks and challenges associated with external funding, which will continue to be actively managed:

Diversification. Pursuing broader and more sustained partnerships will reduce dependence on large contributors as shortfalls from one partner can be more easily offset by the others. Longer and more strategic partnerships provide greater funding certainty over the medium term.
Flexibility. Promoting multi-partner and umbrella agreements will enable the Fund to allocate funding across a range of CD activities and thereby manage funding shortfalls in specific vehicles. For example, in the context of COVID-19, a new multi-partner initiative to raise funds that will be allocated flexibly for IMF CD was launched to address urgent CD needs related to the pandemic. Fund-financed CD can also be reprioritized more flexibly.
Risks. Reducing operational risks by (a) securing financing upfront before carrying out CD delivery, (b) flexibly adjusting the components of a work program if funding falls short, and (c) mitigating risks associated with high donor dependency. All CD projects or programs have built-in degrees of flexibility to allow adjustments.

Annex II. Statistical Tables

Table 1.

Gross Fund- and Externally Financed Spending Estimates by Output, FY 16–20¹

(Millions of FY 20 U.S. dollars, support and governance costs allocated across outputs)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

^{^1/}Unlike in Table 2 in the main text, this table shows support and governance costs as allocated across outputs.

^{^2/}Includes Post Program Monitoring, Policy Support Instruments, Staff Monitored Programs, Near Programs, Ex-Post Assessments, Multilateral Debt Relief Initiatives (MDRI-I and II), Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, Joint Staff Advisory Notes, Post Catastrophe Debt Relief, and Catastrophe Containment Relief Trust.

^{^3/}Miscellaneous includes payments to some separating staff and reconciliation items. Compared to Table 2 in the main text, this table also includes direct Support and Governance expenses.

^{^4/}Reconciliation to gross administrative expenditures as per the Fund’s financial system.

Table 1.

Gross Fund- and Externally Financed Spending Estimates by Output, FY 16–20¹

(Millions of FY 20 U.S. dollars, support and governance costs allocated across outputs)

				Millions of FY 20 U.S. dollars					Percent of total
				FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	FY19	FY20	FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	FY19	FY20
Total				1,337	1,355	1,374	1,381	1,350	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
	Multilateral surveillance			265	262	274	261	259	1 9.8	1 9.3	1 9.9	18.9	19.2
		Global economic analysis		130	129	130	124	122	9 .7	9.5	9 .5	9.0	9.0
			WEO	19	18	17	16	19	1.4	1.3	1.3	1.1	1.4
			GFSR	16	16	17	13	14	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.0	1.0
			General research	43	39	38	39	38	3.2	2.9	2.8	2.9	2.8
			General outreach	52	57	57	55	51	3.9	4.2	4.2	4.0	3.8
		Support and Inputs to Multilateral Forums and Consultations		24	24	23	24	22	1 .8	1.7	1 .7	1.7	1.7
			Multilateral consultations	7	6	5	4	4	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.3	0.3
			Support and Inputs to multilateral forums	18	17	18	20	18	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.4	1.3
		Tools to prevent and resolve systemic crises		64	68	77	70	72	4 .8	5.0	5 .6	5.1	5.3
			Analysis of vulnerabilities and imbalances	17	18	21	20	23	1.3	1.3	1.5	1.4	1.7
			Other cross cutting analysis	42	45	49	45	43	3.2	3.3	3.6	3.2	3.2
			Fiscal Monitor	4	5	7	5	5	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.4	0.4
		Regional approaches to economic stability		47	41	43	43	43	3 .5	3.0	3 .2	3.1	3.2
			REOs	22	19	20	20	20	1.6	1.4	1.4	1.4	1.5
			Surveillance of regional bodies	11	9	8	8	7	0.8	0.7	0.6	0.6	0.5
			Other regional projects	14	13	16	15	16	1.1	1.0	1.1	1.1	1.2
	Oversight of global systems			134	139	143	150	147	1 0.0	1 0.2	1 0.4	10.9	10.9
		Development of international financial architecture		39	43	41	47	53	2 .9	3.2	3 .0	3.4	4.0
			Work with FSB and other international bodies	7	8	7	7	7	0.5	0.6	0.5	0.5	0.5
			Other work on monetary, financial, and capital markets issues	32	36	34	41	47	2.4	2.6	2.5	2.9	3.5
		Data transparency		38	39	42	43	36	2 .8	2.9	3 .0	3.1	2.7
			Statistical information/data	30	31	33	33	27	2.2	2.3	2.4	2.4	2.0
			Statistical manuals	3	2	2	2	2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2
			Statistical methodologies	5	6	6	7	7	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.5	0.5
		The role of the Fund		57	56	60	60	58	4 .3	4.1	4 .3	4.3	4.3
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities excl. PRGT and GRA	20	20	27	27	24	1.5	1.5	2.0	2.0	1.8
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities – PRGT	11	13	12	14	15	0.8	0.9	0.8	1.0	1.1
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities – GRA	9	9	9	8	9	0.6	0.7	0.7	0.6	0.6
			Quota and voice	7	6	7	7	6	0.6	0.4	0.5	0.5	0.4
			SDR issues	10	8	5	4	4	0.7	0.6	0.4	0.3	0.3
	Bilateral surveillance			320	333	336	349	313	2 3.9	2 4.6	2 4.4	25.3	23.2
		Assessment of economic policies and risks		282	283	293	302	277	2 1.1	2 0.9	2 1.3	21.9	20.5
			Article IV consultations	209	210	221	230	205	15.6	15.5	16.1	16.7	15.2
			Other bilateral surveillance	73	74	72	72	72	5.4	5.4	5.2	5.2	5.3
		Financial soundness evaluations – FSAPs/OFCs		28	40	33	38	30	2 .1	2.9	2 .4	2.7	2.2
		Standards and Codes evaluations		10	10	9	9	6	0 .8	0.7	0 .7	0.7	0.5
			ROSCs	2	2	1	1	0	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.0
			AML/CFT	2	2	2	2	2	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.1
			GDDS/SDDS	7	6	5	6	4	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.4	0.3
	Lending (incl. non-financial instruments)			194	179	172	182	202	1 4.5	1 3.2	1 2.5	13.2	14.9
		Arrangements supported by Fund resources		148	146	149	137	164	1 1.1	1 0.8	1 0.8	9.9	12.2
			Programs and precautionary arrangements supported by general resources	84	77	72	71	92	6.3	5.7	5.3	5.1	6.8
			Programs supported by PRGT resources	64	70	76	66	72	4.8	5.1	5.6	4.8	5.4
		Non-financial instruments and debt relief ^2/		46	33	23	44	38	3 .4	2.4	1 .7	3.2	2.8
	Capacity development			365	372	419	412	392	2 7.3	2 7.5	3 0.5	29.8	29.0
		Technical assistance		305	311	352	344	329	22.8	23.0	25.6	24.9	24.4
		Training		60	61	67	68	63	4.5	4.5	4.9	4.9	4.7
	Miscellaneous ^3/			45	49	29	27	37	3 .4	3.6	2 .1	2.0	2.7
	Reconciliation item ^4/			14	21	2	0	0	1 .1	1.5	0 .1	-	-

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

^{^1/}Unlike in Table 2 in the main text, this table shows support and governance costs as allocated across outputs.

^{^3/}Miscellaneous includes payments to some separating staff and reconciliation items. Compared to Table 2 in the main text, this table also includes direct Support and Governance expenses.

^{^4/}Reconciliation to gross administrative expenditures as per the Fund’s financial system.

Table 1.

Gross Fund- and Externally Financed Spending Estimates by Output, FY 16–20¹

(Millions of FY 20 U.S. dollars, support and governance costs allocated across outputs)

				Millions of FY 20 U.S. dollars					Percent of total
				FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	FY19	FY20	FY 16	FY 17	FY 18	FY19	FY20
Total				1,337	1,355	1,374	1,381	1,350	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
	Multilateral surveillance			265	262	274	261	259	1 9.8	1 9.3	1 9.9	18.9	19.2
		Global economic analysis		130	129	130	124	122	9 .7	9.5	9 .5	9.0	9.0
			WEO	19	18	17	16	19	1.4	1.3	1.3	1.1	1.4
			GFSR	16	16	17	13	14	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.0	1.0
			General research	43	39	38	39	38	3.2	2.9	2.8	2.9	2.8
			General outreach	52	57	57	55	51	3.9	4.2	4.2	4.0	3.8
		Support and Inputs to Multilateral Forums and Consultations		24	24	23	24	22	1 .8	1.7	1 .7	1.7	1.7
			Multilateral consultations	7	6	5	4	4	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.3	0.3
			Support and Inputs to multilateral forums	18	17	18	20	18	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.4	1.3
		Tools to prevent and resolve systemic crises		64	68	77	70	72	4 .8	5.0	5 .6	5.1	5.3
			Analysis of vulnerabilities and imbalances	17	18	21	20	23	1.3	1.3	1.5	1.4	1.7
			Other cross cutting analysis	42	45	49	45	43	3.2	3.3	3.6	3.2	3.2
			Fiscal Monitor	4	5	7	5	5	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.4	0.4
		Regional approaches to economic stability		47	41	43	43	43	3 .5	3.0	3 .2	3.1	3.2
			REOs	22	19	20	20	20	1.6	1.4	1.4	1.4	1.5
			Surveillance of regional bodies	11	9	8	8	7	0.8	0.7	0.6	0.6	0.5
			Other regional projects	14	13	16	15	16	1.1	1.0	1.1	1.1	1.2
	Oversight of global systems			134	139	143	150	147	1 0.0	1 0.2	1 0.4	10.9	10.9
		Development of international financial architecture		39	43	41	47	53	2 .9	3.2	3 .0	3.4	4.0
			Work with FSB and other international bodies	7	8	7	7	7	0.5	0.6	0.5	0.5	0.5
			Other work on monetary, financial, and capital markets issues	32	36	34	41	47	2.4	2.6	2.5	2.9	3.5
		Data transparency		38	39	42	43	36	2 .8	2.9	3 .0	3.1	2.7
			Statistical information/data	30	31	33	33	27	2.2	2.3	2.4	2.4	2.0
			Statistical manuals	3	2	2	2	2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2
			Statistical methodologies	5	6	6	7	7	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.5	0.5
		The role of the Fund		57	56	60	60	58	4 .3	4.1	4 .3	4.3	4.3
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities excl. PRGT and GRA	20	20	27	27	24	1.5	1.5	2.0	2.0	1.8
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities – PRGT	11	13	12	14	15	0.8	0.9	0.8	1.0	1.1
			Development and review of Fund policies and facilities – GRA	9	9	9	8	9	0.6	0.7	0.7	0.6	0.6
			Quota and voice	7	6	7	7	6	0.6	0.4	0.5	0.5	0.4
			SDR issues	10	8	5	4	4	0.7	0.6	0.4	0.3	0.3
	Bilateral surveillance			320	333	336	349	313	2 3.9	2 4.6	2 4.4	25.3	23.2
		Assessment of economic policies and risks		282	283	293	302	277	2 1.1	2 0.9	2 1.3	21.9	20.5
			Article IV consultations	209	210	221	230	205	15.6	15.5	16.1	16.7	15.2
			Other bilateral surveillance	73	74	72	72	72	5.4	5.4	5.2	5.2	5.3
		Financial soundness evaluations – FSAPs/OFCs		28	40	33	38	30	2 .1	2.9	2 .4	2.7	2.2
		Standards and Codes evaluations		10	10	9	9	6	0 .8	0.7	0 .7	0.7	0.5
			ROSCs	2	2	1	1	0	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.0
			AML/CFT	2	2	2	2	2	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.1
			GDDS/SDDS	7	6	5	6	4	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.4	0.3
	Lending (incl. non-financial instruments)			194	179	172	182	202	1 4.5	1 3.2	1 2.5	13.2	14.9
		Arrangements supported by Fund resources		148	146	149	137	164	1 1.1	1 0.8	1 0.8	9.9	12.2
			Programs and precautionary arrangements supported by general resources	84	77	72	71	92	6.3	5.7	5.3	5.1	6.8
			Programs supported by PRGT resources	64	70	76	66	72	4.8	5.1	5.6	4.8	5.4
		Non-financial instruments and debt relief ^2/		46	33	23	44	38	3 .4	2.4	1 .7	3.2	2.8
	Capacity development			365	372	419	412	392	2 7.3	2 7.5	3 0.5	29.8	29.0
		Technical assistance		305	311	352	344	329	22.8	23.0	25.6	24.9	24.4
		Training		60	61	67	68	63	4.5	4.5	4.9	4.9	4.7
	Miscellaneous ^3/			45	49	29	27	37	3 .4	3.6	2 .1	2.0	2.7
	Reconciliation item ^4/			14	21	2	0	0	1 .1	1.5	0 .1	-	-

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

^{^1/}Unlike in Table 2 in the main text, this table shows support and governance costs as allocated across outputs.

^{^3/}Miscellaneous includes payments to some separating staff and reconciliation items. Compared to Table 2 in the main text, this table also includes direct Support and Governance expenses.

^{^4/}Reconciliation to gross administrative expenditures as per the Fund’s financial system.

^{Table 2.}

Total Administrative Expenditures: Budgets and Outturn, FY 11–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars, except where indicated otherwise)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to total due to rounding.

^{^1/}Excludes carry forward funds from previous year of $34.4 million (FY 12), $40.6 million (FY 13), $41.9 million (FY 14), $41.7 million (FY 15), $42.5 million (FY 16), $43.2 million (FY 17), $44.3 million (FY 18), $45.6 million (FY 19), and $46.9 million (FY 20).

^{^2/}Includes contributions to the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) service credit buy back program of $8 million in FY 05, $10 million in FY 06, $20.5 million in FY 07, and $2.1 million in FY 08 and a one off voluntary contribution of $12 million in FY 09.

^{^3/}Includes one-off supplementary contributions to the Retired Staff Benefit Investment Account (RSBIA) of $27 million in FY 09, $30 million in FY 10; $45 million in FY 11; $30 million in FY 12; $12 million in FY 13; $8 million in FY 16; and $2 million in FY 17.

^{Table 2.}

Total Administrative Expenditures: Budgets and Outturn, FY 11–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars, except where indicated otherwise)

Financial Year	Budget ^1/	Outturn ^2/ ^3/		Outturn to Budget Difference		Budget to Budget Difference		Outturn to Outturn Difference
			Amount	Percent	Amount	Percent	Amount	Percent
A. Net Budget
2011	953	917	-36	-3.8	22	2.3	54	6.2
2012	985	947	-38	-3.9	32	3.3	30	3.2
2013	997	948	-50	-5.0	13	1.3	1	0.1
2014	1,007	988	-19	-1.8	9	0.9	40	4.3
2015	1,027	1,010	-17	-1.7	20	2.0	21	2.2
2016	1,052	1,038	-13	-1.3	25	2.4	29	2.8
2017	1,072	1,066	-6	-0.6	21	2.0	28	2.7
2018	1,104	1,099	-5	-0.5	31	2.9	32	3.0
2019	1,135	1,131	-4	-0.3	32	2.9	33	3.0
2020	1,158	1,150	-8	-0.7	23	2.1	19	1.7
B. Gross Budget
2011	1,075	1,021	-54	-5.0	43	4.2	71	7.4
2012	1,123	1,082	-41	-3.7	48	4.5	61	6.0
2013	1,159	1,102	-57	-4.9	35	3.2	20	1.8
2014	1,186	1,149	-37	-3.2	27	2.3	47	4.3
2015	1,224	1,177	-46	-3.8	38	3.2	29	2.5
2016	1,247	1,215	-33	-2.6	24	1.9	38	3.2
2017	1,273	1,255	-18	-1.4	25	2.0	40	3.3
2018	1,315	1,309	-6	-0.4	42	3.3	54	4.3
2019	1,371	1,346	-26	-1.9	56	4.3	37	2.8
2020	1,397	1,350	-48	-3.4	26	1.9	4	0.3

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to total due to rounding.

^{Table 2.}

Total Administrative Expenditures: Budgets and Outturn, FY 11–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars, except where indicated otherwise)

Financial Year	Budget ^1/	Outturn ^2/ ^3/		Outturn to Budget Difference		Budget to Budget Difference		Outturn to Outturn Difference
			Amount	Percent	Amount	Percent	Amount	Percent
A. Net Budget
2011	953	917	-36	-3.8	22	2.3	54	6.2
2012	985	947	-38	-3.9	32	3.3	30	3.2
2013	997	948	-50	-5.0	13	1.3	1	0.1
2014	1,007	988	-19	-1.8	9	0.9	40	4.3
2015	1,027	1,010	-17	-1.7	20	2.0	21	2.2
2016	1,052	1,038	-13	-1.3	25	2.4	29	2.8
2017	1,072	1,066	-6	-0.6	21	2.0	28	2.7
2018	1,104	1,099	-5	-0.5	31	2.9	32	3.0
2019	1,135	1,131	-4	-0.3	32	2.9	33	3.0
2020	1,158	1,150	-8	-0.7	23	2.1	19	1.7
B. Gross Budget
2011	1,075	1,021	-54	-5.0	43	4.2	71	7.4
2012	1,123	1,082	-41	-3.7	48	4.5	61	6.0
2013	1,159	1,102	-57	-4.9	35	3.2	20	1.8
2014	1,186	1,149	-37	-3.2	27	2.3	47	4.3
2015	1,224	1,177	-46	-3.8	38	3.2	29	2.5
2016	1,247	1,215	-33	-2.6	24	1.9	38	3.2
2017	1,273	1,255	-18	-1.4	25	2.0	40	3.3
2018	1,315	1,309	-6	-0.4	42	3.3	54	4.3
2019	1,371	1,346	-26	-1.9	56	4.3	37	2.8
2020	1,397	1,350	-48	-3.4	26	1.9	4	0.3

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to total due to rounding.

^{Table 3.}

Total Fund Employment Outturn, FY 17–20

(Full-time Equivalents, FTEs)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Includes experts (including short-term), contractuals, visiting scholars, secretarial support, and other. Excludes local employees in the field.

^{Table 3.}

Total Fund Employment Outturn, FY 17–20

(Full-time Equivalents, FTEs)

					FY 17	FY 18	FY 19	FY 20
Total Fund employment					3 ,762	3 ,881	3 ,899	3 ,912
	Regular and term staff				2 ,890	2 ,923	2 ,958	2 ,982
		Fund-financed			2 ,813	2 ,836	2 ,865	2 ,886
			Of which:
				Independent Evaluation Office (IEO)	14	15	15	15
				Office of Executive Directors (OED)	250	247	247	247
		Externally financed			77	87	93	96
	Expert and Contractual Staff ^1/				872	958	941	930
		Fund-financed			556	586	588	599
		Externally financed			316	372	353	330

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Includes experts (including short-term), contractuals, visiting scholars, secretarial support, and other. Excludes local employees in the field.

^{Table 3.}

Total Fund Employment Outturn, FY 17–20

(Full-time Equivalents, FTEs)

					FY 17	FY 18	FY 19	FY 20
Total Fund employment					3 ,762	3 ,881	3 ,899	3 ,912
	Regular and term staff				2 ,890	2 ,923	2 ,958	2 ,982
		Fund-financed			2 ,813	2 ,836	2 ,865	2 ,886
			Of which:
				Independent Evaluation Office (IEO)	14	15	15	15
				Office of Executive Directors (OED)	250	247	247	247
		Externally financed			77	87	93	96
	Expert and Contractual Staff ^1/				872	958	941	930
		Fund-financed			556	586	588	599
		Externally financed			316	372	353	330

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Includes experts (including short-term), contractuals, visiting scholars, secretarial support, and other. Excludes local employees in the field.

Table 4.

Departmental Business and Seminar Travel Expenditures, FY 18–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Includes Annual Meetings overall travel of approximately $5.4 million.

Table 4.

Departmental Business and Seminar Travel Expenditures, FY 18–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

			FY 18	FY 19 ^1/	FY 20
	By type of cost		110	116	86
		Transportation	65	68	51
		Per diem	45	48	35
	By type of financing		110	116	86
		Fund-financed	65	70	50
		Externally financed	45	46	36
	By department		110	116	86
		Area	30	29	22
		Functional CD	63	65	50
		Functional non-CD	6	6	4
		Support and Governance	5	9	5
		OED and IEO	5	7	5
Memorandum item:
	In percent of total gross expenditures		8.4	8.6	6.4

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Includes Annual Meetings overall travel of approximately $5.4 million.

Table 4.

Departmental Business and Seminar Travel Expenditures, FY 18–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

			FY 18	FY 19 ^1/	FY 20
	By type of cost		110	116	86
		Transportation	65	68	51
		Per diem	45	48	35
	By type of financing		110	116	86
		Fund-financed	65	70	50
		Externally financed	45	46	36
	By department		110	116	86
		Area	30	29	22
		Functional CD	63	65	50
		Functional non-CD	6	6	4
		Support and Governance	5	9	5
		OED and IEO	5	7	5
Memorandum item:
	In percent of total gross expenditures		8.4	8.6	6.4

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Includes Annual Meetings overall travel of approximately $5.4 million.

^{Table 5.}

Travel Metrics by Department Type, FY 18–20¹

(Number of missions, unless otherwise indicated)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Excludes Annual Meetings, IEO, OED.

^{Table 5.}

Travel Metrics by Department Type, FY 18–20¹

(Number of missions, unless otherwise indicated)

		Y 18	FY 19	FY 20	Percent change FY 20 vs FY 19
Number of missions		8,296	7,858	6,693	-15
	Area	1,366	1,445	1,180	-18
	Functional CD	5,121	4,979	4,207	-16
	Functional non-CD	989	788	719	-9
	Support and Governance	820	646	587	-9
Mission nights		91,255	88,985	75,761	-15
	Area	24,115	24,778	19,679	-21
	Functional CD	59,762	57,497	50,417	-12
	Functional non-CD	3,781	3,714	3,046	-18
	Support and Governance	3,597	2,996	2,619	-13
Mission persons		13,490	12,947	11,191	-14
	Area	3,605	3,806	3,182	-16
	Functional CD	7,584	7,259	6,246	-14
	Functional non-CD	1,169	938	918	-2
	Support and Governance	1,132	944	845	-10

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Excludes Annual Meetings, IEO, OED.

^{Table 5.}

Travel Metrics by Department Type, FY 18–20¹

(Number of missions, unless otherwise indicated)

		Y 18	FY 19	FY 20	Percent change FY 20 vs FY 19
Number of missions		8,296	7,858	6,693	-15
	Area	1,366	1,445	1,180	-18
	Functional CD	5,121	4,979	4,207	-16
	Functional non-CD	989	788	719	-9
	Support and Governance	820	646	587	-9
Mission nights		91,255	88,985	75,761	-15
	Area	24,115	24,778	19,679	-21
	Functional CD	59,762	57,497	50,417	-12
	Functional non-CD	3,781	3,714	3,046	-18
	Support and Governance	3,597	2,996	2,619	-13
Mission persons		13,490	12,947	11,191	-14
	Area	3,605	3,806	3,182	-16
	Functional CD	7,584	7,259	6,246	-14
	Functional non-CD	1,169	938	918	-2
	Support and Governance	1,132	944	845	-10

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

^{^1/}Excludes Annual Meetings, IEO, OED.

Table 6.

Capital Expenditures, FY 13–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

Sources: Office of Budget and Planning and Corporate Services and Facilities Department and Information Technology Department.

^{^1/}Figures reflect funds that were not spent within the three-year appropriation period; e.g., FY 18 appropriated funds lapsed at the end of FY 20.

^{^2/}Figures reflect the unspent amount of the budget appropriation in the period concerned. Those funds can be used for authorized projects in the period covered by the appropriation.

^{^3/}Unspent Concordia funds appropriated in FY 12 expired at the end of FY 14 with the exception of $0.6 million that was specifically reappropriated for FY 15 to complete the remaining work under the project.

^{^4/}Additional appropriations were approved for the HQ1 Renewal Program during FY 16.

Table 6.

Capital Expenditures, FY 13–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

		Formula Key	Facilities	Information Technology	HQ2	HQ1 Renewal	Concordia Renovation	Total Capital
FY 13
	New appropriations	(1)	7.4	34.3	0.0	347.0	0.0	388.7
	Total funds available	(2)	21.1	63.2	0.1	427.3	31.6	543.3
	Expenditures	(3)	7.4	37.1	0.0	22.0	22.3	88.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(4)	1.4	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.8
	Remaining funds ^2/	(5) = (2)-(3)-(4)	12.4	25.6	0.0	405.3	9.3	452.6
FY 14
	New appropriations	(6)	17.4	23.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	41.2
	Total funds available	(7) = (5)+ (6)	29.8	49.4	0.0	405.3	9.3	493.8
	Expenditures	(8)	10.1	36.6	0.0	92.2	4.8	143.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(9)	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	3.9	4.4
	Remaining funds ^2/	(10) = (7)-(8)-(9)	19.2	12.8	0.0	313.1	0.6	345.7
FY 15
	New appropriations	(11)	22.0	29.8		0.0	0.6 ^3/	52.4
	Total funds available	(12) = (10)+ (11)	41.2	42.6		313.1	0.6	397.4
	Expenditures	(13)	10.5	29.3		95.7	0.3	135.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(14)	0.6	0.3		0.0	0.3	1.2
	Remaining funds ^2/	(15) = (12)-(13)-(14)	30.1	12.9		217.4	0.0	260.4
FY 16
	New appropriations	(16)	14.4	27.7		1 32.0 ^4/	174.1
	Total funds available	(17)= (15)+ (16)	44.5	40.6		349.4		434.5
	Expenditures	(18)	14.6	25.8		90.1		130.5
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(19)	0.4	0.1		0.0		0.6
	Remaining funds ^2/	(20) = (17)-(18)-(19)	29.4	14.7		259.2		303.4
FY 17
	New appropriations	(21)	32.5	28.0		0.0		60.5
	Total funds available	(22)= (20)+ (21)	62.0	42.7		259.2		363.9
	Expenditures	(23)	17.9	27.9		76.3		122.1
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(24)	5.4	0.2		0.0		5.6
	Remaining funds ^2/	(25) = (22)-(23)-(24)	38.7	14.6		182.9		236.2
FY 18
	New appropriations	(26)	31.4	35.0		0.0		66.4
	Total funds available	(27)= (25)+ (26)	70.1	49.6		182.9		302.6
	Expenditures	(28)	22.3	31.4		62.3		116.0
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(29)	0.3	0.0		0.0		0.3
	Remaining funds	(30) = (27)-(28)-(29)	47.4	18.2		120.6		186.3
FY 19
	New appropriations	(31)	35.5	35.9		0.0		71.4
	Total funds available	(32)= (30)+ (31)	82.8	54.1		120.6		257.5
	Expenditures	(33)	28.7	30.9		81.6		141.2
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(34)	5.9	0.0		0.0		5.9
	Remaining funds	(35) = (27)-(28)-(29)	48.1	23.2		39.0		110.4
FY 20
	New appropriations	(36)	40.8	45.0		0.0		85.8
	Total funds available	(37)= (3 5)+ (36)	88.9	68.2		39.0		196.2
	Expenditures	(38)	41.8	42.2		22.8		106.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(34)	1.8	0.0		0.0		1.8
	Remaining funds ^2/	(39) = (37)-(38)	45.4	26.0		16.2		87.6

Sources: Office of Budget and Planning and Corporate Services and Facilities Department and Information Technology Department.

^{^1/}Figures reflect funds that were not spent within the three-year appropriation period; e.g., FY 18 appropriated funds lapsed at the end of FY 20.

^{^2/}Figures reflect the unspent amount of the budget appropriation in the period concerned. Those funds can be used for authorized projects in the period covered by the appropriation.

^{^4/}Additional appropriations were approved for the HQ1 Renewal Program during FY 16.

Table 6.

Capital Expenditures, FY 13–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

		Formula Key	Facilities	Information Technology	HQ2	HQ1 Renewal	Concordia Renovation	Total Capital
FY 13
	New appropriations	(1)	7.4	34.3	0.0	347.0	0.0	388.7
	Total funds available	(2)	21.1	63.2	0.1	427.3	31.6	543.3
	Expenditures	(3)	7.4	37.1	0.0	22.0	22.3	88.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(4)	1.4	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.8
	Remaining funds ^2/	(5) = (2)-(3)-(4)	12.4	25.6	0.0	405.3	9.3	452.6
FY 14
	New appropriations	(6)	17.4	23.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	41.2
	Total funds available	(7) = (5)+ (6)	29.8	49.4	0.0	405.3	9.3	493.8
	Expenditures	(8)	10.1	36.6	0.0	92.2	4.8	143.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(9)	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	3.9	4.4
	Remaining funds ^2/	(10) = (7)-(8)-(9)	19.2	12.8	0.0	313.1	0.6	345.7
FY 15
	New appropriations	(11)	22.0	29.8		0.0	0.6 ^3/	52.4
	Total funds available	(12) = (10)+ (11)	41.2	42.6		313.1	0.6	397.4
	Expenditures	(13)	10.5	29.3		95.7	0.3	135.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(14)	0.6	0.3		0.0	0.3	1.2
	Remaining funds ^2/	(15) = (12)-(13)-(14)	30.1	12.9		217.4	0.0	260.4
FY 16
	New appropriations	(16)	14.4	27.7		1 32.0 ^4/	174.1
	Total funds available	(17)= (15)+ (16)	44.5	40.6		349.4		434.5
	Expenditures	(18)	14.6	25.8		90.1		130.5
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(19)	0.4	0.1		0.0		0.6
	Remaining funds ^2/	(20) = (17)-(18)-(19)	29.4	14.7		259.2		303.4
FY 17
	New appropriations	(21)	32.5	28.0		0.0		60.5
	Total funds available	(22)= (20)+ (21)	62.0	42.7		259.2		363.9
	Expenditures	(23)	17.9	27.9		76.3		122.1
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(24)	5.4	0.2		0.0		5.6
	Remaining funds ^2/	(25) = (22)-(23)-(24)	38.7	14.6		182.9		236.2
FY 18
	New appropriations	(26)	31.4	35.0		0.0		66.4
	Total funds available	(27)= (25)+ (26)	70.1	49.6		182.9		302.6
	Expenditures	(28)	22.3	31.4		62.3		116.0
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(29)	0.3	0.0		0.0		0.3
	Remaining funds	(30) = (27)-(28)-(29)	47.4	18.2		120.6		186.3
FY 19
	New appropriations	(31)	35.5	35.9		0.0		71.4
	Total funds available	(32)= (30)+ (31)	82.8	54.1		120.6		257.5
	Expenditures	(33)	28.7	30.9		81.6		141.2
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(34)	5.9	0.0		0.0		5.9
	Remaining funds	(35) = (27)-(28)-(29)	48.1	23.2		39.0		110.4
FY 20
	New appropriations	(36)	40.8	45.0		0.0		85.8
	Total funds available	(37)= (3 5)+ (36)	88.9	68.2		39.0		196.2
	Expenditures	(38)	41.8	42.2		22.8		106.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(34)	1.8	0.0		0.0		1.8
	Remaining funds ^2/	(39) = (37)-(38)	45.4	26.0		16.2		87.6

Sources: Office of Budget and Planning and Corporate Services and Facilities Department and Information Technology Department.

^{^1/}Figures reflect funds that were not spent within the three-year appropriation period; e.g., FY 18 appropriated funds lapsed at the end of FY 20.

^{^2/}Figures reflect the unspent amount of the budget appropriation in the period concerned. Those funds can be used for authorized projects in the period covered by the appropriation.

^{^4/}Additional appropriations were approved for the HQ1 Renewal Program during FY 16.

See in particular Annex III of the main paper (page 44) and Supplement 1.

The total FY 21 carry forward of $55.2 million is made up of $44.5 million for general use (including $4.9 million transferred from the OED carry forward), an additional $10.2 million for OED, and $0.5 million for IEO. The total carry-forward limit is $69.4 million, of which $53.8 million is for general use.

Recognizing gaps in available data by topical category, Column 1 in ^{Table 3} is based on a survey of country teams undertaken in June 2020 and time recorded for direct country support by functional departments. Column 2 covers only Board Work Program items, except as noted below, and does not include broader analytic and policy work. For anticorruption/governance, indirect functional department input to countries is also included. For financial surveillance, broader coverage of functional department support is provided based on analysis at the time of the FY21–23 budget. Figures on climate change reflect broader analytic and policy work as reported in a March 2020 survey, which also highlighted expectations for growth in FY 21, as discussed in Box 5 in the FY21–23 budget paper.

See Overarching Strategy on Data and Statistics at the Fund in the Digital Age, March 2018.

Person days is measured as mission nights relative to the number of missions.

Existing capital funding within the infrastructure lifecycle network equipment budget was utilized to support a required $0.4 million investment to upgrade the firewall at the Business Continuity Center.

Starting FY 20, the capital budget also includes $1.2 million for the regular replacement cost of the Fund’s vehicle fleet as approved by the Executive Board as part of the FY2020-FY2022 Medium-Term Budget.

The Fund’s capital budget guidelines allow funds to be utilized over a three-year period.

Prepared by Jeymi Blandon, Carolina Dyer-Lock, Niall Feerick, Herbert Lui, Mercy Pinargote, Yan Sun, André Vieira de Carvalho, and Biwen Zhou (all ICD).

Data on CD spending are from ACES, consistent with the main paper; data on external financing come from the Capacity Development Information Management System (CDIMS); training participant data are from the Participant and Applicant Tracking System (PATS).

IMF Policy and Practices on Capacity Development, October 21, 2019.

The lists of countries in each group follow the Statistical Appendix of the World Economic Outlook, April 2020.

The revised prioritization framework is set out in Box 4 of the FY2020–FY2022 Medium-term Budget.

Country group composition is based on current list of countries for fragile states, highly vulnerable countries, small developing states, and program countries.

Other Publishers

Save
Cite
Email this content

Share Link

Copy this link, or click below to email it to a friend
Email this content
or copy the link directly:

https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/007/2020/052/article-A001-en.xml
The link was not copied. Your current browser may not support copying via this button.

Link copied successfully

Collapse
Expand

FY2020 - Output Cost Estimates and Budget Outturn

Author:

International Monetary Fund. Office of Budget and Planning

Volume/Issue:: Volume 2020: Issue 052

Publisher:: International Monetary Fund

ISBN:: 9781513559735

ISSN:: 2663-3493

Pages:: 36

DOI:: https://doi.org/10.5089/9781513559735.007

View raw image

View raw image

^{Figure 1.}

Emergency Financing Cases in FY 20

(Size of bubble indicates total access at approval, SDR millions)

View raw image

^{Figure 2.}

Hours Spent, by Output

(Millions of hours, regular and overtime)

View raw image

^{Figure 3.}

Change in Spending by Thematic Category, FY 20 vs. FY 19^1/

(Millions of FY 20 U.S. dollars)

View raw image

^{Figure 4.}

Change in Spending: Non-Country Work, FY 20 vs. FY 19^1/

(Millions of FY 20 U.S. dollars)

View raw image

Spending by Department Types and Output, FY 20

(Millions of FY 20 U.S. Dollars)

View raw image

Change in Spending by Department Types and Output, FY 20 vs. FY 19

(Millions of FY 20 U.S. Dollars)

View raw image

^{Figure 5.}

Average Spending per Country, FY 19 vs FY 20

(Direct cost, millions of FY 20 U.S. dollars)

View raw image

^{Figure 6.}

Average Country Spend by Income Grouping, FY19–20¹

(Millions of FY 20 U.S. dollars, direct cost)

View raw image

Figure 7.

Country Operations by Input, FY19–20 Q1-Q4

(Millions of FY 20 U.S. dollars)

View raw image

^{Figure 8.}

Trends in Personnel Spending

View raw image

^{Figure 9.}

Overtime Rate by Grade Group, March and April FY19–20^1/

(Staff and Contractual, percent)

View raw image

^{Figure 10.}

Fund-Financed Spending on IT, Buildings and Other, FY18–20

(Budget (B) & Outturn (O), millions of FY 20 U.S. dollars)

View raw image

^{Figure 11.}

Security-related Spending, FY18–20

(Millions of FY 20 U.S. dollars)

View raw image

^{Figure 12.}

Available Resources and Use of Carry Forward, FY 20

(Millions of FY 20 U.S. dollars)

View raw image

^{Figure 13.}

Spending by Main Departments and Offices, FY 20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

View raw image

^{Figure 14.}

IT Capital Expenditures, FY 20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

View raw image

^{Figure 15.}

Facilities Capital Expenditures, FY 20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

View raw image

^{Figure 1.}

CD Outturn, FY 16–20

View raw image

^{Figure 2.}

Direct Delivery Spending by Region and Delivery Department, FY 20

View raw image

^{Figure 3.}

Total Training Participation by Income Group, FY 16–20¹

View raw image

^{Figure 4.}

Percent Share of Total Participation by Analytical Group, FY 16–20

Foresee

Table 6.

Capital Expenditures, FY 13–20

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

		Formula Key	Facilities	Information Technology	HQ2	HQ1 Renewal	Concordia Renovation	Total Capital
FY 13
	New appropriations	(1)	7.4	34.3	0.0	347.0	0.0	388.7
	Total funds available	(2)	21.1	63.2	0.1	427.3	31.6	543.3
	Expenditures	(3)	7.4	37.1	0.0	22.0	22.3	88.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(4)	1.4	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.8
	Remaining funds ^2/	(5) = (2)-(3)-(4)	12.4	25.6	0.0	405.3	9.3	452.6
FY 14
	New appropriations	(6)	17.4	23.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	41.2
	Total funds available	(7) = (5)+ (6)	29.8	49.4	0.0	405.3	9.3	493.8
	Expenditures	(8)	10.1	36.6	0.0	92.2	4.8	143.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(9)	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	3.9	4.4
	Remaining funds ^2/	(10) = (7)-(8)-(9)	19.2	12.8	0.0	313.1	0.6	345.7
FY 15
	New appropriations	(11)	22.0	29.8		0.0	0.6 ^3/	52.4
	Total funds available	(12) = (10)+ (11)	41.2	42.6		313.1	0.6	397.4
	Expenditures	(13)	10.5	29.3		95.7	0.3	135.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(14)	0.6	0.3		0.0	0.3	1.2
	Remaining funds ^2/	(15) = (12)-(13)-(14)	30.1	12.9		217.4	0.0	260.4
FY 16
	New appropriations	(16)	14.4	27.7		1 32.0 ^4/	174.1
	Total funds available	(17)= (15)+ (16)	44.5	40.6		349.4		434.5
	Expenditures	(18)	14.6	25.8		90.1		130.5
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(19)	0.4	0.1		0.0		0.6
	Remaining funds ^2/	(20) = (17)-(18)-(19)	29.4	14.7		259.2		303.4
FY 17
	New appropriations	(21)	32.5	28.0		0.0		60.5
	Total funds available	(22)= (20)+ (21)	62.0	42.7		259.2		363.9
	Expenditures	(23)	17.9	27.9		76.3		122.1
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(24)	5.4	0.2		0.0		5.6
	Remaining funds ^2/	(25) = (22)-(23)-(24)	38.7	14.6		182.9		236.2
FY 18
	New appropriations	(26)	31.4	35.0		0.0		66.4
	Total funds available	(27)= (25)+ (26)	70.1	49.6		182.9		302.6
	Expenditures	(28)	22.3	31.4		62.3		116.0
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(29)	0.3	0.0		0.0		0.3
	Remaining funds	(30) = (27)-(28)-(29)	47.4	18.2		120.6		186.3
FY 19
	New appropriations	(31)	35.5	35.9		0.0		71.4
	Total funds available	(32)= (30)+ (31)	82.8	54.1		120.6		257.5
	Expenditures	(33)	28.7	30.9		81.6		141.2
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(34)	5.9	0.0		0.0		5.9
	Remaining funds	(35) = (27)-(28)-(29)	48.1	23.2		39.0		110.4
FY 20
	New appropriations	(36)	40.8	45.0		0.0		85.8
	Total funds available	(37)= (3 5)+ (36)	88.9	68.2		39.0		196.2
	Expenditures	(38)	41.8	42.2		22.8		106.8
	Lapsed funds ^1/	(34)	1.8	0.0		0.0		1.8
	Remaining funds ^2/	(39) = (37)-(38)	45.4	26.0		16.2		87.6

Sources: Office of Budget and Planning and Corporate Services and Facilities Department and Information Technology Department.

^{^1/}Figures reflect funds that were not spent within the three-year appropriation period; e.g., FY 18 appropriated funds lapsed at the end of FY 20.

^{^2/}Figures reflect the unspent amount of the budget appropriation in the period concerned. Those funds can be used for authorized projects in the period covered by the appropriation.

^{^4/}Additional appropriations were approved for the HQ1 Renewal Program during FY 16.

Topics

Countries

Series

About

Resources

Abstract

FY2020 Highlights

Overview

Spending by Outputs

A. Crisis-Impact on Budget Execution

B. Spending by Thematic Category, Relative to Budget

C. Spending on FY 20 Priority Topics

D. Spending Relative to FY 19

Spending by Thematic Categories

Average Spend per Country

Spending by Inputs

A. Details by Major Budget Category

B. Carry Forward

Capital Spending

IT Capital Spending

Facilities Capital Spending

HQ1 Renewal

Annex I. Capacity Development1

A. Overall Spending on CD Activities

B. CD Distribution

C. Training Participation

D. Sources of External Funding

Annex II. Statistical Tables

Same Series

Other IMF Content

Other Publishers

Asian Development Bank

Inter-American Development Bank

The World Bank

Share Link

Table of Contents

Headings

Figures

Metrics

Foresee

Annex I. Capacity Development¹