## ppea2022003 ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [ppea2022003](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/pp/2022/english/ppea2022003.pdf) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/pp/2022/english/ppea2022003.pdf.md) - [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/pp/2022/english/ppea2022003.pdf.json) --- ### Executive summary — purpose, scope, and tangible benefits - Purpose and scope: - Joint Guidance Note outlining good practices on information-sharing between Bank and IMF staff across key areas of interaction. - Based on existing policies and legal frameworks of the two institutions and builds on an already strong track record of collaboration. - Focused on enhancing coordination where both institutions are substantively involved; deviations subject to discussion where and when necessary. - Date: February 2, 2022. - Prepared by staff teams from the Strategy, Policy, and Review Department (IMF) and the Operations Policy and Country Services Vice-Presidency (World Bank), coordinated by Roland Kangni Kpodar (IMF) and Sona Varma (WB), with inputs from Yehenew Endegnanew (IMF). Approved by Ceyla Pazarbasioglu (IMF) and Edward Mountfield (WB). - Tangible benefits of improved information sharing: - Maximize synergies between the two institutions’ comparative advantages. - Ensure consistency in policy advice and improve policy traction in member countries. - Enhance quality of policy advice to facilitate macroeconomic adjustments and engagement with country authorities, particularly where capacity is limited. - Critical for effective collaboration where the Fund’s field presence is limited compared to the Bank’s, for example in fragile and conflict-affected states (FCS). ### Legal and policy frameworks governing sharing - Anchor framework: 1989 Concordat on Bank-Fund Collaboration and subsequent refinements such as the Joint Management Action Plan (JMAP). - Bank policies: - Information Classification and Control Policy (AMS 6.21A) — classification into “Strictly Confidential”, “Confidential”, and “Official Use Only” and protocols for sharing. - Access to Information Policy (AIP) — governs disclosure to the public; Bank generally views Advisory Services and Analytics (ASA) as publicly disclosed but can make them available to Fund staff before publication. - Fund policies: - Fund’s Information Security Policies guide internal handling and decisions on sharing with external parties; the 1989 Concordat/JMAP provide umbrella framework for sharing with the Bank. - Country consent (implicit or explicit) is an important factor; Fund staff treat member-provided documents as implicitly consented for sharing with Bank staff unless the member explicitly objects. - Special regimes exist for joint products (e.g., FSAPs, LIC DSAs) with well-documented rules. ### Information classification and handling rules (preserving classifications exactly) - Institutions use broadly similar classification systems: “available to the public”, “Official Use Only”, “Confidential”, and “Strictly Confidential”. - Official Use Only: - Bank: Sharing with Fund depends on whether “the disclosure, on a prudent basis, is in the interest of the WBG entity and the receiving party is notified that the information disclosed may not be further disclosed without the prior consent of the disclosing Bank entity or is otherwise under an obligation of confidentiality”. - IMF: Sharing of country information is formally less restricted but allows discretion by Fund staff to judge prudence; information classified as “official use only” would be made available to Bank staff of the relevant unit/group on condition of its use on a prudent basis and subject to not being further disclosed without prior consent of the disclosing Fund entity; in any case, the information may only be shared with Bank staff under an obligation of confidentiality. - Confidential or Strictly Confidential: - Access confined to those with need (or strict need) to know; owner of the information in the providing institution needs to explicitly give consent; recipient must handle the information with the same (or higher) security classification; specific understandings on handling are expected to be reached case-by-case. ### Key general recommendations to improve quality of information-sharing - Clarify/publicize ground rules under which information can be shared and how it is handled in the recipient institution to reduce risk aversion and poor staff awareness. - Specify good practices regarding interactions between staffs/teams to ensure appropriate information-sharing consistent with institutional rules and to reduce reliance on personal familiarity. - Agree on escalation mechanisms when issues arise (e.g., differing views between staff or teams; inappropriate handling of sensitive information). ### Expected practices for country teams — three types of information distinguished - (i) Information linked to country operations. - (ii) Information linked to provision of technical assistance (TA). - (iii) Information on policy/analytical work (including institutional policies) that is not country-specific. ### Country operations — practices and good practices - Effective sharing is frequent and based on substantive dialogue and can be complemented by timely access to key documents produced by the other institution during review processes. - Active participation, where possible, in relevant internal discussions at the other institution is encouraged. - Bank prepares a wider range of lending and non-lending products than the Fund; Bank staff are given flexibility (for operations other than Development Policy Financing) to include Fund staff in review meetings related to these products, with attendance tailored to products that address macro critical issues. - Elevated confidentiality concerns or operational considerations may justify greater control of information flows, including restrictions on meeting attendance and document access; exceptions are subject to discussion between Bank and Fund teams. - When providing comments on country documents shared by the other institution, Fund and Bank staff should: - Aim to be timely and succinct. - Focus on critical issues limited to the respective mandate of their institution. - Consolidate inputs when provided by different staff/business units within the institution. - Operational suggestions: - Maintain forward-looking calendars of at least one-year to inform the other institution of future country work and mission plans. - Clarify at the team level that non-sensitive information will generally be shared on an ongoing basis with the core country staff of the other institution unless specifically required otherwise by the information provider. - Handle confidential information in accordance with the relevant institution’s rules as laid out in Annex II. --- ### Fund staff working on countries where the Bank is active in development policy - Engagement expectations: - Fund staff working on countries where the Bank is active in development policy financing or macro-relevant investment projects are expected to engage with Bank counterparts in early stages of mission preparation to incorporate their comments and views. - Within the Fund’s information handling rules, including clear establishment of “(strict) need to know” in cases where information is sensitive, Fund staff are expected to: - Ask relevant Bank counterpart(s) for comments on the Fund’s draft Policy Note (PN), at the same time it is circulated to Fund departments for review (typically a 3-day turnaround). In situations where substantive differences on policy views/analysis can be expected, early informal discussions with Bank counterparts are expected, to facilitate resolution of differences (and are required in the case of the joint LIC DSAs). - Invite key Bank counterparts to participate in the Fund’s Policy Consultation Meeting or arrange an alternate meeting on Bank related issues that arise in relation to the consultation, making use of virtual meetings/video-conferencing to include field-based staff. - Solicit comments from Bank staff on the Fund’s draft Staff Report (SR) and related documents, in parallel with the internal review process at the Fund. - Fund staff should share routinely country data and macroeconomic frameworks (or summary tables) on a timely basis with Bank staff, taking due account of confidentiality restrictions (Annex II) and subject to a clear understanding with Bank counterparts as to how this information will be used. Informally sharing this data is encouraged, with the understanding that early estimates are subject to changes prior to internal clearances. - Bank staff are expected to: - Share with Fund staff for review/comments (usually a 5-day turnaround) the Bank’s concept notes and relevant operational documents, for Development Policy Financing (DPF) operations, macro-critical investment project financing / program for results, and ASA, especially of Core Diagnostics (Box 2). - Invite Fund staff to the related Bank concept review and decision meetings, or arrange an alternate meeting on Fund related issues arising in the context of the review and decision. - Share routinely sectoral data and models on a timely basis with Fund counterparts, taking due account of confidentiality requirements. - Document sharing and meeting modalities: - Policy Note (PN) / Policy Consultation Meeting (PCM): Typically once a year for surveillance cases; once every two years for programs (sometimes combined with reviews). Bank staff to be invited to comment on PN and attend the PCM. - New program mission — Bank staff to be invited. - Program review mission — Typically every six months (unless reviews are on quarterly basis) — Bank staff to be invited. - Staff Report (SR) — Bank staff to be invited to comment on SR, and attend Board meeting. - Bank documents and meetings (DPF, Investment Project Financing, ASA): IMF staff to be invited at relevant CN/DM/Board stages when macro critical issues are covered. - Mechanisms to support effective country-level information sharing and escalation: - Maintain a list of key contacts on country matters; first points of contact: Country Director or Country Manager in the Bank Regions and the Practice Managers or Country Economist in the Macro, Trade and Investment (MTI) Global Practice; IMF Area Department Mission Chief and Resident Representative. - Escalation path: Country issues requiring early attention can be escalated to the EFI Regional Directors at the Bank and the designated Senior Staff in the IMF Area Department; next level escalation to the Head of the IMF Area Department and Region Vice-President; beyond that the monthly meeting between the relevant IMF Deputy Managing Director and the WB Managing Director of Operations. - Priority for country teams to resolve differences at their level to minimize escalation; escalation to senior staff and management should be limited to highly strategic cases. - Upstream exchanges between IMF Area Department management and WB regions recommended at least once a year as structured engagement. - Use of SPR Director discussions with Bank counterparts (e.g., biweekly meeting between the SPR Director and team and the Chief Economist and EFI Global Representatives at the Bank) and meetings between OPCS and EFI Vice-Presidents at the Bank and SPR Director at the Fund as part of escalation mechanisms. - Country team-level annual meetings between the two institutions (and possibly IFC participants) recommended to discuss country strategies, develop calendars of touch points, and timetables for information sharing. - Cross-mission participation for countries with large operational overlap should be routinely planned when desirable and feasible. - More structured and systematic handover procedures warranted to maintain lines of communication during personnel turnover. - SPR and OPCS/EFI will disseminate this guidance note widely, act as focal points for guidance/clarifications, and review experience to suggest modifications over time. ### Technical assistance (TA), Advisory Services and Analytics (ASA), and sectoral work - TA sharing: - Current policy permits Fund staff to provide Bank staff with TA reports upon request unless explicitly precluded by the TA recipient. Under the IMF’s Staff Operational Guidelines On Dissemination Of Technical Assistance Information, the Bank enjoys privileged access to Fund TA reports as the TA recipient’s consent to sharing the report with relevant Bank staff is presumed, unless the TA recipient explicitly states otherwise. - Fund staff must consult with the authoring TA department prior to sharing an unpublished final TA report. To share earlier drafts and information forming the basis of TA advice, the explicit prior consent of both the TA recipient and the TA authoring department are required (Annex II). - ASA sharing: - Bank staff are encouraged to share Advisory Services and Analytics (ASA) reports with Fund staff upon request, unless specific confidentiality constraints are imposed by the member country. The Bank will ensure standard language is included in relevant Bank communications with member countries indicating that a draft Bank report on ASA will be shared with Fund staff unless the member country explicitly objects. - ASA reports can be directly accessed on the Bank’s website by Fund staff when publicly disclosed. In draft form, sharing depends on classification level; Bank staff would need explicit approval of the client to share information generated through Reimbursable Advisory Services (RAS). - Addressing bottlenecks: - Both institutions are stepping up efforts to address bottlenecks in sharing TA reports. Country teams and first points of contact are a good source of information on available TA reports and can liaise with TA authoring departments on enquiries. - Both institutions could benefit from sharing rosters of long-term experts. The Fiscal Affairs Department can share its list of engaged outside long term experts on fiscal Capacity Development and internal focal points for various fiscal areas (tax policy and administration, Public Finance Management (PFM), macro-fiscal and expenditure policies). The Bank will share a similar centrally managed roster of outside experts in corresponding fiscal areas and its lists of focal points. - Sectoral work and good practices: - Financial sector work benefits from the FSAP model, yielding a good degree of information sharing. The IMF Monetary and Capital Market Department and the WB Finance Competitiveness and Innovation GP are committed to addressing emerging bottlenecks. - Fiscal sector work features significant Bank-Fund collaboration and established channels for sharing. Examples: FAD and the Bank have procedures for Bank staff participation in FAD’s TA missions (e.g., Public Investment Management Assessment, PIMA) and produced joint analytical tools (e.g., Public-Private-Partnership Fiscal Risks Assessment Model, PFRAM 2.0). - Information sharing gaps persist, partly due to personnel changes that hinder identifying counterparts. - Good practices for information sharing are present where: - there is a clear division of tasks between the Fund and the Bank; - joint initiatives with sound institutional arrangements exist; - technology (e.g., electronic platforms) is leveraged to enhance information sharing. - FAD and the Macro-Fiscal GP are committed to: (i) define the types of fiscal information to be shared on a systematic basis, and (ii) establish mechanisms to facilitate information flows. --- ### Fiscal information sharing: recommendations and mechanisms - Replace now-defunct FAD-PREM portal with more cost-effective options: - developing a mapping of Bank focal points for each fiscal area, to be updated on a regular basis; - sharing regularly each institution’s lists of projects with links to online information and mission plans in relevant fiscal areas; - establishing mechanisms to facilitate information flows, such as invitations to counterparts to attend events/seminars, consultation about the development of analytical tools and other initiatives of joint interests, joint development where feasible, joint missions (where warranted), and annual meetings of key counterparts by subject area (one or twice a year). - Prior work noted: - FAD and Bank counterparts at senior levels agreed in 2019 on a regular bi-lateral process for information and policy sharing regarding taxation work. - EFI and FAD produced a detailed matrix describing capacity development activities in tax policy and administration; the process delivered significant benefits but was resource intensive. - Ongoing efforts include identifying lessons learned from collaboration in three case study countries (Ethiopia, Myanmar, Senegal) in the revenue mobilization area; in the PFM area the Bank has identified two focal points to coordinate the preparation of Public Investment Management Assessment (PIMA) missions. ### Joint Bank-Fund collaboration on debt - Key points: - The joint Bank-Fund Debt Sustainability Framework (DSF) is a critical tool to assess sustainability of macroeconomic policies in LICs and inform country authorities on policy actions to minimize risks that public debt becomes unsustainable. - The Fund and the Bank jointly collaborate on databases such as the Quarterly External Debt Statistics and the Quarterly Public Sector Debt, with the Fund leading in methodology and TA while the data are reported by the countries to the Bank, which maintains the databases. - In the context of the COVID-19 crisis the Fund and the Bank worked together to help countries benefit from the G20 Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI), enhance debt transparency and build capacity to manage debt by pursuing a multi-pronged approach; they also undertook the DSSI Fiscal Monitoring jointly. - Fund and Bank staff are supporting implementation of the Common Framework for Debt Treatments beyond the DSSI adopted by the G20. - Related operational guidance: - The 2018 Guidance Note on the Bank-Fund Debt Sustainability Framework for Low Income Countries emphasizes the importance of early consultation and review within each institution to prepare well-articulated economic projections, and minimize risks of last-minute disagreements and requests for changes. ### Climate workstream collaboration - Systematic information sharing is expanding in the climate workstream: - Regular exchanges and meetings on climate-related issues will help staff better utilize existing resources while minimizing duplication of efforts across the two institutions. - The MIP following the IEO Evaluation of the IMF Collaboration with the World Bank on Macro-Structural Issues provides for areas where collaboration could be strengthened and mechanisms put in place for more systematic information sharing. - Regular meetings between the Bank’s climate teams and the Fund’s Climate Advisory Group are envisaged; similar approaches apply for the Carbon Pricing Assessment Tool (CPAT). - A climate knowledge exchange website being developed will facilitate access to Bank documents; CCDR and CMAP will require Bank/Fund staff, both in area and functional departments, to coordinate on delivery and messaging to limit overlap and ensure consistent advice. - Bank/Fund staff will keep each other informed on product evolution and share information (e.g., pre-mission briefs for CMAPs, scoping notes for CCDRs) in a timely manner. Staff of both organizations would be encouraged to participate in CMAPs and CCDRs. ### Global work / policy papers: good practices for efficiency gains - Good practices: - Share relevant policy papers or sections thereof related to the work of the other institution, in accordance with rules on confidential information, prior to finalization or transmission to the Board. - Apply a mix of “common sense” and an “inclusionary bias” within each institution’s information sharing framework to guide routing and points of contact; SPR/EFI staff should advise where global papers from the other institution should be routed and SPR/OPCS staff on policy papers. - Early engagement of Bank and Fund counterparts in paper production is encouraged when there is significant overlap of interests and expertise to improve quality and avoid duplication. - Example topical overlaps warranting sharing: - institutional policies (e.g., use of Fund resources and surveillance policies relevant for LICs, non-concessional borrowing in LICs, fragile states engagement, support for disaster-vulnerable states); - economic policy topics (e.g., climate change, gender and inequality, social protection, promoting economic diversification). --- ### Background and institutional policies covering IMF–World Bank staff information sharing - Historical milestones: - 1989 Concordat on Bank-Fund Collaboration established legal anchor and recommended early information sharing and systematic exchange on future country work and mission plans. - 2007 Joint Management Action Plan (JMAP) built on the Concordat and the Malan Report around three pillars: (i) improving coordination on country issues; (ii) enhancing communications on thematic issues; and (iii) improving incentives and central support for collaboration. - 2012 Joint Task Force on Information Sharing found improved sharing but recommended further action to enhance collaboration culture and clarify sharing rules. - Institutional policy highlights: - The Concordat indicates that when a member provides documents on issues of common concern, the member implicitly consents to sharing such information with Bank staff unless the member objects. - Bank ICCP (AMS 6.21A) classifies non-public information as “Official Use Only”, “Confidential”, and “Strictly Confidential” with specified handling rules. - Fund Information Security Policies classify information as “Official Use Only”, “Confidential”, and “Strictly Confidential”; “Confidential/Strictly Confidential” should not be disclosed outside the Fund unless authorized by the Department owning the information. - Staff Operational Guidelines on Dissemination of Technical Assistance Information: presumption that final TA reports can be shared with the Bank unless the TA recipient explicitly objects; preliminary analysis requires explicit consent. --- ### Annex III — Financial and Fiscal Sector Work: institutional arrangements - Financial sector information: - Financial Sector Liaison Committee (FSLC) reviews requests for FSAP assessments and coordinates country priorities; serves as vehicle for systematic information-sharing of results from stability and development modules; oversees implementation of the off-site framework. - Agreed principles for cooperation on Financial Sector Stability Reviews (FSSR) include regular exchanges to discuss country pipelines, coordinate on the FSSR as part of preparation for diagnostics, discuss findings and follow-up TA activities, and share FSSR documents with the Bank country team consistent with TA reporting guidelines. - Bank participates in the Financial Sector Stability Fund (FSSF) Steering Committee with donors and the IMF. - Fiscal sector information: - Discontinuation of the FAD-PREM portal led to more decentralized and uneven information sharing; the portal previously provided a repository of fiscal reports, staff contacts, and mission travel information and plans. - EFI and FAD preparing a joint note on collaboration to set out principles and practical arrangements; started exchanging information on ongoing country engagements on tax to arrive at joint priorities. - Platform for Collaboration on Tax (PCT), launched in 2016, is boosting Bank-Fund information sharing on tax matters via the PCT Online Information Portal (OIP) providing comprehensive, timely and easily accessible information about taxation capacity building activities of participating organizations. ### Information sharing on climate work - Collaboration largely at technical level and by work stream; examples of exchanges: - climate data, modeling of mitigation policies, climate disclosures, climate risk analysis—especially for physical risks—in the context of FSAPs, and linking nature, climate, and debt. - Fund joining the Secretariat of the Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate action; both institutions collaborate in the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS). - CCDR and CMAP delivery requires coordination; Bank staff have joined climate PIMA and other topical regional workshops. - Point persons appointed at both institutions to coordinate strategic issues and keep each other updated on planned country coverage and timelines. ### Bank-Fund engagement on governance - Cooperation highlights: - Fund Executive Directors’ Board approval of the 2018 Framework for Enhanced Engagement on governance called for increased cooperation with the World Bank. - World Bank reports, data and indices underpinned the 2018 Guidance Note on Governance and are routinely referenced in Fund work. - Fund staff conduct routine and structured consultations with World Bank staff on individual country assessments; Bank staff are invited to country brainstorming sessions on governance issues as routine for countries with most severe governance challenges. - Diagnostic assessments on governance have been intensively consulted with the Bank and in some cases conducted jointly (example cited: Peru). - As the Fund operationalizes the enhanced engagement policy on governance, further strengthening of cooperation and mechanisms to facilitate information flows is envisaged. *Guidance Note on Information Sharing between IMF and World Bank Staff — Executive Summary, February 2, 2022.* ### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ### Purpose and scope - Joint Guidance Note outlining good practices on information-sharing between Bank and IMF staff across key areas of interaction. - Based on existing policies and legal frameworks of the two institutions and builds on an already strong track record of collaboration. - Focused on enhancing coordination where both institutions are substantively involved; deviations subject to discussion where and when necessary. - Date: February 2, 2022. - Prepared by staff teams from the Strategy, Policy, and Review Department (IMF) and the Operations Policy and Country Services Vice-Presidency (World Bank), coordinated by Roland Kangni Kpodar (IMF) and Sona Varma (WB), with inputs from Yehenew Endegnanew (IMF). Approved by Ceyla Pazarbasioglu (IMF) and Edward Mountfield (WB). ### Tangible benefits of improved information sharing - Maximize synergies between the two institutions’ comparative advantages. - Ensure consistency in policy advice and improve policy traction in member countries. - Enhance quality of policy advice to facilitate macroeconomic adjustments and engagement with country authorities, particularly where capacity is limited. - Critical for effective collaboration where the Fund’s field presence is limited compared to the Bank’s, for example in fragile and conflict-affected states (FCS). ### Legal and policy frameworks governing sharing - Anchor framework: 1989 Concordat on Bank-Fund Collaboration and subsequent refinements such as the Joint Management Action Plan (JMAP). - Bank policies: - Information Classification and Control Policy (AMS 6.21A) — classification into “Strictly Confidential”, “Confidential”, and “Official Use Only” and protocols for sharing. - Access to Information Policy (AIP) — governs disclosure to the public; Bank generally views Advisory Services and Analytics (ASA) as publicly disclosed but can make them available to Fund staff before publication. - Fund policies: - Fund’s Information Security Policies guide internal handling and decisions on sharing with external parties; the 1989 Concordat/JMAP provide umbrella framework for sharing with the Bank. - Country consent (implicit or explicit) is an important factor; Fund staff treat member-provided documents as implicitly consented for sharing with Bank staff unless the member explicitly objects. - Special regimes exist for joint products (e.g., FSAPs, LIC DSAs) with well-documented rules. ### Information classification and handling rules (preserving classifications exactly) - Institutions use broadly similar classification systems: “available to the public”, “Official Use Only”, “Confidential”, and “Strictly Confidential”. - Official Use Only: - Bank: Sharing with Fund depends on whether “the disclosure, on a prudent basis, is in the interest of the WBG entity and the receiving party is notified that the information disclosed may not be further disclosed without the prior consent of the disclosing Bank entity or is otherwise under an obligation of confidentiality”. - IMF: Sharing of country information is formally less restricted but allows discretion by Fund staff to judge prudence; information classified as “official use only” would be made available to Bank staff of the relevant unit/group on condition of its use on a prudent basis and subject to not being further disclosed without prior consent of the disclosing Fund entity; in any case, the information may only be shared with Bank staff under an obligation of confidentiality. - Confidential or Strictly Confidential: - Access confined to those with need (or strict need) to know; owner of the information in the providing institution needs to explicitly give consent; recipient must handle the information with the same (or higher) security classification; specific understandings on handling are expected to be reached case-by-case. ### Key general recommendations to improve quality of information-sharing - Clarify/publicize ground rules under which information can be shared and how it is handled in the recipient institution to reduce risk aversion and poor staff awareness. - Specify good practices regarding interactions between staffs/teams to ensure appropriate information-sharing consistent with institutional rules and to reduce reliance on personal familiarity. - Agree on escalation mechanisms when issues arise (e.g., differing views between staff or teams; inappropriate handling of sensitive information). ### Expected practices for country teams — three types of information distinguished - (i) Information linked to country operations. - (ii) Information linked to provision of technical assistance (TA). - (iii) Information on policy/analytical work (including institutional policies) that is not country-specific. ### Country operations — practices and good practices - Effective sharing is frequent and based on substantive dialogue and can be complemented by timely access to key documents produced by the other institution during review processes. - Active participation, where possible, in relevant internal discussions at the other institution is encouraged. - Bank prepares a wider range of lending and non-lending products than the Fund; Bank staff are given flexibility (for operations other than Development Policy Financing) to include Fund staff in review meetings related to these products, with attendance tailored to products that address macro critical issues. - Elevated confidentiality concerns or operational considerations may justify greater control of information flows, including restrictions on meeting attendance and document access; exceptions are subject to discussion between Bank and Fund teams. - When providing comments on country documents shared by the other institution, Fund and Bank staff should: - Aim to be timely and succinct. - Focus on critical issues limited to the respective mandate of their institution. - Consolidate inputs when provided by different staff/business units within the institution. - To facilitate better information-sharing in preparing country documents, Boxes 1 and 2 identify key review meetings for each institution and suggest good practices for countries where both institutions are substantively involved. ### Additional operational suggestions (high-level) - Maintain forward-looking calendars of at least one-year to inform the other institution of future country work and mission plans. - Clarify at the team level that non-sensitive information will generally be shared on an ongoing basis with the core country staff of the other institution unless specifically required otherwise by the information provider. - Handle confidential information in accordance with the relevant institution’s rules as laid out in Annex II. *Guidance Note on Information Sharing between IMF and World Bank Staff — Executive Summary, February 2, 2022.* ### 11. Fund staff working on countries where the Bank is active in development policy ### 11. Fund staff working on countries where the Bank is active in development policy ### Engagement expectations between Fund and Bank staff - Fund staff working on countries where the Bank is active in development policy financing or macro-relevant investment projects are expected to engage with Bank counterparts in early stages of mission preparation to incorporate their comments and views. - Within the Fund’s information handling rules, including clear establishment of “(strict) need to know” in cases where information is sensitive, Fund staff are expected to: - Ask relevant Bank counterpart(s) for comments on the Fund’s draft Policy Note (PN), at the same time it is circulated to Fund departments for review (typically a 3-day turnaround). In situations where substantive differences on policy views/analysis can be expected, early informal discussions with Bank counterparts are expected, to facilitate resolution of differences (and are required in the case of the joint LIC DSAs); - Invite key Bank counterparts to participate in the Fund’s Policy Consultation Meeting or arrange an alternate meeting on Bank related issues that arise in relation to the consultation, making use of virtual meetings/video-conferencing to include field-based staff; - Solicit comments from Bank staff on the Fund’s draft Staff Report (SR) and related documents, in parallel with the internal review process at the Fund. - Fund staff should share routinely country data and macroeconomic frameworks (or summary tables) on a timely basis with Bank staff, taking due account of confidentiality restrictions (Annex II) and subject to a clear understanding with Bank counterparts as to how this information will be used. Informally sharing this data is encouraged, with the understanding that early estimates are subject to changes prior to internal clearances. - Within the framework of the Bank’s information handling rules, Bank staff are expected to: - Share with Fund staff for review/comments (usually a 5-day turnaround) the Bank’s concept notes and relevant operational documents, for Development Policy Financing (DPF) operations, macro-critical investment project financing / program for results, and ASA, especially of Core Diagnostics (Box 2); - Invite Fund staff to the related Bank concept review and decision meetings, or arrange an alternate meeting on Fund related issues arising in the context of the review and decision; - Share routinely sectoral data and models on a timely basis with Fund counterparts, taking due account of confidentiality requirements. ### Document sharing and meetings (modalities) - Policy Consultation Meeting (PCM) and Policy Note (PN): - Policy Note (PN) (Internal document) — Article IV mission Surveillance — Policy Consultation Meeting (PCM). Typically once a year for surveillance cases; once every two years for programs (sometimes combined with reviews). Bank staff to be invited to comment on PN and attend the PCM. - New program mission — Program PCM — At beginning of new program — Bank staff to be invited. - Program review mission — Program PCM — Typically every six months (unless reviews are on quarterly basis) — Bank staff to be invited. - Combined AIV + program review mission — PCM — Both surveillance and program — Bank staff to be invited. - Staff Report (SR): - Article IV Surveillance — Board meeting — As per related PN — Bank staff to be invited to comment on SR, and attend Board meeting. - New program / Program review / Combined AIV + program review — Program Board meeting / Board meeting — same as above. - Bank documents and meetings (Box 2): - Development Policy Financing (DPF): PCN (internal document) — Concept Note (CN) — IMF staff to be invited; Decision stage Program Document (PD) (internal) — Decision Meeting (DM) — IMF staff to be invited; Board PD (typically published after Board meeting) — Board meeting — IMF staff to be invited for full Board discussions. - Investment Project Financing / Program for Results / Systematic Country Diagnostics — IMF Staff to be invited to review meetings and Board meeting if macro critical issues are covered. - Advisory services and analytics (ASA): Country Climate and Development Report review meetings — CN and DM stage — IMF staff to be invited; Other core and non-core analytical reports — CN and DM stage — IMF staff to be invited if macro critical issues are covered. ### Mechanisms to support effective country-level information sharing and escalation - A maintained list of key contacts on country matters to facilitate dialogue and ensure complex country cases receive appropriate attention; this list will be leveraged for reporting/escalation where divergent views or inappropriate handling of information arise. - First points of contact: Country Director or Country Manager in the Bank Regions and the Practice Managers or Country Economist in the Macro, Trade and Investment (MTI) Global Practice; IMF Area Department Mission Chief and Resident Representative. - Escalation path: Country issues requiring early attention can be escalated to the EFI Regional Directors at the Bank and the designated Senior Staff in the IMF Area Department; next level escalation to the Head of the IMF Area Department and Region Vice-President; beyond that the monthly meeting between the relevant IMF Deputy Managing Director and the WB Managing Director of Operations. - Priority for country teams to resolve differences at their level to minimize escalation; escalation to senior staff and management should be limited to highly strategic cases. - Upstream exchanges between IMF Area Department management and WB regions are effective; consideration of structured engagement (e.g., regular meetings as needed, but at least once a year) is recommended to strengthen coordination and information sharing. - Use of SPR Director discussions with Bank counterparts (e.g., biweekly meeting between the SPR Director and team and the Chief Economist and EFI Global Representatives at the Bank) is a useful mechanism and should be leveraged; when cross-country information sharing issues arise, meetings between OPCS and EFI Vice-Presidents at the Bank and SPR Director at the Fund can be part of the escalation mechanism. - Country team-level annual meetings between the two institutions (and possibly IFC participants) are recommended to discuss country strategies, develop calendars of touch points, and timetables for information sharing, particularly where overlap is modest. - Cross-mission participation for countries with large operational overlap should be routinely planned when desirable and feasible, recognizing confidentiality or authorities’ agreement may preclude participation. - More structured and systematic handover procedures are warranted to maintain lines of communication during personnel turnover. - SPR and OPCS/EFI will disseminate this guidance note widely within respective institutions to raise staff awareness of rules and best practices; act as focal points for guidance/clarifications; and review experience and suggest modifications over time. ### Technical assistance (TA), Advisory Services and Analytics (ASA), and sectoral work - TA sharing: - Current policy permits Fund staff to provide Bank staff with TA reports upon request unless explicitly precluded by the TA recipient. Under the IMF’s Staff Operational Guidelines On Dissemination Of Technical Assistance Information, the Bank enjoys privileged access to Fund TA reports as the TA recipient’s consent to sharing the report with relevant Bank staff is presumed, unless the TA recipient explicitly states otherwise. - Fund staff must consult with the authoring TA department prior to sharing an unpublished final TA report. To share earlier drafts and information forming the basis of TA advice, the explicit prior consent of both the TA recipient and the TA authoring department are required (Annex II). Subject to these conditions, Fund staff are encouraged to share relevant TA reports with Bank counterparts. - ASA sharing: - Bank staff are encouraged to share Advisory Services and Analytics (ASA) reports with Fund staff upon request, unless specific confidentiality constraints are imposed by the member country. This is not yet formally embedded in Bank policies. The Bank will ensure standard language is included in relevant Bank communications with member countries indicating that a draft Bank report on ASA will be shared with Fund staff unless the member country explicitly objects. - ASA reports can be directly accessed on the Bank’s website by Fund staff when publicly disclosed. In draft form, sharing depends on classification level; Bank staff would need explicit approval of the client to share information generated through Reimbursable Advisory Services (RAS). Subject to these conditions, Bank staff are encouraged to share relevant ASA reports with Fund counterparts. - Addressing bottlenecks: - Both institutions are stepping up efforts to address bottlenecks in sharing TA reports. Country teams and first points of contact are a good source of information on available TA reports and can liaise with TA authoring departments on enquiries. - Both institutions could benefit from sharing rosters of long-term experts. The Fiscal Affairs Department can share its list of engaged outside long term experts on fiscal Capacity Development and internal focal points for various fiscal areas (tax policy and administration, Public Finance Management (PFM), macro-fiscal and expenditure policies). The Bank will share a similar centrally managed roster of outside experts in corresponding fiscal areas and its lists of focal points. - Sectoral work and good practices: - Financial sector work benefits from the FSAP model, yielding a good degree of information sharing. The IMF Monetary and Capital Market Department and the WB Finance Competitiveness and Innovation GP are committed to addressing emerging bottlenecks. - Fiscal sector work features significant Bank-Fund collaboration and established channels for sharing. Examples: FAD and the Bank have procedures for Bank staff participation in FAD’s TA missions (e.g., Public Investment Management Assessment, PIMA) and produced joint analytical tools (e.g., Public-Private-Partnership Fiscal Risks Assessment Model, PFRAM 2.0). - Information sharing gaps persist, partly due to personnel changes that hinder identifying counterparts. - Good practices for information sharing are present where: - there is a clear division of tasks between the Fund and the Bank; - joint initiatives with sound institutional arrangements exist; - technology (e.g., electronic platforms) is leveraged to enhance information sharing. - FAD and the Macro-Fiscal GP are committed to: (i) define the types of fiscal information to be shared on a systematic basis, and (ii) establish mechanisms to facilitate information flows. *pp ea2022003 - 11. Fund staff working on countries where the Bank is active in development policy (Guidance Note on Information Sharing Between IMF and World Bank Staff)* ### 20. There is room to strengthen fiscal information sharing. As the maintenance of the now- ### 20. There is room to strengthen fiscal information sharing. As the maintenance of the now- ### Fiscal information sharing: recommendations and mechanisms - More cost-effective options to replace the now-defunct FAD-PREM portal include: - developing a mapping of Bank focal points for each fiscal area, to be updated on a regular basis; - sharing regularly each institution’s lists of projects with links to online information and mission plans in relevant fiscal areas; - establishing mechanisms to facilitate information flows, such as invitations to counterparts to attend events/seminars, consultation about the development of analytical tools and other initiatives of joint interests, with a view to joint development where feasible, joint missions (where warranted), and annual meetings of key counterparts by subject area (one or twice a year). - Prior work noted: - FAD and Bank counterparts at senior levels agreed in 2019 on a regular bi-lateral process for information and policy sharing regarding taxation work. - EFI and FAD produced a detailed matrix describing capacity development activities in tax policy and administration; the process delivered significant benefits but was resource intensive. - Ongoing efforts include identifying lessons learned from collaboration in three case study countries (Ethiopia, Myanmar, Senegal) in the revenue mobilization area; in the PFM area the Bank has identified two focal points to coordinate the preparation of Public Investment Management Assessment (PIMA) missions. ### Joint Bank-Fund collaboration on debt - Key points on debt collaboration: - The joint Bank-Fund Debt Sustainability Framework (DSF) is a critical tool to assess sustainability of macroeconomic policies in LICs and inform country authorities on policy actions to minimize risks that public debt becomes unsustainable. - The Fund and the Bank jointly collaborate on databases such as the Quarterly External Debt Statistics and the Quarterly Public Sector Debt, with the Fund leading in methodology and TA while the data are reported by the countries to the Bank, which maintains the databases. - In the context of the COVID-19 crisis the Fund and the Bank worked together to help countries benefit from the G20 Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI), enhance debt transparency and build capacity to manage debt by pursuing a multi-pronged approach; they also undertook the DSSI Fiscal Monitoring jointly. - Fund and Bank staff are supporting implementation of the Common Framework for Debt Treatments beyond the DSSI adopted by the G20, aimed at dealing with countries that face strong liquidity pressures or where public debt is not sustainable. - Related operational guidance: - The 2018 Guidance Note on the Bank-Fund Debt Sustainability Framework for Low Income Countries emphasizes the importance of early consultation and review within each institution to prepare well-articulated economic projections, and minimize risks of last-minute disagreements and requests for changes. ### Climate workstream collaboration - A more recent area benefiting from systematic information sharing is the climate workstream: - Regular exchanges and meetings on climate-related issues will help staff better utilize existing resources while minimizing duplication of efforts across the two institutions. ### Global work / policy papers: good practices for efficiency gains - Good practices for sharing draft policy papers include: - Relevant policy papers or sections thereof related to the work of the other institution or areas of joint work should, in accordance with the rules on the handling of confidential information, be shared with counterparts prior to their finalization or transmission to the Board. - A mix of “common sense” and an “inclusionary bias”—within each institution’s information sharing framework—should guide staff decisions on appropriate points of contact between the two institutions along the path to paper finalization; SPR/EFI staff should advise where global papers from the other institution should be routed and SPR/OPCS staff on policy papers. - Early engagement of Bank and Fund counterparts in paper production is especially encouraged when there is significant overlap of interests and expertise—improving quality of outputs and avoiding work duplication; this is likely to increase cross-references across papers produced by both institutions. - Example topical overlaps that warrant sharing (as noted in footnotes): - institutional policies (e.g., use of Fund resources and surveillance policies relevant for LICs, non-concessional borrowing in LICs, fragile states engagement, support for disaster-vulnerable states); - economic policy topics (e.g., climate change, gender and inequality, social protection, promoting economic diversification). ### Background: historical initiatives on information sharing - Milestones and institutional efforts: - The 1989 Concordat on Bank-Fund Collaboration established a legal anchor for information sharing, defining areas of primary responsibility and calling for information sharing at the earliest stages and systematic exchange on future country work and mission plans. - The 2007 Joint Management Action Plan (JMAP), building on the Concordat and the Malan Report, aimed to translate good practice approaches into standard practices around three pillars: (i) improving coordination on country issues; (ii) enhancing communications on thematic issues; and (iii) improving incentives and central support for collaboration. The JMAP recommended routinely sharing—subject to confidentiality—documents, data, macro frameworks and analytic models between Fund and Bank staff. - Following a 2010 review of JMAP implementation, a Joint Task Force on Information Sharing produced a 2012 report finding improved information sharing but recommending further action to enhance collaboration culture and clarify sharing rules. Key 2012 recommendations included: - disseminating high-level commitment to facilitate information sharing; - establishing contact points; - raising awareness of prevailing rules on technical assistance information sharing and facilitating joint access to databases; - improving sharing of draft policy papers; - reinstating Fund access to the Bank’s intranet and using technology to streamline sharing of Board documents. ### Institutional policies covering IMF–World Bank staff information sharing - Joint-collaboration frameworks: - The 1989 Concordat (and subsequent refinements such as the 2007 JMAP) provides ground rules to facilitate information sharing, including defining primary and joint responsibilities and recommending coordination mechanisms and best practices. - The Fund’s view: when a member provides documents and information on issues of common concern, the member implicitly consents to sharing such information with Bank staff under the Concordat; if a member objects, IMF staff must respect that wish. - The Concordat states that “staff reports and Summings Up of Article IV consultations are made available to Bank staff” and that, between consultations, Bank staff should be kept aware of Fund staff’s views and relevant Executive Board discussions on a continuous basis. - Special regimes with well-documented rules apply for joint activities (e.g., FSAPs, LIC DSAs); confidential information provided by third parties in joint activities may be shared among appropriate Bank and Fund staff when provided with the understanding it is for a joint activity. - Bank policies: - The Information Classification and Control Policy (ICCP) (AMS 6.21A) governs sharing of non-public information with external parties and classifies information as “Official Use Only”, “Confidential”, and “Strictly Confidential”. - “Official Use Only” may be disclosed to external parties if disclosure is in the interest of the WBG entity and the recipient is notified that further dissemination requires prior consent. - “Confidential” and “Strictly Confidential” may be shared only with express consent of, and according to conditions imposed by, the Bank or the owner of the information. - Typical handling: “Strictly Confidential” limited to specific Fund staff designated by the Bank; “Confidential” limited to Fund staff with a "need to know"; “Official Use Only” available to relevant Fund staff on a prudent-use basis and not to be further disclosed without prior consent. - The Access to Information Policy (AIP) governs disclosure to the public. - Fund policies: - The Fund’s Information Security Policies classify information as “Official Use Only”, “Confidential”, and “Strictly Confidential”. - “Confidential/Strictly Confidential” should not be disclosed outside the Fund unless authorized by the Department owning the information. - Sensitive Fund analysis/positions must be classified “Confidential” or “Strictly Confidential”; sharing with the Bank requires a case-by-case “need to know” assessment by the authoring Fund department. - Information provided by external parties requires explicit consent of those parties for sharing. - With respect to information provided by members, the Concordat procedures are understood to imply implicit consent to share with the Bank unless the member objects; the Fund department that received the information must be consulted prior to sharing. - Bank staff handling Fund information must agree to handle it at the same (or higher) security classification; specific understandings on handling are reached pursuant to the Fund’s framework on treatment of confidential information. - Typical handling parallels the Bank: “Strictly Confidential” limited to Bank staff with a “strict need to know”; “Confidential” limited to Bank staff with a "need to know"; “Official Use Only” available to relevant Bank staff on a prudent-use basis and not to be further disclosed without prior consent. - Technical assistance and open archives: - The Staff Operational Guidelines on Dissemination of Technical Assistance Information set specific rules for TA-related information sharing; there is a presumption that final TA reports can be shared with the Bank unless the TA recipient explicitly objects, whereas information provided by the member used as a basis of staff’s analysis and preliminary analysis require explicit consent of the member. - The Open Archives Policy covers unpublished documents and their release to the public upon request after specified time lags. *GUIDANCE NOTE ON INFORMATION SHARING BETWEEN IMF AND WORLD BANK STAFF — excerpt* ### Annex III. Financial and Fiscal Sector Work: Institutional ### Annex III. Financial and Fiscal Sector Work: Institutional Arrangements to Support Information Sharing ### Financial Sector Information - The Financial Sector Liaison Committee (FSLC) plays a key role in enhancing the collaboration and information sharing on financial sector work. Among others, the committee, consisting of senior staff from the two institutions, is tasked with: - (i) reviewing requests for FSAP assessments and coordinating the setting of country priorities - (ii) serving as a vehicle for systematic information-sharing of results from stability and development modules; and - (iii ) overseeing the implementation of the off-site framework that will provide continuity to the program. - The IMF and the World Bank have agreed on principles for cooperation and coordination for Financial Sector Stability Reviews (FSSR), recognizing the potential synergies with the FSAP. This agreement includes regular exchanges at managerial and technical levels to: - (i) discuss country pipelines, - (ii) coordinate on the FSSR as part of preparation for the diagnostic, - (iii) discuss findings, recommendations, and follow-up TA activities, and - (iv) share FSSR documents with the Bank country team, consistent with existing TA reporting guidelines. - The Bank is also a member of the Financial Sector Stability Fund (FSSF) Steering Committee (including donor partners and the IMF) that provides strategic guidance, sets policies and priorities, endorses annual work plans and monitors program performance of the FSSR. ### Fiscal Sector Information - The discontinuation of the FAD-PREM portal, the core platform for fiscal information sharing for several years, has led to a more decentralized and uneven information sharing system. The portal allowed FAD and PREM staff to have access to a repository of fiscal reports, staff contacts, and mission travel information and plans. While there is a broad agreement on the benefits realized from the portal for information sharing, it was quite resource intensive. - EFI and FAD are preparing a joint note on collaboration that sets out principles and practical arrangements. As part of these efforts, FAD and EFI have started exchanging information on ongoing country engagements on tax, with a view to arrive at joint priorities and related activities at the country level. This includes sharing of information on focal points and TA mission plans and projects. - The Platform for Collaboration on Tax (PCT) launched in 2016 is boosting Bank-Fund information sharing on tax matters. Information sharing is a key pillar of the platform involving the Fund, the Bank, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OCED) and the United Nations (UN). Through the new PCT Online Information Portal (OIP) it provides comprehensive, timely and easily accessible information about taxation capacity building activities of each participating organization, thus enabling them to identity synergies and avoid redundancies. *GUIDANCE NOTE ON INFORMATION SHARING BETWEEN IMF AND WORLD BANK STAFF — INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND 23* ### Information Sharing on Climate Work - Collaboration and information sharing on climate change largely takes place at the technical level and on a bilateral basis, based on work streams. Bank/Fund collaboration at the technical level is, for the most part, working well, and several important initiatives are ongoing. Staff also have regular exchanges on various climate-related workstreams, including climate data, modeling of mitigation policies, climate disclosures, climate risk analysis—especially for physical risks—in the context of FSAPs, and linking nature, climate, and debt. The Bank is leading the work at the level of the Technical Working Group on ways to finance the climate and nature agenda. Bank staff have joined the climate PIMA, and other topical regional workshops. Collaboration in the context of international fora is also working well: - (i) the Fund will be joining the Secretariat of the Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate action; - (ii) both institutions collaborate in the context of the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS). - The MIP following the IEO Evaluation of the IMF Collaboration with the World Bank on Macro-Structural Issues provides for various areas where Bank-Fund collaboration could be strengthened with mechanisms put in place to support more systematic information sharing. In this regard, there would be regular meetings between the Bank’s climate teams and the Fund’s Climate Advisory Group to discuss the work agenda of both institutions. A similar approach would apply for the Carbon Pricing Assessment Tool (CPAT). A High-Level Advisory Group on Sustainable and Inclusive Recovery and Growth has been put in place to inform the analytical agenda and deliverables of both institutions. The climate knowledge exchange website being developed will also facilitate access to Bank documents. - The CCDR and CMAP will also require Bank/Fund staff, both in area and functional departments, to coordinate on delivery and messaging to limit overlap and ensure consistent advice to member countries. Both institutions have appointed a point person to coordinate strategic issues and keep each other updated on their planned country coverage and timelines. Going forward, Bank/Fund staff will keep each other informed on the evolution of their products and share information (e.g., pre-mission briefs for CMAPs, scoping notes for CCDRs) in a timely manner. Staff of both organizations would be encouraged to participate in CMAPs and CCDRs. *GUIDANCE NOTE ON INFORMATION SHARING BETWEEN IMF AND WORLD BANK STAFF — INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND 24* ### Bank-Fund Engagement on Governance - Fund Executive Directors, in the Board approval of the 2018 Framework for Enhanced Engagement on governance, called for increased cooperation with the World Bank (and other institutions) to leverage its expertise on governance issues. The Fund has followed up on this guidance by engaging with the World Bank, making this a prominent area of increased cooperation between the Fund and the World Bank at several levels. - At a policy level, World Bank reports, data and indices played a significant role as an underpinning of the 2018 Guidance Note on Governance. This includes basic definitional aspects (such as the definition of corruption). - In the implementation of the policy, Fund staff conducts routine and structured consultations with World Bank staff on the individual assessment of countries. - For Use of Fund Resources, World Bank staff is invited as a matter of routine to the country brainstorming sessions on governance for the countries with the most severe governance challenges. That attendance is not passive; the Bank is actively consulted and invited to weigh in on the discussions. - As regards in-country missions on governance and aside from the standard consultations between institutions when matters of governance come up, the Fund has engaged in more structured cooperation. Thus, for the diagnostic assessments on governance, which are conducted by the Fund for countries with high vulnerability, the World Bank is intensively consulted. Also, for a number of countries the diagnostic assessments were conducted by both institutions jointly (e.g., Peru). - For research and development, which underpins this sector as a whole, World Bank reports, datasets and indices are a cornerstone of Fund work and consistently and steadily referenced. As an example, the World Bank Country Partnership Frameworks and Systematic Country Diagnostics are mandatorily consulted. The World Bank work on fragility and governance is acknowledged as leading the field, and heavily referenced. - As the Fund continues to work on operationalizing the policy on enhanced engagement with members on governance, a further strengthening of the cooperation between both institutions is envisaged. This notably would be focused on strengthening mechanisms to facilitate information flows, including on data, ongoing projects, and methodologies. *Annex III. Financial and Fiscal Sector Work: Institutional Arrangements to Support Information Sharing — ppea2022003* --- _Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/pp/2022/english/ppea2022003.pdf_