## FCS STRATEGY CONSULTATIONS CONCEPT NOTE

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [FCS STRATEGY CONSULTATIONS CONCEPT NOTE](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/capacity-developement/fcs/fcs-strategy-concept-note-external-consultations-30jul2021.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/capacity-developement/fcs/fcs-strategy-concept-note-external-consultations-30jul2021.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/capacity-developement/fcs/fcs-strategy-concept-note-external-consultations-30jul2021.pdf.json)

---

### Box 1: Questions for External Partners and Stakeholders
- What are your views on the envisaged IMF FCS Strategy?
- Which specific areas do you see for the IMF to further enhance its effectiveness to support FCS in achieving macroeconomic stability to help them exit from fragility?
- Given the mandates, core competencies, and comparative advantages of various actors and organizations involved in FCS, what are the main topics, issues, and modes of cooperation you foresee?

### I. The Case for Enhancing the IMF’s Engagement in FCS
- Global state of fragility and conflict — key facts and projections:
  - Fragile and conflict-affected states (FCS) may host 60 percent of the global poor by 2030 although they will comprise just over 10 percent of the world’s population.
  - Levels of violence were at their 30-year peak prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  - Almost 80 million people around the world had become forcefully displaced.
  - About 155 million people across the globe experience acute food insecurity — with 66 percent in just 10 countries affected by fragility and conflict.
  - In the next 10 years, climate change could push an additional 100 million people into poverty.
  - Only 18 percent of FCS are on track to meet selected targets for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.
- Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in FCS:
  - Real GDP growth contracted by 5.6 percent in 2020 or 9.5 percentage points lower than the estimated pre-pandemic projection of 4 percent.
  - Current projections suggest that per capita incomes in FCS will recover to their 2019 level only after 2024.
  - FCS’ global share of extreme poverty is expected to rise from 30 to 38 percent by 2024.
  - The pandemic has increased income divergence both between countries and within countries.
  - Greater income divergence and spiking food insecurity are likely to further destabilize FCS and erase peace and stability gains, with potential spillovers to neighboring countries.
- International priority and institutional responses:
  - The UN 2030 Agenda places a commitment to promote peaceful, just, and inclusive societies at the heart of efforts in FCS.
  - The World Bank adopted a Strategy for Fragility, Conflict and Violence: 2020-2025 and increased concessional resources to FCS.
  - Reducing fragility and promoting resilience are priorities for the Africa Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank.
  - Multilateral institutions such as the OECD assess and monitor fragility and conflict risks and track financing to FCS.
- Macro-critical nature of fragility and conflict:
  - Fragility and conflict distort balance of payments (BOP) positions, disrupt financial flows, and undermine development of productive resources.
  - Growth and GDP per capita in low-income FCS are consistently below peers in the same income group, while inflation is higher.
  - The poverty rate in non-FCS developing economies fell from 26 to 5 percent since 2000, but this improvement did not occur in FCS.
  - Economic costs of conflict often exceed 10 percent of GDP per year and can reach 25 percent of GDP, also leading to inflation and deteriorated fiscal and external balances.
- Relevance to the IMF’s mandate:
  - Macroeconomic stability and inclusive growth are essential to promote resilience and foster transitions out of fragility.
  - The IMF has a role across the fragility and conflict spectrum — from emerging fragility risks, to active conflict and protracted fragility traps, to vulnerability to external spillovers.
  - Outcomes of IMF engagement in FCS are critically influenced by political, military, and security decisions outside the Fund’s control; macroeconomic policy is one among many interlinked variables.

### II. IMF Engagement, Progress Made, and Remaining Challenges
- The Fund’s comparative advantage in FCS:
  - Engagement has encompassed surveillance, capacity development (CD), and lending; surveillance (Article IV consultations) and CD are especially important when the Fund is not lending.
  - CD is often the centerpiece of Fund engagement in FCS to help with macroeconomic stabilization, institution building, and job creation.
  - Between January 2010–March 2020:
    - About 30 percent of approved financing for upper-credit tranche (UCT)-quality programs went to FCS.
    - More than 50 percent of requests for emergency financing went to FCS.
  - In the decade preceding the pandemic, 28 FCS benefitted from 90 IMF-supported programs and financing totaling US$20 billion.
  - Key elements of IMF comparative advantage:
    - Promoting macroeconomic stability and laying foundations for sustained growth (focus on correcting BOP imbalances and external sector viability).
    - Building institutional capacity via CD in PFM, tax policy and revenue administration, central banking, financial supervision and regulation, financial stability and payment systems, anticorruption and preventing illicit financial flows, and macroeconomic statistics and frameworks.
    - Providing financial assistance to meet BOP needs when appropriate.
    - Catalyzing donor support and participating in debt relief initiatives.
  - IMF COVID-19 response in FCS:
    - 28 members listed as FCS received emergency financial support worth US$4.8 billion.
    - US$458 million in assistance from the Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust (CCRT).
    - 19 eligible FCS requested to participate in the G20 Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI) since its inception in May 2020.
    - Over 900 remote CD engagements with FCS occurred since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Remaining challenges identified in prior reports and analyses:
  - Need for greater country specificity and realism in IMF policy advice tailored to the special needs of FCS.
  - Need for greater differentiation in the application of conditionality.
  - Enhanced adequacy of existing financing instruments to better fit FCS characteristics.
  - Intensified CD provision and more local follow-up support for long-term institution building.
  - Improved strategic partnerships, especially with organizations with broader local footprints.
  - Better attraction and support for staff working on FCS.
  - Limited field presence.
- Actions already taken:
  - Pilot medium-term Country Engagement Strategies (CES) in five FCS to better anchor engagement in political, social, governance, and institutional conditions (CES pilots include Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Djibouti, Haiti, and Madagascar).
  - Concessional facilities modified in 2019 to allow higher access and better respond to low-income countries, including FCS (e.g., increased access limits of the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT); lengthened initial maximum duration of ECF arrangements).
  - 2018 review of Capacity Development Strategy includes an FCS focus.
  - HR reform initiated in 2020 to attract more staff to work on FCS.

### III. Putting Forward an FCS Strategy for the IMF
- Vision and scope of the FCS Strategy:
  - Vision: Through long-term engagement and working with partners, the IMF will enhance its effectiveness to support FCS in achieving macroeconomic stability to help them exit from fragility, strengthen their resilience, and promote sustainable and inclusive economic growth.
  - The Strategy will articulate how the IMF’s comparative advantage, core competencies, mandate, and instruments can be leveraged across the fragility and conflict spectrum, including:
    - FCS where fragility is intensifying and conflict risks may be emerging.
    - FCS caught in active conflict or protracted fragility traps.
    - FCS threatened by external conflict spillovers.
  - The Strategy will clarify how surveillance, macroeconomic policy advice, CD provision, and program design can be tailored to specific manifestations of fragility and conflict, recognizing heterogeneity within FCS and the need for agility and flexibility.
  - The Strategy will spell out how the IMF will work with other organizations in the FCS space — including development, humanitarian, peace and security actors — based on respective mandates, comparative advantage, and complementarities to maximize collective impact at the country level.
- Initial FCS Strategy proposals and implementation approach:
  - Initial proposals have been prepared based on lessons learned and will be refined through internal and external consultations, IMF Management feedback, and Executive Board guidance.
  - Implementation will be gradual over the next three years, with built-in flexibility to allow for course corrections as needed.
  - One thematic area under consideration is the strategic positioning of the IMF in FCS (further proposals and details follow beyond the supplied extract).

### Key policy recommendations and operational proposals
- 1. Consider adopting the methodology, thresholds, and criteria of the World Bank’s recently revised FCS list to account for different intensities of conflict and types of fragility, enabling more granular identification and classification of FCS and greater alignment between international financial institutions with the same shareholders.
- 2. Identify and apply a set of broad engagement principles based on lessons learned from the Fund’s experience aimed at enhancing the Fund’s effectiveness in FCS, to tailor the IMF’s approach to case-specific manifestations of fragility.
- 3. Spell out the role of the Fund within the broader array of international efforts to tackle fragility and conflict: development, humanitarian, peace and security, and articulate how the Fund will work with partners based on its mandate and comparative advantage.

### IMF engagement modalities and instruments for FCS
- 4. Roll out Country Engagement Strategies (CES) in FCS to promote integrated delivery of IMF support across surveillance, capacity development (CD), and lending; anchor medium-to-long term engagement; factor drivers of fragility and conflict into IMF support; and inform a broader perspective on structural reforms with governance and political economy analysis.
- 5. Significantly scale-up CD assistance while working closely with national authorities, placing increased capacity in closer geographical proximity to the FCS (health and security situations permitting), including deploying more experts in country offices and Regional Capacity Development Centers (RCDCs) to tailor CD offers and better assess absorptive capacity.
- 6. Provide concrete proposals to better tailor conditionality and program design for FCS, including promoting a well-articulated link between the structural agenda in the program and the long-term strategy as informed by the CES.
- 7. Review the lending toolkit to ensure it is fit for purpose in FCS and explore possible options to increase the flexibility of instruments while safeguarding Fund resources.
- 8. Enhance mission-driven partnerships with a clear division of labor reflecting mandates, core competencies, and comparative advantages; explore ways to share analytics more systematically with the World Bank; consider Risk and Resilience Assessments (RRAs) and security sector public expenditure reviews (PERs) undertaken by the World Bank and United Nations (UN); and assess ways to leverage field presence of UN and other partners in insecure, high-threat environments.

### Staff support, resourcing, and capacity building
- 9. Enhance support for staff at HQ (in Area and Functional Departments) and strengthen the role of Resident Representatives in FCS by exploring ways to increase FCS coverage by Resident Representatives, deploying long-term experts, and resident advisors.
- 10. Strengthen career incentives to attract and nurture talent, and recognize staff who develop experience and expertise on FCS.
- 11. Develop an FCS learning curriculum and activate an FCS Community of Practice to provide hands-on practical skills for surveillance and program work, leverage staff experience and lessons learned, and facilitate systematic sharing of best practices.

### Planned next steps and timeline
- July-September 2021: Further development of the FCS Strategy based on guidance from the Executive Board, internal deliberations, and external consultations with partners.
- September 2021: Informal Board Presentations to update Executive Directors on the FCS Strategy, including its budgetary impact and options for the lending toolkit.
- October 2021: Public high-level discussions at IMF-World Bank Annual Meetings.
- October-December 2021: Finalization of FCS Strategy based on feedback received from internal and external stakeholders, and submission of the Strategy to the Board for consideration and approval.

### Overview of IMF engagement and key statistics
- Article IV consultations: normally held every 12-months; some FCS (e.g., those with IMF-supported programs) are on a 24-month cycle.
- Capacity development (CD): accounted for over one-quarter of Fund CD spending over the last four years. Activities focus on revenue administration, budget execution and control, banking regulations, strengthening central banks, and improving statistical capacity. Africa, Asia Pacific, and the Middle East and Central Asia regions are the largest recipients of the Fund’s CD support.
- Share of IMF CD Delivery FY2016-FY2021 (Total= US$350 million):
  - FCS 28%
  - Non-FCS PRGT/1 27%
  - Others 45%
- Financing and program usage: Between January 2010-March 2020, about 30 percent of approved financing for upper-credit tranche (UCT)-quality programs and more than 50 percent of requests for emergency financing have gone to FCS. FCS most commonly supported by the Extended Credit Facility (ECF), with repeated use common. FCS benefited from 18 disbursements channeled through the Rapid Credit Facility (RCF) and Rapid Financing Instrument (RFI). There have been 25 Staff Monitored Programs (SMPs) for FCS.
- Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the IMF had supported 28 FCS with 90 programs and financings totaling US$20 billion over the past decade.
- Table of IMF-supported FCS Programs and Financings (January 2010-March 2020/1/; As of April 4, 2021):
  - Extended Credit Facility (ECF) / Extended Fund Facility (EFF): No. of Programs/Financings 40; Total Amount Approved (Billions of USD) 8.4; No. of Countries 20
  - Standby Credit Facility (SCF) / Standby Agreement (SBA): No. of Programs/Financings 7; Total Amount Approved (Billions of USD) 9.5; No. of Countries 3
  - Rapid Credit Facility (RCF) / Rapid Financing Instrument (RCI): No. of Programs/Financings 18; Total Amount Approved (Billions of USD) 2.2; No. of Countries 13
  - Policy Coordination Instrument (PCI) / Policy Support Instrument (PSI): No. of Programs/Financings 0; Total Amount Approved (Billions of USD) 0.0; No. of Countries 0
  - Staff Monitored Program (SMP): No. of Programs/Financings 25; Total Amount Approved (Billions of USD) 0.0; No. of Countries 15
  - Total: No. of Programs/Financings 90; Total Amount Approved (Billions of USD) 20.0; No. of Countries 28/2
- Notes on data presentation: Figures labeled “1/” and “2/” reflect IMF Staff Analysis and data caveats as presented, including “As of 05/24/2021” for selected charts.

*International Monetary Fund — FCS Strategy Consultations Concept Note, 2021.*

### 2021. The  IMF will  seek  views  on  the  following  key  questions, in  addition  to  other  comments  and

### FCS STRATEGY CONSULTATIONS CONCEPT NOTE

### Box 1: Questions for External Partners and Stakeholders
- What are your views on the envisaged IMF FCS Strategy?
- Which specific areas do you see for the IMF to further enhance its effectiveness to support FCS in achieving macroeconomic stability to help them exit from fragility?
- Given the mandates, core competencies, and comparative advantages of various actors and organizations involved in FCS, what are the main topics, issues, and modes of cooperation you foresee?

### I. The Case for Enhancing the IMF’s Engagement in FCS
- Global state of fragility and conflict — key facts and projections:
  - Fragile and conflict-affected states (FCS) may host 60 percent of the global poor by 2030 although they will comprise just over 10 percent of the world’s population.
  - Levels of violence were at their 30-year peak prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  - Almost 80 million people around the world had become forcefully displaced.
  - About 155 million people across the globe experience acute food insecurity — with 66 percent in just 10 countries affected by fragility and conflict.
  - In the next 10 years, climate change could push an additional 100 million people into poverty.
  - Only 18 percent of FCS are on track to meet selected targets for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.
- Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in FCS:
  - Real GDP growth contracted by 5.6 percent in 2020 or 9.5 percentage points lower than the estimated pre-pandemic projection of 4 percent.
  - Current projections suggest that per capita incomes in FCS will recover to their 2019 level only after 2024.
  - FCS’ global share of extreme poverty is expected to rise from 30 to 38 percent by 2024.
  - The pandemic has increased income divergence both between countries and within countries.
  - Greater income divergence and spiking food insecurity are likely to further destabilize FCS and erase peace and stability gains, with potential spillovers to neighboring countries.
- International priority and institutional responses:
  - The UN 2030 Agenda places a commitment to promote peaceful, just, and inclusive societies at the heart of efforts in FCS.
  - The World Bank adopted a Strategy for Fragility, Conflict and Violence: 2020-2025 and increased concessional resources to FCS.
  - Reducing fragility and promoting resilience are priorities for the Africa Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank.
  - Multilateral institutions such as the OECD assess and monitor fragility and conflict risks and track financing to FCS.
- Macro-critical nature of fragility and conflict:
  - Fragility and conflict distort balance of payments (BOP) positions, disrupt financial flows, and undermine development of productive resources.
  - Growth and GDP per capita in low-income FCS are consistently below peers in the same income group, while inflation is higher.
  - The poverty rate in non-FCS developing economies fell from 26 to 5 percent since 2000, but this improvement did not occur in FCS.
  - Economic costs of conflict often exceed 10 percent of GDP per year and can reach 25 percent of GDP, also leading to inflation and deteriorated fiscal and external balances.
- Relevance to the IMF’s mandate:
  - Macroeconomic stability and inclusive growth are essential to promote resilience and foster transitions out of fragility.
  - The IMF has a role across the fragility and conflict spectrum — from emerging fragility risks, to active conflict and protracted fragility traps, to vulnerability to external spillovers.
  - Outcomes of IMF engagement in FCS are critically influenced by political, military, and security decisions outside the Fund’s control; macroeconomic policy is one among many interlinked variables.

### II. IMF Engagement, Progress Made, and Remaining Challenges
- The Fund’s comparative advantage in FCS:
  - Engagement has encompassed surveillance, capacity development (CD), and lending; surveillance (Article IV consultations) and CD are especially important when the Fund is not lending.
  - CD is often the centerpiece of Fund engagement in FCS to help with macroeconomic stabilization, institution building, and job creation.
  - Between January 2010–March 2020:
    - About 30 percent of approved financing for upper-credit tranche (UCT)-quality programs went to FCS.
    - More than 50 percent of requests for emergency financing went to FCS.
  - In the decade preceding the pandemic, 28 FCS benefitted from 90 IMF-supported programs and financing totaling US$20 billion.
  - Key elements of IMF comparative advantage:
    - Promoting macroeconomic stability and laying foundations for sustained growth (focus on correcting BOP imbalances and external sector viability).
    - Building institutional capacity via CD in PFM, tax policy and revenue administration, central banking, financial supervision and regulation, financial stability and payment systems, anticorruption and preventing illicit financial flows, and macroeconomic statistics and frameworks.
    - Providing financial assistance to meet BOP needs when appropriate.
    - Catalyzing donor support and participating in debt relief initiatives.
  - IMF COVID-19 response in FCS:
    - 28 members listed as FCS received emergency financial support worth US$4.8 billion.
    - US$458 million in assistance from the Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust (CCRT).
    - 19 eligible FCS requested to participate in the G20 Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI) since its inception in May 2020.
    - Over 900 remote CD engagements with FCS occurred since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Remaining challenges identified in prior reports and analyses:
  - Need for greater country specificity and realism in IMF policy advice tailored to the special needs of FCS.
  - Need for greater differentiation in the application of conditionality.
  - Enhanced adequacy of existing financing instruments to better fit FCS characteristics.
  - Intensified CD provision and more local follow-up support for long-term institution building.
  - Improved strategic partnerships, especially with organizations with broader local footprints.
  - Better attraction and support for staff working on FCS.
  - Limited field presence.
- Actions already taken:
  - Pilot medium-term Country Engagement Strategies (CES) in five FCS to better anchor engagement in political, social, governance, and institutional conditions (CES pilots include Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Djibouti, Haiti, and Madagascar).
  - Concessional facilities modified in 2019 to allow higher access and better respond to low-income countries, including FCS (e.g., increased access limits of the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT); lengthened initial maximum duration of ECF arrangements).
  - 2018 review of Capacity Development Strategy includes an FCS focus.
  - HR reform initiated in 2020 to attract more staff to work on FCS.

### III. Putting Forward an FCS Strategy for the IMF
- Vision and scope of the FCS Strategy:
  - Vision: Through long-term engagement and working with partners, the IMF will enhance its effectiveness to support FCS in achieving macroeconomic stability to help them exit from fragility, strengthen their resilience, and promote sustainable and inclusive economic growth.
  - The Strategy will articulate how the IMF’s comparative advantage, core competencies, mandate, and instruments can be leveraged across the fragility and conflict spectrum, including:
    - FCS where fragility is intensifying and conflict risks may be emerging.
    - FCS caught in active conflict or protracted fragility traps.
    - FCS threatened by external conflict spillovers.
  - The Strategy will clarify how surveillance, macroeconomic policy advice, CD provision, and program design can be tailored to specific manifestations of fragility and conflict, recognizing heterogeneity within FCS and the need for agility and flexibility.
  - The Strategy will spell out how the IMF will work with other organizations in the FCS space — including development, humanitarian, peace and security actors — based on respective mandates, comparative advantage, and complementarities to maximize collective impact at the country level.
- Initial FCS Strategy proposals and implementation approach:
  - Initial proposals have been prepared based on lessons learned and will be refined through internal and external consultations, IMF Management feedback, and Executive Board guidance.
  - Implementation will be gradual over the next three years, with built-in flexibility to allow for course corrections as needed.
  - One thematic area under consideration is the strategic positioning of the IMF in FCS (further proposals and details follow beyond the supplied extract).

*International Monetary Fund. FCS Strategy Consultations Concept Note, 2021.*

### 1. Consider adopting the methodology, thresholds, and criteria of the World Bank’s recently

### FCS STRATEGY CONSULTATIONS CONCEPT NOTE

### Key policy recommendations and operational proposals
- 1. Consider adopting the methodology, thresholds, and criteria of the World Bank’s recently revised FCS list to account for different intensities of conflict and types of fragility, enabling more granular identification and classification of FCS and greater alignment between international financial institutions with the same shareholders.  
- 2. Identify and apply a set of broad engagement principles based on lessons learned from the Fund’s experience aimed at enhancing the Fund’s effectiveness in FCS, to tailor the IMF’s approach to case-specific manifestations of fragility.  
- 3. Spell out the role of the Fund within the broader array of international efforts to tackle fragility and conflict: development, humanitarian, peace and security, and articulate how the Fund will work with partners based on its mandate and comparative advantage.

### IMF engagement modalities and instruments for FCS
- 4. Roll out Country Engagement Strategies (CES) in FCS to promote integrated delivery of IMF support across surveillance, capacity development (CD), and lending; anchor medium-to-long term engagement; factor drivers of fragility and conflict into IMF support; and inform a broader perspective on structural reforms with governance and political economy analysis.  
- 5. Significantly scale-up CD assistance while working closely with national authorities, placing increased capacity in closer geographical proximity to the FCS (health and security situations permitting), including deploying more experts in country offices and Regional Capacity Development Centers (RCDCs) to tailor CD offers and better assess absorptive capacity.  
- 6. Provide concrete proposals to better tailor conditionality and program design for FCS, including promoting a well-articulated link between the structural agenda in the program and the long-term strategy as informed by the CES.  
- 7. Review the lending toolkit to ensure it is fit for purpose in FCS and explore possible options to increase the flexibility of instruments while safeguarding Fund resources.  
- 8. Enhance mission-driven partnerships with a clear division of labor reflecting mandates, core competencies, and comparative advantages; explore ways to share analytics more systematically with the World Bank; consider Risk and Resilience Assessments (RRAs) and security sector public expenditure reviews (PERs) undertaken by the World Bank and United Nations (UN); and assess ways to leverage field presence of UN and other partners in insecure, high-threat environments.

### Staff support, resourcing, and capacity building
- 9. Enhance support for staff at HQ (in Area and Functional Departments) and strengthen the role of Resident Representatives in FCS by exploring ways to increase FCS coverage by Resident Representatives, deploying long-term experts, and resident advisors.  
- 10. Strengthen career incentives to attract and nurture talent, and recognize staff who develop experience and expertise on FCS.  
- 11. Develop an FCS learning curriculum and activate an FCS Community of Practice to provide hands-on practical skills for surveillance and program work, leverage staff experience and lessons learned, and facilitate systematic sharing of best practices.

### Planned next steps and timeline
- July-September 2021: Further development of the FCS Strategy based on guidance from the Executive Board, internal deliberations, and external consultations with partners.  
- September 2021: Informal Board Presentations to update Executive Directors on the FCS Strategy, including its budgetary impact and options for the lending toolkit.  
- October 2021: Public high-level discussions at IMF-World Bank Annual Meetings.  
- October-December 2021: Finalization of FCS Strategy based on feedback received from internal and external stakeholders, and submission of the Strategy to the Board for consideration and approval.

### Overview of IMF engagement and key statistics
- Article IV consultations: normally held every 12-months; some FCS (e.g., those with IMF-supported programs) are on a 24-month cycle.  
- Capacity development (CD): accounted for over one-quarter of Fund CD spending over the last four years. Activities focus on revenue administration, budget execution and control, banking regulations, strengthening central banks, and improving statistical capacity. Africa, Asia Pacific, and the Middle East and Central Asia regions are the largest recipients of the Fund’s CD support.  
- Share of IMF CD Delivery FY2016-FY2021 (Total= US$350 million):  
  - FCS 28%  
  - Non-FCS PRGT/1 27%  
  - Others 45%  
- Financing and program usage: Between January 2010-March 2020, about 30 percent of approved financing for upper-credit tranche (UCT)-quality programs and more than 50 percent of requests for emergency financing have gone to FCS. FCS most commonly supported by the Extended Credit Facility (ECF), with repeated use common. FCS benefited from 18 disbursements channeled through the Rapid Credit Facility (RCF) and Rapid Financing Instrument (RFI). There have been 25 Staff Monitored Programs (SMPs) for FCS.  
- Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the IMF had supported 28 FCS with 90 programs and financings totaling US$20 billion over the past decade.  
- Table of IMF-supported FCS Programs and Financings (January 2010-March 2020/1/; As of April 4, 2021):  
  - Extended Credit Facility (ECF) / Extended Fund Facility (EFF): No. of Programs/Financings 40; Total Amount Approved (Billions of USD) 8.4; No. of Countries 20  
  - Standby Credit Facility (SCF) / Standby Agreement (SBA): No. of Programs/Financings 7; Total Amount Approved (Billions of USD) 9.5; No. of Countries 3  
  - Rapid Credit Facility (RCF) / Rapid Financing Instrument (RCI): No. of Programs/Financings 18; Total Amount Approved (Billions of USD) 2.2; No. of Countries 13  
  - Policy Coordination Instrument (PCI) / Policy Support Instrument (PSI): No. of Programs/Financings 0; Total Amount Approved (Billions of USD) 0.0; No. of Countries 0  
  - Staff Monitored Program (SMP): No. of Programs/Financings 25; Total Amount Approved (Billions of USD) 0.0; No. of Countries 15  
  - Total: No. of Programs/Financings 90; Total Amount Approved (Billions of USD) 20.0; No. of Countries 28/2  
- Notes on data presentation: Figures labeled “1/” and “2/” reflect IMF Staff Analysis and data caveats as presented, including “As of 05/24/2021” for selected charts.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/capacity-developement/fcs/fcs-strategy-concept-note-external-consultations-30jul2021.pdf_