## 1.  Summary of Actions to Implement the MTS and the Recommendations of the 2005 Review

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [1.  Summary of Actions to Implement the MTS and the Recommendations of the 2005 Review](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/np/pp/eng/2006/_062906.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/np/pp/eng/2006/_062906.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/np/pp/eng/2006/_062906.pdf.json)

---

### I. Introduction
- Purpose: Inform Executive Directors of operational changes to the Fund’s work on Standards and Codes to implement the Fund’s Medium-Term Strategy (MTS) and the recommendations of the 2005 IMF-World Bank review of the Standards and Codes Initiative.
- Objectives of changes:
  - Improve country coverage and prioritization of Reports on the Observance of Standards and Codes (ROSCs) to make more efficient use of resources.
  - Improve integration of ROSCs with Fund surveillance and technical assistance (TA) to better use ROSC findings and support reform efforts.
  - Improve clarity and timeliness of ROSCs.
- Scope notes:
  - Many actions do not apply to ROSCs under the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) or financial sector ROSCs of Offshore Financial Centers (OFCs).
  - Next review of the Standards and Codes Initiative proposed in the MTS is scheduled for 2010.
- Organizational lead and contributors: Actions follow recommendations of the MTS working group on Standards and Codes and Capacity Building and were designed by a TAMS subgroup; the subgroup’s secretariat is the primary contributor to the paper.

### Summary of Actions — Key Recommendations and Actions
- I. Country coverage and prioritization
  - Guiding principles for prioritizing new ROSCs:
    - Give priority to systemic and regionally important countries, other emerging-market countries; program countries with weaknesses in areas covered by ROSCs.
    - For fiscal transparency ROSCs, give also priority to resource-rich countries.
  - Clearer unconstrained priorities:
    - Reflect in staff appraisals of Article IV staff reports staff's views on priority areas for standards assessments, independently of the authorities' perceived or actual (un)willingness to request a ROSC.
    - Increase flexibility in the frequency of ROSC updates.
    - Use flexibility to conduct factual updates with participation of functional department experts in Article IV missions.
    - Discontinue the requirement of annual factual updates by area departments.
  - Increased country ownership of ROSCs:
    - For countries reluctant to engage in ROSCs, propose, when appropriate, combining diagnostics with TA.
- II. Integration with Fund work
  - Post-ROSC wrap-up meeting:
    - Hold post-ROSC wrap-up meetings upon the mission's return for fiscal, data, and stand-alone financial ROSCs, to agree on follow-up actions to be taken in the context of surveillance, use of Fund resources, and/or technical assistance.
    - Synchronize and coordinate ROSC programs with the Resource Allocation Plans (RAP).
    - Establish the Committee on Capacity Building to replace TAMS, TAC and the task force to implement the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO)'s recommendation on TA.
    - Improve communication between departments' ROSC and TA coordinators; when feasible, assign these two functions to the same person.
    - Include a discussion on ROSC needs and findings in TA country strategy notes.
  - Tools for cross-country and inter-temporal comparisons:
    - Create a system of linked departmental databases of ROSC findings to facilitate the prioritization of updates, measurement of progress towards observance of standards, and cross-country analysis.
- III. Clarity and timeliness of ROSCs
  - Summary findings and recommendations:
    - Include an executive summary providing a clear assessment of the overall degree of observance of the standard.
    - Include a prioritized list of key recommendations.
    - Include a principle-by-principle summary matrix of the observance of standard.
  - Indicative timeline:
    - Target to issue the ROSC to the Board no later than six months after the end of the (last) ROSC mission.
  - Accessible information on ROSCs completed and under way:
    - Establish a webpage to disseminate information on ROSC participation on the Fund intranet.
  - Better coordination with capacity building and focus/selectivity of ROSC updates (see above).

### II. Country Coverage and Prioritization — Findings and Actions
- Objectives: Increase focus and selectivity to maximize usefulness of ROSCs and redeploy resources where appropriate.
- New guiding principles for prioritization (applied in the following order):
  - (i) systemic and regionally important countries, at all levels of development;
  - (ii) other emerging-market countries;
  - (iii) program countries where the program seeks to address institutional weaknesses in areas covered by ROSCs.
  - For fiscal transparency ROSCs, priority should also be given to resource-rich countries.
  - Exceptions: case-by-case priority may be given to other countries if area department demonstrates a high return in terms of national stability.
- Unconstrained priorities in Article IV appraisals:
  - Unconstrained ROSC priorities will be reflected in staff appraisals of Article IV staff reports to indicate high-priority ROSCs even where authorities may be unwilling to request them.
- Focus and selectivity of ROSC updates:
  - Departments will have greater flexibility in deciding on update frequency.
  - The average interval between updates will be lengthened to 5-6 years, but countries with significant vulnerabilities in specific areas will be reassessed more often.
  - Updates prioritized according to (i) the prioritization criteria above, and (ii) the significance of gaps in observance identified in previous assessments.
  - The old requirement of annual factual updates by area departments has been discontinued.
  - Current intervals referenced:
    - "The current average interval between updates is about 4 years for data and fiscal transparency ROSCs."
    - "Financial sector ROSC updates are typically done in the context of FSAP updates, whose average frequency is expected to be five years or more."
    - "AML/CFT ROSCs are not updated, but fully reassessed about every five years."
- Factual updates and diagnostics:
  - Article IV missions, with participation of functional department specialists, could carry out diagnostics structured around elements of a standard identified as key issues in a preceding ROSC.
  - Ad hoc functional department missions, at authorities' request and coordinated with area departments, may also carry out diagnostics.
  - Such diagnostics could result in a "factual update" of relevant ROSC elements.
  - Clarification: partial factual updates do not constitute reassessments; ROSC conclusions on observance are derived from comprehensive assessments of all principles of a standard.
  - For data transparency standards, reassessments of observance of all principles for one or a few sectors (e.g., monetary) will continue as per current practice.
- Increased country ownership:
  - If authorities are reluctant to request a ROSC but show preparedness to address weaknesses, staff is encouraged to propose an initial informal diagnostic combined with TA to foster progress toward a subsequent ROSC.
  - Staff will increase outreach to explain potential benefits of ROSCs where reluctance exists.

### III. Integration with Fund Work — Findings and Actions
- Aim: Improve coordination between and within departments to identify macro-critical issues for surveillance and follow-up TA, and to encourage greater use of ROSC findings.
- Post-ROSC wrap-up meeting:
  - Will take place for fiscal, data, and stand-alone financial ROSCs between relevant area and functional departments.
  - Timing: to be called by functional departments soon after return of the ROSC mission to ensure "fresh" transmission of knowledge and preserve institutional memory.
  - Purpose: forward-looking agreement on follow-up actions for surveillance, possible use of Fund resources, and/or TA; short note recording the discussion to be prepared by the area department.
  - Role in surveillance: identify macro-relevant ROSC findings for pursuit in subsequent Article IV consultations.
  - Role in TA: identify TA needs and inform planning of Fund TA; facilitate area departments' strategic planning and sequencing of TA.
  - Caveat: staff stands ready to revisit timing if experience suggests holding the meeting after ROSC finalization would preserve forward-looking focus.
  - Applicability: post-ROSC wrap-up meetings generally not expected for ROSCs done in the context of the FSAP, given existing cross-participation and post-FSAP meetings; FSAP integration is being addressed separately.
- Better coordination with capacity building:
  - Creation of a high-level Committee on Capacity Building (CCB) to replace TAMS, TAC, and the IEO-TA implementation task force.
  - Improve communication between ROSC and TA coordinators; assign both functions to same person when feasible.
  - Include discussion of ROSC needs and findings in TA Country Strategy Notes (TACSNs).
- Tools for cross-country and inter-temporal comparisons:
  - Departments working to link existing departmental databases on ROSC findings to facilitate measurement of progress toward observance, prioritization of updates, and cross-country analysis.
  - System envisioned to allow one-stop access across standards, include firewalls for confidential financial sector standards, and potentially inform TA planning.
  - Note: this work has been budgeted as part of a larger IT project and will proceed as resources allow.

### IV. Enhancing the Clarity and Timeliness of ROSCs — Findings and Actions
- Objectives: Improve provision of information, facilitate understanding of overall ROSC significance, and help monitor attainment of initiative objectives.
- Executive summaries and prioritized recommendations:
  - All new ROSCs will include executive summaries and prioritized lists of key recommendations.
  - Executive summaries should be in plain, non-technical language to reach a broad audience.
- Principle-by-principle summary matrices of observance:
  - To be introduced in all new ROSCs for which the Fund is the standard setter; discussions underway with financial sector standard-setters on similar enhancements.
  - Currently included in data ROSCs; will be extended to new fiscal transparency and monetary and financial policy transparency (MFPT) ROSCs.
  - Structure of summary matrices:
    - (i) description of principles/elements of the code;
    - (ii) summary of observance, based on a four-point scale;
    - (iii) where needed, brief comments.
  - Comments next to each principle's observance to reduce misinterpretation and enhance cross-country comparability.
  - Internal review process prior to finalization fosters comparability across countries.
  - Timing: these changes will be introduced for all fiscal transparency and MFPT ROSCs formally requested after June 30, 2006.
  - Bank-led ROSCs: Corporate Governance assessments already feature summary matrices; other Bank-led ROSCs vary by standard (e.g., Accounting and Auditing standards do not lend themselves to such matrices).
- Indicative timeline:
  - Target to issue the ROSC to the Board no later than six months after the end of the (last) ROSC mission.

---

### Timelines, Monitoring, and Templates for ROSC Finalization

### Timelines for ROSC finalization
- A uniform six-month indicative target between the end of the (last) ROSC mission and the issuance of the ROSC to the Board has been adopted for Fund-assessed ROSCs.
- An interim target: the draft ROSC should be submitted to the authorities within three months after the return of the mission.
- Both the three-month and six-month lags are to be understood as norms, not rigid deadlines, given the often sensitive nature of ROSCs and time needed to reach broad consensus between staff and authorities.
- The six-month timeline is relatively close to the existing seven-month median time lag between the last mission and issuance of the ROSC (Appendix II).
- The six-month target is consistent with functional departments’ estimates of time needed to complete substantive work while allowing a reasonable comment period.
- The six-month target will be revisited later based on experience, in particular to assess whether further shortening of the timeline can be envisaged.

### Financial sector ROSCs and FSAP timing
- For financial sector ROSCs produced in the context of the FSAP, a natural deadline exists in the timing of the issuance of the Article IV staff report, as the Financial System Stability Assessment (FSSA) is to be issued around the same time.
- The six-month norm for completion is consistent with the FSAP/Article IV/FSSA timing.
- Note: AML/CFT ROSCs may be finalized up to 18 months following the main FSAP mission. As a general matter, all assessor bodies have committed to providing key findings for incorporation into Financial Sector Stability Assessments (FSSAs).

### Monitoring and accessible information on ROSCs
- Staff established a webpage on the Fund intranet to disseminate information on ROSCs, accessible to Executive Directors as well as staff.
- The webpage information includes issuance and publication dates (if relevant) for completed ROSCs, and shows ongoing ROSCs as those for which missions have been undertaken but the document has not yet been issued to the Board.
- The ROSC information is updated on a monthly basis.

### Matrices and summary of observance (Appendix I excerpt)
- Templates of the principle-by-principle summary matrices of observance for the three transparency standards are presented in Appendix I.
- In the case of the MFPT standard, the four-point scale is extended by a “not applicable” option.
- Key to symbols for Data Transparency Standards matrices: O = Practice Observed; LO = Practice Largely Observed; LNO = Practice Largely Not Observed; NO = Practice Not Observed.
- Fiscal Transparency Code: grading definitions provided—Practice Observed; Practice largely observed; Practice largely not observed; Practice not observed. Guidance that assessments cannot meaningfully be aggregated into one overall rating; missions use discretion within FAD’s methodology in weighting subprinciples and principles.
- IMF’s MFP Transparency Code—Monetary Policy: Principles 1.1 through 4.4 listed with observance rating scheme defined: Observed (O); Broadly Observed (BO); Partly Observed (PO); Not Observed (NO); Not Applicable (NA).

### Lag in completing ROSCs — Appendix II (Table 1)
- Table 1. Lag in Completing the ROSCS 1/ (In months)
- Footnote 1/: The lag is considered as the time between the (last) ROSC mission and the issuance of the ROSC to the Board.
- Exact table lines as presented:
  - Overall84.13217114.52331085.7321773.32227
  - Advanced72.2122882.2114873.2122882.01148
  - Emerging84.83216115.62331087.6321673.41526
  - Developing84.22237113.62041294.5203984.02237
  - Africa104.82239114.72051095.52037104.82238
  - Asian and Pacific93.42329126.32361194.7162982.111510
  - Europe73.2211683.5163875.7211672.61226
  - Middle-East and C. Asia73.91926112.91441273.2134773.81525
  - Western Hemisphere95.13237125.623412117.7323883.31437

### Policy implications and operational guidance
- Adopt and monitor the six-month indicative target while treating it as a norm that accommodates necessary consultation and sensitivity.
- Use interim three-month submission target to authorities to reduce delays.
- Revisit the six-month target after accumulating experience, with a view to potential shortening if practicable.
- Ensure intranet dissemination and monthly updates to enhance monitoring of countries’ participation in the Standards and Codes Initiative.

*Source: 1. Summary of Actions to Implement the MTS and the Recommendations of the 2005 Review (IMF).*

### 1.  Summary of Actions to Implement the MTS and the Recommendations of the

### 1.  Summary of Actions to Implement the MTS and the Recommendations of the 2005 Review

### I. Introduction
- Purpose: Inform Executive Directors of operational changes to the Fund’s work on Standards and Codes to implement the Fund’s Medium-Term Strategy (MTS) and the recommendations of the 2005 IMF-World Bank review of the Standards and Codes Initiative.
- Objectives of changes:
  - Improve country coverage and prioritization of Reports on the Observance of Standards and Codes (ROSCs) to make more efficient use of resources.
  - Improve integration of ROSCs with Fund surveillance and technical assistance (TA) to better use ROSC findings and support reform efforts.
  - Improve clarity and timeliness of ROSCs.
- Scope notes:
  - Many actions do not apply to ROSCs under the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) or financial sector ROSCs of Offshore Financial Centers (OFCs).
  - Next review of the Standards and Codes Initiative proposed in the MTS is scheduled for 2010.
- Organizational lead and contributors: Actions follow recommendations of the MTS working group on Standards and Codes and Capacity Building and were designed by a TAMS subgroup; the subgroup’s secretariat is the primary contributor to the paper.

### Summary of Actions (Table 1) — Key Recommendations and Actions
- I. Country coverage and prioritization
  - Guiding principles for prioritizing new ROSCs:
    - Give priority to systemic and regionally important countries, other emerging-market countries; program countries with weaknesses in areas covered by ROSCs.
    - For fiscal transparency ROSCs, give also priority to resource-rich countries.
  - Clearer unconstrained priorities:
    - Reflect in staff appraisals of Article IV staff reports staff's views on priority areas for standards assessments, independently of the authorities' perceived or actual (un)willingness to request a ROSC.
    - Increase flexibility in the frequency of ROSC updates.
    - Use flexibility to conduct factual updates with participation of functional department experts in Article IV missions.
    - Discontinue the requirement of annual factual updates by area departments.
  - Increased country ownership of ROSCs:
    - For countries reluctant to engage in ROSCs, propose, when appropriate, combining diagnostics with TA.
- II. Integration with Fund work
  - Post-ROSC wrap-up meeting:
    - Hold post-ROSC wrap-up meetings upon the mission's return for fiscal, data, and stand-alone financial ROSCs, to agree on follow-up actions to be taken in the context of surveillance, use of Fund resources, and/or technical assistance.
    - Synchronize and coordinate ROSC programs with the Resource Allocation Plans (RAP).
    - Establish the Committee on Capacity Building to replace TAMS, TAC and the task force to implement the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO)'s recommendation on TA.
    - Improve communication between departments' ROSC and TA coordinators; when feasible, assign these two functions to the same person.
    - Include a discussion on ROSC needs and findings in TA country strategy notes.
  - Tools for cross-country and inter-temporal comparisons:
    - Create a system of linked departmental databases of ROSC findings to facilitate the prioritization of updates, measurement of progress towards observance of standards, and cross-country analysis.
- III. Clarity and timeliness of ROSCs
  - Summary findings and recommendations:
    - Include an executive summary providing a clear assessment of the overall degree of observance of the standard.
    - Include a prioritized list of key recommendations.
    - Include a principle-by-principle summary matrix of the observance of standard.
  - Indicative timeline:
    - Target to issue the ROSC to the Board no later than six months after the end of the (last) ROSC mission.
  - Accessible information on ROSCs completed and under way:
    - Establish a webpage to disseminate information on ROSC participation on the Fund intranet.
  - Better coordination with capacity building and focus/selectivity of ROSC updates (see above).

### II. Country Coverage and Prioritization — Findings and Actions
- Objectives: Increase focus and selectivity to maximize usefulness of ROSCs and redeploy resources where appropriate.
- New guiding principles for prioritization (applied in the following order):
  - (i) systemic and regionally important countries, at all levels of development;
  - (ii) other emerging-market countries;
  - (iii) program countries where the program seeks to address institutional weaknesses in areas covered by ROSCs.
  - For fiscal transparency ROSCs, priority should also be given to resource-rich countries.
  - Exceptions: case-by-case priority may be given to other countries if area department demonstrates a high return in terms of national stability.
- Unconstrained priorities in Article IV appraisals:
  - Unconstrained ROSC priorities will be reflected in staff appraisals of Article IV staff reports to indicate high-priority ROSCs even where authorities may be unwilling to request them.
- Focus and selectivity of ROSC updates:
  - Departments will have greater flexibility in deciding on update frequency.
  - The average interval between updates will be lengthened to 5-6 years, but countries with significant vulnerabilities in specific areas will be reassessed more often.
  - Updates prioritized according to (i) the prioritization criteria above, and (ii) the significance of gaps in observance identified in previous assessments.
  - The old requirement of annual factual updates by area departments has been discontinued.
  - Current intervals referenced:
    - "The current average interval between updates is about 4 years for data and fiscal transparency ROSCs."
    - "Financial sector ROSC updates are typically done in the context of FSAP updates, whose average frequency is expected to be five years or more."
    - "AML/CFT ROSCs are not updated, but fully reassessed about every five years."
- Factual updates and diagnostics:
  - Article IV missions, with participation of functional department specialists, could carry out diagnostics structured around elements of a standard identified as key issues in a preceding ROSC.
  - Ad hoc functional department missions, at authorities' request and coordinated with area departments, may also carry out diagnostics.
  - Such diagnostics could result in a "factual update" of relevant ROSC elements.
  - Clarification: partial factual updates do not constitute reassessments; ROSC conclusions on observance are derived from comprehensive assessments of all principles of a standard.
  - For data transparency standards, reassessments of observance of all principles for one or a few sectors (e.g., monetary) will continue as per current practice.
- Increased country ownership:
  - If authorities are reluctant to request a ROSC but show preparedness to address weaknesses, staff is encouraged to propose an initial informal diagnostic combined with TA to foster progress toward a subsequent ROSC.
  - Staff will increase outreach to explain potential benefits of ROSCs where reluctance exists.

### III. Integration with Fund Work — Findings and Actions
- Aim: Improve coordination between and within departments to identify macro-critical issues for surveillance and follow-up TA, and to encourage greater use of ROSC findings.
- Post-ROSC wrap-up meeting:
  - Will take place for fiscal, data, and stand-alone financial ROSCs between relevant area and functional departments.
  - Timing: to be called by functional departments soon after return of the ROSC mission to ensure "fresh" transmission of knowledge and preserve institutional memory.
  - Purpose: forward-looking agreement on follow-up actions for surveillance, possible use of Fund resources, and/or TA; short note recording the discussion to be prepared by the area department.
  - Role in surveillance: identify macro-relevant ROSC findings for pursuit in subsequent Article IV consultations.
  - Role in TA: identify TA needs and inform planning of Fund TA; facilitate area departments' strategic planning and sequencing of TA.
  - Caveat: staff stands ready to revisit timing if experience suggests holding the meeting after ROSC finalization would preserve forward-looking focus.
  - Applicability: post-ROSC wrap-up meetings generally not expected for ROSCs done in the context of the FSAP, given existing cross-participation and post-FSAP meetings; FSAP integration is being addressed separately.
- Better coordination with capacity building:
  - Creation of a high-level Committee on Capacity Building (CCB) to replace TAMS, TAC, and the IEO-TA implementation task force.
  - Improve communication between ROSC and TA coordinators; assign both functions to same person when feasible.
  - Include discussion of ROSC needs and findings in TA Country Strategy Notes (TACSNs).
- Tools for cross-country and inter-temporal comparisons:
  - Departments working to link existing departmental databases on ROSC findings to facilitate measurement of progress toward observance, prioritization of updates, and cross-country analysis.
  - System envisioned to allow one-stop access across standards, include firewalls for confidential financial sector standards, and potentially inform TA planning.
  - Note: this work has been budgeted as part of a larger IT project and will proceed as resources allow.

### IV. Enhancing the Clarity and Timeliness of ROSCs — Findings and Actions
- Objectives: Improve provision of information, facilitate understanding of overall ROSC significance, and help monitor attainment of initiative objectives.
- Executive summaries and prioritized recommendations:
  - All new ROSCs will include executive summaries and prioritized lists of key recommendations.
  - Executive summaries should be in plain, non-technical language to reach a broad audience.
- Principle-by-principle summary matrices of observance:
  - To be introduced in all new ROSCs for which the Fund is the standard setter; discussions underway with financial sector standard-setters on similar enhancements.
  - Currently included in data ROSCs; will be extended to new fiscal transparency and monetary and financial policy transparency (MFPT) ROSCs.
  - Structure of summary matrices:
    - (i) description of principles/elements of the code;
    - (ii) summary of observance, based on a four-point scale;
    - (iii) where needed, brief comments.
  - Comments next to each principle's observance to reduce misinterpretation and enhance cross-country comparability.
  - Internal review process prior to finalization fosters comparability across countries.
  - Timing: these changes will be introduced for all fiscal transparency and MFPT ROSCs formally requested after June 30, 2006.
  - Bank-led ROSCs: Corporate Governance assessments already feature summary matrices; other Bank-led ROSCs vary by standard (e.g., Accounting and Auditing standards do not lend themselves to such matrices).
- Indicative timeline:
  - Target to issue the ROSC to the Board no later than six months after the end of the (last) ROSC mission.

*Source: 1. Summary of Actions to Implement the MTS and the Recommendations of the 2005 Review (IMF).*

### 18.      To prevent excessive delays in the finalization of ROSCs, a uniform six-month

### _062906 - 18.      To prevent excessive delays in the finalization of ROSCs, a uniform six-month

### Timelines for ROSC finalization
- A uniform six-month indicative target between the end of the (last) ROSC mission and the issuance of the ROSC to the Board has been adopted for Fund-assessed ROSCs.
- An interim target: the draft ROSC should be submitted to the authorities within three months after the return of the mission.
- Both the three-month and six-month lags are to be understood as norms, not rigid deadlines, given the often sensitive nature of ROSCs and time needed to reach broad consensus between staff and authorities.
- The six-month timeline is relatively close to the existing seven-month median time lag between the last mission and issuance of the ROSC (Appendix II).
- The six-month target is consistent with functional departments’ estimates of time needed to complete substantive work while allowing a reasonable comment period.
- The six-month target will be revisited later based on experience, in particular to assess whether further shortening of the timeline can be envisaged.

### Financial sector ROSCs and FSAP timing
- For financial sector ROSCs produced in the context of the FSAP, a natural deadline exists in the timing of the issuance of the Article IV staff report, as the Financial System Stability Assessment (FSSA) is to be issued around the same time.
- The six-month norm for completion is consistent with the FSAP/Article IV/FSSA timing.
- Note: AML/CFT ROSCs may be finalized up to 18 months following the main FSAP mission. As a general matter, all assessor bodies have committed to providing key findings for incorporation into Financial Sector Stability Assessments (FSSAs).

### Monitoring and accessible information on ROSCs
- Staff established a webpage on the Fund intranet to disseminate information on ROSCs, accessible to Executive Directors as well as staff.
- The webpage information includes issuance and publication dates (if relevant) for completed ROSCs, and shows ongoing ROSCs as those for which missions have been undertaken but the document has not yet been issued to the Board.
- The ROSC information is updated on a monthly basis.

### Matrices and summary of observance (Appendix I excerpt)
- Templates of the principle-by-principle summary matrices of observance for the three transparency standards are presented in Appendix I.
- In the case of the MFPT standard, the four-point scale is extended by a “not applicable” option.
- Key to symbols for Data Transparency Standards matrices: O = Practice Observed; LO = Practice Largely Observed; LNO = Practice Largely Not Observed; NO = Practice Not Observed.
- Fiscal Transparency Code: grading definitions provided—Practice Observed; Practice largely observed; Practice largely not observed; Practice not observed. Guidance that assessments cannot meaningfully be aggregated into one overall rating; missions use discretion within FAD’s methodology in weighting subprinciples and principles.
- IMF’s MFP Transparency Code—Monetary Policy: Principles 1.1 through 4.4 listed with observance rating scheme defined: Observed (O); Broadly Observed (BO); Partly Observed (PO); Not Observed (NO); Not Applicable (NA).

### Lag in completing ROSCs — Appendix II (Table 1)
- Table 1. Lag in Completing the ROSCS 1/ (In months)
- Footnote 1/: The lag is considered as the time between the (last) ROSC mission and the issuance of the ROSC to the Board.
- Exact table lines as presented:
  - Overall84.13217114.52331085.7321773.32227
  - Advanced72.2122882.2114873.2122882.01148
  - Emerging84.83216115.62331087.6321673.41526
  - Developing84.22237113.62041294.5203984.02237
  - Africa104.82239114.72051095.52037104.82238
  - Asian and Pacific93.42329126.32361194.7162982.111510
  - Europe73.2211683.5163875.7211672.61226
  - Middle-East and C. Asia73.91926112.91441273.2134773.81525
  - Western Hemisphere95.13237125.623412117.7323883.31437

### Policy implications and operational guidance (implied by text)
- Adopt and monitor the six-month indicative target while treating it as a norm that accommodates necessary consultation and sensitivity.
- Use interim three-month submission target to authorities to reduce delays.
- Revisit the six-month target after accumulating experience, with a view to potential shortening if practicable.
- Ensure intranet dissemination and monthly updates to enhance monitoring of countries’ participation in the Standards and Codes Initiative.

*Source: _062906 - 18.      To prevent excessive delays in the finalization of ROSCs, a uniform six-month*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/np/pp/eng/2006/_062906.pdf_