## _030310

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [_030310](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/np/pp/eng/2010/_030310.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/np/pp/eng/2010/_030310.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/np/pp/eng/2010/_030310.pdf.json)

---

### Executive summary — overview and main finding
- Purpose: assess implementation of the Joint Management Action Plan on Bank-Fund Collaboration (JMAP), discuss state of Bank-Fund collaboration, and suggest ways to improve collaboration, including in the context of recent global economic turmoil.
- Overall finding: while Bank-Fund collaboration has improved over the past two years, the JMAP has played a supporting rather than a central role in this improvement. Further progress in JMAP implementation and in Bank-Fund collaboration more broadly appears possible.
- Managements will take specified actions to move the JMAP and collaboration forward and will present a joint report to the Executive Boards in two years time.

### Origins, JMAP priorities, and proposed actions
- Origins:
  - March 2006: External Review Committee on Bank-Fund Collaboration (the “Malan Report”).
  - October 2007: Joint Management Action Plan (JMAP) presented as response to Malan Report aspects within Bank and Fund purview.
- Malan Report recommended improvements in leadership, accountability, staff exchanges, incentives, fiscal work harmonization, clarification of Fund financing activities in LICs, elevation/expansion of FSLC, and better Bank sectoral advice and Fund macroeconomic assessments.
- JMAP priorities (staff-level):
  - Improve coordination on country work (new procedures for country team coordination).
  - Enhance communication between staff on common thematic issues (electronic platforms).
  - Improve incentives and support for collaboration (performance assessments).
- Representative JMAP actions:
  - Require country teams to consult regularly (at least annually), document consultations, identify cross support needs, and coordinate work programs.
  - Improve Bank response to Fund requests for analytical support where Bank has primary expertise.
  - Establish electronic web portals to share contact information and documents.
  - Develop shared financial sector indicators and strengthen FSLC for information sharing and TA follow-up to FSAP reports.
  - Improve information sharing and harmonization of fiscal advice.
  - Better coordination of technical assistance: set priorities, share TORs and final reports, conduct joint missions.
  - Access to internal job listings across institutions and enhanced temporary exchanges/secondments.
- Institutional responsibilities: PREM (Bank) and SPR (Fund) tasked to prepare periodic progress reports and identify good practices and problem areas.

### Interim reviews, observed changes, and drivers of improvement
- One-year joint review (November 2008):
  - Collaboration remained robust with frequent interaction, cross participation in missions, internal briefings.
  - Limited tangible progress since JMAP initiation; mixed experience with consultations; limited progress in web-based collaboration.
  - Collaboration generally better in LICs than MICs.
  - Noted substantial operating-environment changes (including Fund downsizing prior to global financial crisis).
- Interim follow-up review (September 2009): found improvements in collaboration on fiscal issues and in preparation of JSANs and DSAs.
- Drivers of improved collaboration:
  - Rapid succession of global crises beginning in 2008 forcing closer staff collaboration.
  - Increased staff mobility (mainly Fund to Bank) and removal of some obstacles (e.g., pension transfer agreement).
  - Fund downsizing followed by re-tooling.
  - Strong senior-management collaboration (regular consultations among Fund Managing Director/Deputy Managing Directors and Bank President/Managing Directors).

### Country-level collaboration: compliance, portals, DSAs, JSANs
- Annual Country Team Consultations:
  - Initial compliance: less than one third of country teams had consulted by November 2008.
  - By December 2009 compliance rose to 44 percent.
  - Regional variation:
    - About three quarters of countries in Africa, Eastern Europe and Central Asia held required consultations and produced coordinated work programs.
    - Only one third of teams in the Middle East and North Africa complied.
    - In all of South and East Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean only four country teams complied.
  - SPR and PREM issued a Guidance Note on Good Practice for Annual Bank-Fund Country Team Consultations.
- Joint Country Team Web Portals:
  - Pilot countries: Dominican Republic, Mauritania, Paraguay, Turkey, Uganda, Yemen.
  - Pilot (18-month beginning April 2007) disappointing: only one portal actively used by both Bank and Fund teams.
  - Decision: portals to be established only if jointly requested by both teams; TGS made portals more user-friendly.
  - No new portals opened since original pilot.
- Debt Sustainability Analyses (DSAs):
  - Many improvements incorporated from 2006 DSF review; LIC DSA guidance last revised in 2008 and recently updated.
  - Collaboration smooth in Enhanced HIPC context; scope for improvement elsewhere, notably understanding review/approval timelines.
  - Survey: almost 20 percent of Fund staff and just under 10 percent of Bank staff believed there had been delays in input provision for DSAs.
- Joint Staff Advisory Notes (JSANs):
  - February 2009 simplification: JSANs retained for full PRSPs and interim PRSPs; no longer required for APRs except in enhanced HIPC context.
  - Result: number of JSANs expected to drop to about one half the number prepared in recent years.
  - Survey: two out of ten Fund respondents and one out of ten Bank respondents indicated delays in receiving inputs for JSANs.

### Sectoral and cross-cutting collaboration highlights
- Fiscal work:
  - Joint FAD-PREM web portal created in 2008; content includes FAD TA activities, Regional Allocation Plans, PEFA and ROSC schedules, mission reports; PREM posted TA reports and ESW.
  - Bank missions with FAD participation increased from six in fiscal year 2008 to nine in fiscal year 2009.
  - FAD missions with Bank participation: Bank staff participated in five FAD TA missions during third quarter of 2009.
  - Regular meetings on public debt management and debt markets began early 2007; occur about every two months (JMAP had called for monthly meetings).
  - Jointly developed MTDS framework (Guidance Note and Quantitative Tool), joint MTDS missions, jointly delivered MTDS training.
- Financial sector work and FSAP:
  - FSLC subcommittee reviewed FSAP policies to adapt to crisis lessons; review discussed by both Boards in September 2009.
  - FSAP remains voluntary; joint assessment missions remain norm.
  - Changes introduced: option for FSAP “modules” focusing on “stability” (Fund-led) or “development” (Bank-led), strengthened quality control, prioritization, LIC subcommittee, upgraded FSLC terms of reference and reporting to senior management.
- Statistical work:
  - STA and DDG now exchanging contact information, concept and strategy notes and mission information.
  - Coordinated program to encourage Anglophone African participation in GDDS completed; Fund focused on macro statistics, Bank on social and demographic statistics.
  - Collaboration on the 2008 System of National Accounts revisions, including remittances measurement.

### Human resources, mobility, and performance assessment
- Secondments and mobility:
  - During reporting period, no Bank staff seconded to the Fund and only two Fund staff seconded at the Bank; both departments sought full performance assessments and used them for merit increases.
  - Fund staff have had access to Bank internal job listings; Bank staff given direct access to Fund internal job announcements via link in January 2010.
  - Fund HRD indicated Bank staff can apply simultaneously with Fund applicants for economist positions at A11 to A14 grade levels and advertised internal B-level positions; Fund HRD will clarify application procedures for Bank staff.
  - Mobility pickup: a number of Fund staff hired by the Bank (partly due to Fund downsizing); more recently a number of Bank staff hired by the Fund in context of Fund retooling.
- Performance assessments and incentives:
  - Little progress in systematically incorporating cross-institution collaboration quality into senior staff performance assessments.
  - Requesting feedback on collaboration quality is not yet common practice at either institution.
  - Some limited implementation: Fund has implemented to a limited extent; Bank assessments include knowledge sharing and working across boundaries but not an explicit inter-institutional call.
  - JMAP recommended reciprocal access to internal job listings and enhancing secondment arrangements (agreement on pension transfer in place).

### Internal processes, analytical cross support, and front office meetings
- Analytical cross support:
  - Fund staff expressed concerns about delays in Bank inputs in Bank expertise areas (e.g., PERs, PSIAs).
  - Bank staff frustrated by delays in up-to-date Assessment Letters from Fund amid rapidly changing macro conditions.
  - PREM and SPR originally proposed a resource window for cross support; constraint found to be staff availability for short-notice work.
  - Annual country team consultations designated main vehicle for timely cross support.
  - June 2009: senior contact persons identified in all Fund area departments and Bank regions to address urgent cross-support needs; mechanism used regularly in Africa.
  - Survey: four out of ten Fund staff and two out of ten Bank staff perceived delays in receiving analytical cross support.
- Regional front office meetings:
  - Bank Africa Region and Fund African Department meet about once a month on average.
  - Similar front office meetings infrequent in other regions; some occur around Spring and Annual Meetings.
- Coordination of review processes for joint documents:
  - PREM and SPR prepared and disseminated an Information Note on the Review of Joint Bank-Fund Documents describing respective review processes and good practice coordination.

### Crisis interaction, financing roles, and budget support
- Crises elevated collaboration demands and highlighted:
  - Division of labor in financing member countries.
  - Complementary financing roles: Bank mobilizes investment for long-term growth and poverty reduction; Fund helps countries achieve and maintain external stability and provides temporary liquidity support.
  - In LICs both institutions provide permanent resource transfers given grant elements; Bank long maturities (up to 40 years) imply greater concessionality than Fund.
  - Concerns about Fund providing longer-term “development” financing to LICs and about precautionary elements of some Bank budget support (e.g., Deferred Drawdown Option) being considered balance of payments support.
  - Areas of overlap: both can provide de facto budget and balance of payments support; in protracted LIC balance of payments problems the Fund has provided longer-period support while Bank steps up to protect development objectives.
- Roles in shocks/crises (summary):
  - Fund generally leads on macroeconomic effects, provides liquidity and coordinates financing within a consistent macroeconomic program.
  - Bank ensures development spending in health, education and infrastructure is maintained and scales up social spending; Bank developing a new Crisis Response Window within IDA funds.
  - Fund concerned that Bank crisis support be in context of well-designed macroeconomic framework, presumably a Fund-supported program.
  - Close coordination on policy and financing is particularly important during shocks or crises.

### DSF review, debt policy reforms, and coordinated analytical underpinning
- G20 called for DSF review; staff reviewed DSF producing joint Board paper and revised guidance note.
- Additional flexibility in DSF review:
  - greater recognition of public investment impact on growth;
  - explicit consideration of remittances in risk ratings (data permitting);
  - buffering effects of fluctuations in CPIA scores on debt distress thresholds and ratings;
  - more flexible treatment of external debt of state-owned enterprises;
  - greater recognition of authorities’ views in write-ups.
- Fund debt limits reforms effective December 2009; Bank reviewing non-concessional borrowing policy.
- Both institutions moving away from single design for concessionality requirements toward a menu of options.
- Process concluded with coordinated assessment of macroeconomic and public financial management capacity in November 2009.

### Key management actions and timing (monitorable next steps)
- Give joint country-team consultations a new push:
  - Regular (i.e., at least annual) consultations recommended.
  - Across-the-board deadline of August 2010 for all teams working on countries where both institutions are active (or potentially active) to have completed at least their first annual consultation.
  - Fund area departments and Bank regions to report to Management (through PREM and SPR) on compliance annually beginning in September 2010.
- Make greater use of cross-institutional feedback in assessing performance:
  - Human resource departments to develop joint guidelines/modalities for obtaining cross-institutional feedback on Bank and Fund managers; framework could be tested in the performance assessment cycle that begins in 2011.
  - Consider recognition award for staff demonstrating strong commitment to working with Bretton Woods counterparts.
- Strengthen staff mobility:
  - Human resource departments to identify remaining impediments and, by December 2010, present a strategy to address them; particular interest in secondments with a more strategic/coordinated approach and stronger incentives.
- Enhance clarity on information sharing:
  - Establish joint task force to develop, by December 2010, guidelines on information sharing; endorse presumption that relevant documents and data can be shared unless clear reasons not to share.
- Improve awareness of organizational structures:
  - Integrate information on institutions’ structures and review processes into orientation programs for new staff; identify contact points to assist staff in identifying counterparts and provide guidance on doing so.
- Accountability and monitoring:
  - Staff will continue to monitor progress; Managements will present a joint report to the Executive Boards in two years time.

### Annex highlights — JMAP matrix monitoring status
- Country/regional work:
  - Annual consultations required; compliance by less than half of teams with large regional variation. Guidance note prepared and disseminated (Done). Responsibility: SPR/PREM.
  - Contact persons for analytical cross support: mechanism used mainly in Africa.
  - Country web portals: information note available; new infrastructure provided. Responsibility: TGS.
  - JSANs and DSAs: processes streamlined; inputs often but not always timely. Responsibility: Fund Area Departments / OPCS and PREM.
- Financial sector:
  - FSLC strengthened; subcommittee reviewed FSAP and outcomes discussed by Boards in September 2009.
  - FSAP modules option introduced; LIC subcommittee established; new FSLC TORs being drafted.
- Fiscal sector:
  - Joint FAD-PREM website created and populated. Responsibility: PREM/FAD.
  - Cross participation in missions increased; public debt management meetings occur every two months.
- Statistical work:
  - Integration to Joint External Debt Hub: Done. Responsibility: IMF STA/Bank DDG.
  - QEDS data posted for 31 GDDS countries and 60 SDDS subscribers; expansion continues.
  - Contact points for statistics issues in each region: Done in January 2010.
- Technical assistance:
  - FAD Regional Allocation Plans and Fiscal Strategy Briefs posted on FAD-Bank web portal since 2008; sharing by MCM varies across regions.

### Annex 2 — Staff survey key quantitative findings (preserve reported values)
- Survey administration and response rates:
  - Sent to 195 Fund staff and 189 Bank staff; e-mailed November 13, 2009; responses accepted until December 1, 2009.
  - Response rates: 67 percent for Fund staff; 41 percent for Bank staff.
- Respondent location and roles:
  - Approximately 70 percent of Bank respondents located in the field; 30 percent in Washington.
  - For the Fund, approximately 70 percent of respondents were in Washington; 30 percent in the field.
  - Three-quarters of Fund respondents had been in their current position for at least 6 months compared with 93 percent of Bank respondents.
- Satisfaction with coordination (Question 7):
  - “Very satisfied”: 57 percent of Fund staff; 52 percent of Bank staff.
  - “Not satisfied”: less than 1 percent of Fund staff; 7 percent of Bank staff.
  - Bank staff working on African countries: 64 percent “very satisfied” versus 46 percent in other regions.
  - Fund staff working on African countries: 40 percent “very satisfied” compared with 65 percent of Fund staff working on non-African countries.
  - Fund staff working on LICs: 51 percent “very satisfied” versus 62 percent in MICs.
- Frequency of contact (Question 8):
  - About one half of both Bank and Fund respondents report at least once a week contact.
  - Almost 10 percent of Bank staff reported being in contact “rarely, if ever” or “only during missions” compared with 3 percent of Fund staff.
  - In LICs at least weekly contact: 71 percent of Bank staff; 53 percent of Fund staff. In MICs at least weekly contact: 18 percent of Bank staff; 38 percent of Fund staff.
  - In countries with (or negotiating) Fund-supported programs, almost two-thirds of both Fund and Bank staff reported at least weekly contact versus 31 percent (Bank) and 22 percent (Fund) in countries without programs.
- Impact of the JMAP (Question 9):
  - Reported improvement: 20 percent of Bank respondents; 14 percent of Fund respondents.
  - No change: just over one half of Bank respondents; 44 percent of Fund respondents.
- Impact of the crises on collaboration (Question 10):
  - Almost two thirds of respondents in both institutions reported an improvement in collaboration.
  - Subgroup patterns reported in source (preserve original phrasing where percentages differ by location and program status).
- Document sharing and TA:
  - Just over three quarters of Fund respondents and almost two thirds of Bank respondents report counterparts routinely provide drafts of key country documents.
  - 54 percent of Fund respondents report routinely receiving copies of final Bank TA reports; 73 percent of Bank respondents report receiving final Fund TA reports.
  - 38 percent of Bank respondents and 44 percent of Fund respondents indicated counterparts provide copies of TORs for TA in areas of mutual interest.
- Analytical cross support (Questions 17–18):
  - Analytical cross support requested in last six months: 39 percent of Bank respondents; 46 percent of Fund respondents.
  - Four-fifths of Bank respondents reported receiving requested support from the Fund “most of the time”; 57 percent of Fund respondents reported receiving support from the Bank “most of the time.”
  - One third of Fund respondents obtained cross support from the Bank “only some of the time.”
- Annual joint country team consultations (Questions 19–22):
  - Awareness of requirement: 80 percent of Bank respondents; 86 percent of Fund respondents.
  - Consultations conducted within last 12 months: 70 percent of Bank respondents; 79 percent of Fund respondents.
- Joint country web portals (Questions 23–27):
  - 89 percent of Bank respondents and 84 percent of Fund respondents had not established nor planned to establish joint country web portals.
  - Less than 3 percent reported having an established and kept-up-to-date portal.
- DSAs and JSANs timeliness (Questions 29–32):
  - For LIC DSAs prepared in last 12 months: 93 percent of Bank respondents indicated they generally received input from Fund counterparts on time; 73 percent of Fund respondents reported receiving input from Bank staff on time.
  - On JSANs: 92 percent of Bank respondents reported receiving “timely” input; 79 percent of Fund respondents reported receiving “timely” input.
- Areas most in need of improvement (survey views):
  - Information sharing (routine sharing of early drafts).
  - Systematic incentives and clarity on shareable documents.
  - Better collaboration on TA (prioritizing, planning, TORs, sharing final reports).
  - More joint strategizing, analytical work, missions; some desire for clearer division of labor from a minority of Fund respondents.

*Executive Summary, Joint Management Action Plan on Bank-Fund Collaboration (JMAP) — implementation assessment and next steps; excerpts and Annexes (staff survey and JMAP matrix) as provided in source content.*

### Executive Summary ......................................................................................................

### Executive Summary

### Overview and main finding
- This report assesses implementation of the Joint Management Action Plan on Bank-Fund Collaboration (JMAP), discusses the state of Bank-Fund collaboration more generally, and suggests ways to improve collaboration, including with respect to challenges arising in the context of the recent global economic turmoil.
- Overall finding: while Bank-Fund collaboration has improved over the past two years, the JMAP has played a supporting rather than a central role in this improvement. Further progress in JMAP implementation and in Bank-Fund collaboration more broadly appears possible.
- Managements will take a number of specified actions to move the JMAP and collaboration forward. Managements will present a joint report to the Executive Boards in two years time.

### Origins and purpose of the JMAP
- Background chronology and key documents:
  - March 2006: International Monetary Fund Managing Director and World Bank President established the External Review Committee on Bank-Fund Collaboration, chaired by Pedro Malan.
  - The Committee’s report is referred to as the “Malan Report”.
  - October 2007: Bank and Fund managements presented the Joint Management Action Plan (JMAP) to the Boards of both institutions as their response to aspects of the Malan Report within their purview.
- The Malan Report:
  - Found that close collaboration between the Bank and the Fund is vital given distinct but closely linked mandates.
  - Identified scope for improvement in strategy development, proactive complementarities, culture of collaboration, trust, and incentives.
  - Recommended, inter alia:
    - Improved leadership and accountability by Governors, Executive Boards and managements.
    - Increased staff exchanges by resolving impediments to mobility.
    - Integration of stronger incentives to collaboration into staff performance assessments.
    - Better integration and harmonization of fiscal work.
    - Clarification of the Fund’s ongoing financing activities in low-income countries (LICs).
    - Elevation of the Financial Sector Liaison Committee (FSLC) and expanded mandate.
    - Improved Bank ability to provide timely sectoral advice and Fund ability to provide comprehensive macroeconomic assessments.
  - Did not recommend revising the 1989 Concordat but suggested an “Understanding on Collaboration” as a high-level, living framework.

### JMAP priorities and proposed actions
- JMAP identified three broad priority areas for staff-level improvements:
  - Improving coordination on country work, including through new procedures for country team coordination.
  - Enhancing communication between staff of the two institutions working on common thematic issues, including by sharing information through new electronic platforms.
  - Improving incentives and support for collaboration on policies, review, and other issues, including by taking collaboration into account in performance assessments.
- Representative proposed actions in the JMAP implementation matrix:
  - Requirement that country teams consult with each other regularly (at least annually), document consultations in a brief memorandum, identify analytical cross support needs, and coordinate work programs.
  - Improve response to requests by Fund staff for analytical support from Bank staff where the Bank has primary expertise.
  - Establish electronic web portals to share contact information and documents on country and thematic issues.
  - Develop shared financial sector indicators and strengthen the FSLC for information sharing and coordination of technical assistance follow-up to FSAP reports.
  - Improve information sharing and harmonization of fiscal advice.
  - Better coordination of technical assistance: set work program priorities, share terms of reference and final reports, and conduct joint missions.
  - Access to internal job listings for staff of the other institution and enhanced temporary exchange of staff through secondments.
- Institutional responsibilities: JMAP mandated PREM (Bank) and SPR (Fund), with other units, to prepare periodic progress reports and identify good practices and problem areas.

### Interim reviews, observed changes, and challenges
- One-year joint review completed in November 2008:
  - Concluded that overall collaboration remained robust with frequent interaction across 19th Street, cross participation in missions, and involvement in internal briefing and review processes.
  - Noted limited tangible progress since JMAP initiation; mixed experience with consultations between country teams; limited progress in information sharing and web-based collaboration.
  - Found collaboration generally better in low-income countries (LICs) than in middle-income countries (MICs).
  - Observed substantial changes in the operating environment since the JMAP approval, including Fund downsizing prior to the global financial crisis.
- Managements agreed to:
  - Revise and streamline the original JMAP implementation matrix to improve operational usefulness and monitoring (Annex 1).
  - Strengthen incentives for collaboration.
- Interim follow-up review (September 2009) found improvements in a number of areas, particularly in collaboration on fiscal issues and in the preparation of Joint Staff Advisory Notes (JSANs) and debt sustainability analyses (DSAs).

### Specific actions managements will prioritize going forward
- Give joint country-team consultations a new push:
  - Country-team consultations provide the foundation for addressing shortcomings. Managements have set a deadline for all concerned teams to complete their first annual consultation.
- Make greater use of cross-institutional feedback in assessing performance:
  - Human Resource Departments will elaborate a joint framework for obtaining cross-institutional feedback on the quality of collaboration between Bank and Fund managerial staff.
- Strengthen staff mobility between the institutions:
  - Human Resource Departments have been asked to jointly identify main impediments to mobility and present a strategy to address them.
- Enhance clarity on information sharing:
  - Managements will establish a joint task force to develop guidelines on information sharing between Bank and Fund staff.
- Improve awareness of organizational structures:
  - Managements will put in place measures including orientation programs and guidance to help staffs understand the Fund’s and the Bank’s organizational structures and identify institutional counterparts.

### Interaction with global crises and emerging issues
- The rapid succession of global crises beginning in 2008 has forced staffs to work together more closely than previously, contributing to enhanced collaboration.
- The report highlights new and emerging issues brought to the fore by the global economic turmoil, particularly:
  - The division of labor in the provision of financing to member countries.
  - Concludes that the Bank and the Fund have complementary financing roles and must collaborate closely in providing financial assistance and policy advice to individual countries.
  - Emphasizes that when the financial support or policy advice of one institution has a bearing on the operations of the other, collaboration is particularly important.

### Monitoring and next steps
- Staffs will continue to monitor progress in improving Bank-Fund collaboration.
- Managements will present a joint report to the Executive Boards in two years time.

*Executive Summary, Joint Management Action Plan on Bank-Fund Collaboration (JMAP) — implementation assessment and next steps.*

### 13.      Evidence suggests that, while Bank-Fund collaboration has improved over the past

### 13.      Evidence suggests that, while Bank-Fund collaboration has improved over the past

### A. Collaboration on Country Issues
- JMAP set new requirements for country team collaboration and launched a pilot to establish joint country team web portals.
- Annual Country Team Consultations
  - Purpose: (i) enable a common understanding of macroeconomic challenges, policies, and structural reforms; (ii) help coordinate work plans and improve timeliness of analytical cross support and preparation of Fund assessment letters; (iii) bring together core team members and supporting staff; (iv) build relationships of trust for information and draft-sharing.
  - Heads of Fund Area Departments and Bank Regional Vice Presidents were advised of this requirement in February 2008.
  - Initial compliance: less than one third of country teams had consulted by November 2008.
  - Progress: By December 2009, the share of teams who had consulted rose to 44 percent.
  - Regional variation:
    - About three quarters of countries in Africa, Eastern Europe and Central Asia held the required annual consultations and produced forward-looking and coordinated work programs.
    - Only one third of teams working on countries in the Middle East and North Africa complied.
    - In all of South and East Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean only four country teams complied.
  - SPR and PREM drafted and disseminated a Guidance Note on Good Practice for Annual Bank-Fund Country Team Consultations to improve compliance and quality.
  - Reasons for uneven compliance included perceptions that formal annual consultations were unnecessary given regular contact; many staff who participated valued the exercise.
- Joint Country Team Web Portals
  - Pilot countries: Dominican Republic, Mauritania, Paraguay, Turkey, Uganda, and Yemen.
  - Pilot experience (18-month period beginning in April 2007) was disappointing: only one of the country portals was actively used by both Bank and Fund teams.
  - Factors for portal success included good pre-existing collaboration and more user-friendly technology.
  - Decision: portals to be established only if jointly requested by both teams.
  - SPR and PREM, with the Fund’s TGS, prepared an Information Note on Joint Bank-Fund Country Team Web Portals and TGS made portals more user-friendly.
  - Outcome: some country teams considered establishing portals, but no new portals have been opened since the original pilot.
- Debt Sustainability Analyses (DSAs)
  - Many improvements from the 2006 review of the debt sustainability framework (DSF) have been incorporated into the DSA process, including guidelines for preparation and clearance of joint DSAs.
  - Staff guidance on LIC DSAs, last revised in 2008, was recently updated to better reflect institutional responsibilities and production timelines.
  - Collaboration on DSAs in the Enhanced HIPC Initiative context has been smooth; scope for improvement on other joint DSAs remains, notably on understanding required time for respective review and approval processes.
  - Survey findings: almost twenty percent of Fund staff and just under 10 percent of Bank staff believed there had been delays in provision of input for DSAs by counterpart country teams, with potential negative implications for scheduling of Executive Board meetings.
- Joint Staff Advisory Notes (JSANs)
  - In February 2009, Bank and Fund management agreed to simplify the JSAN process and reduce documentation requirements.
  - Under the simplified process, JSANs are retained for full PRSPs and interim PRSPs, but are no longer required for APRs except in the context of the enhanced HIPC Initiative.
  - Result: the number of JSANs is expected to drop to about one half the number prepared in recent years.
  - Survey: two out of ten Fund respondents and one out of ten Bank respondents indicated delays in receiving inputs for JSANs from counterparts, suggesting room to strengthen collaboration and understanding of review/approval time requirements.

### B. Collaboration on Sectoral and Cross-Cutting Issues
- JMAP calls for greater dialogue on mutual policy issues, increased cross participation in missions, and more regular information exchange.
- Fiscal Work
  - JMAP emphasizes: joint web portal for information exchange, more frequent cross participation in missions, stronger coordination on public debt management and debt market issues.
  - Joint Web Portal on Fiscal Issues
    - FAD and World Bank PREM created a joint web portal on fiscal issues in 2008.
    - Portal content: FAD technical assistance activities, Regional Allocation Plans, PEFA and ROSC mission schedules, mission reports, and other relevant information; PREM has posted TA reports and ESW and intends to provide mission plans.
    - Achievement: significant given prior lack of systematic information sharing; Bank’s less centralized fiscal structure makes Bank information sharing more labor intensive.
  - Enhancing Cross Participation in Fiscal Missions
    - Bank missions with FAD participation increased from six in fiscal year 2008 to nine in fiscal year 2009.
    - FAD missions with Bank staff participation: during the third quarter of 2009, Bank staff participated in five FAD technical assistance missions.
    - Cross-participation decisions are case-by-case, depending on subject matter, staff availability, mission composition, and country preferences.
  - Coordination on Public Debt Management and Debt Market Issues
    - Regular meetings to discuss work on public debt management and debt markets began in early 2007; meetings occur about every two months (JMAP Action Matrix called for monthly meetings).
    - Meetings useful for updating and coordinating work programs, briefing counterparts, discussing topical issues (e.g., impact of financial crisis), and coordinating joint Board papers.
    - Joint progress highlights:
      - Jointly developed internationally accepted framework for conducting Medium Term Debt Strategies (MTDS), including a Guidance Note and Quantitative Tool; joint MTDS missions and jointly delivered MTDS training; work reviewed through collaborative Board papers.
      - Joint technical assistance missions on broader debt management issues; coordination through Fund representation on steering committee and technical advisory group for the Bank’s Debt Management Facility.
- Financial Sector Work
  - JMAP called for better knowledge management and information sharing; FSLC to serve as focal point and strengthen coordination of joint financial sector work.
  - FSLC subcommittee reviewed FSAP policies and practices to adapt to new realities and lessons from the global financial crisis, taking into account the Malan Report and G20 guidance; provided basis for 2009 joint review of the FSAP.
  - Review outcomes discussed by Bank and Fund Executive Boards in September 2009.
  - Two FSAP elements unchanged: FSAP remains voluntary; joint assessment missions remain the norm.
  - Review introduced changes to improve candor, transparency, analytical rigor, flexibility, cross-country analysis, and focus on standards assessments.
  - FSLC implementation actions include:
    - Introducing an option for “modules” to allow FSAP assessments to focus on “stability” (Fund-led) or “development” (Bank-led) needs; modality decisions by consensus in the FSLC.
    - Strengthening quality control and inter-institutional coordination, including more systematic prioritization of FSAPs among countries.
    - Establishing a sub-committee to address LIC challenges, data sharing on LIC financial sectors, and TA follow-up to FSAPs.
    - Upgrading FSLC role with new terms of reference to improve governance, accountability, priority setting, clarify membership and subcommittee mandates, provide guidance on TA follow-up, and require regular reporting to senior management on prioritization, decisions and outcomes.
- Statistical Work
  - JMAP initially required STA and DDG to identify counterparts and exchange contact information; implementation was delayed due to communication shortcomings but has now been implemented.
  - STA and DDG have begun to step up exchange of concept and strategy notes and mission information.
  - STA and DDG collaborated on projects later integrated into JMAP in 2009:
    - Coordinated program (started in 2006 and now complete) to encourage Anglophone African participation in the Fund’s General Data Dissemination System; Fund focused on macroeconomic statistics, Bank on social and demographic statistics.
    - Collaboration with other institutions to revise the 2008 System of National Accounts, leading work on new concepts for measuring remittances.

### C. Human Resources Issues
- JMAP calls to enhance incentives for collaboration and resolve impediments to staff mobility:
  - Proposals include taking collaboration quality into account in senior staff performance assessments and obtaining full performance assessments for secondees.
  - Calls for reciprocal access to internal job listings and opening internal vacancies to staff from the sister institution build on the 2007 Bank-Fund pension transfer agreement.
- Performance Assessments
  - Little progress in systematically incorporating quality of collaboration with the other institution into senior staff performance assessments.
  - Requesting feedback on collaboration quality is not yet common practice at either institution.
  - Some Fund area departments expect good collaboration and have occasional informal exchanges on personnel issues.
  - Bank Human Resources Department notes potential to incorporate views on collaboration with the Fund within existing performance evaluation forms.

*Source: _030310 - 13.      Evidence suggests that, while Bank-Fund collaboration has improved over the past*

### 35.      During the reporting period, no Bank staff were seconded to the Fund and only two

### 030310 - 35.      During the reporting period, no Bank staff were seconded to the Fund and only two

### Secondments and performance assessments
- During the reporting period, no Bank staff were seconded to the Fund and only two Fund staff were on secondment at the Bank.
- Both their departments of origin reported having sought full performance assessments and used them to determine merit increases.

### Access to internal job listings and mobility between institutions
- Fund staff have had access to internal job listings at the Bank for some time and can apply for vacancies with permission from the hiring manager at the Bank; permission is routinely given.
- Bank staff were given direct access to announcements of Fund internal job vacancies (through a link on the Bank’s intranet) in January 2010.
- The Fund’s Human Resources Department indicated that Bank staff can apply for advertised Fund internal vacancies simultaneously with Fund applicants for economist positions at the A11 to A14 grade levels and advertised internal B-level positions.
- The Fund’s Human Resources Department will clarify procedures Bank staff should follow when applying for Fund vacancies.
- Mobility has picked up in recent years:
  - A number of Fund staff have been hired by the Bank, in part spurred by Fund downsizing.
  - More recently, a number of Bank staff have been hired by the Fund in the context of Fund retooling.

### Working practices and other internal processes (JMAP implementation)
- The JMAP calls for improvements to internal processes, including:
  - establishing contact points to help country teams obtain more timely analytical cross support;
  - holding periodic front office meetings between Fund area departments and Bank regions;
  - better coordinated review of joint documents.

### Analytical cross support
- JMAP-related staff consultations identified concerns among Fund staff about perceived delays in timely provision of analytical input by the Bank in areas of Bank expertise (e.g., Public Expenditure Reviews and Poverty and Social Impact Analysis).
- Some Bank staff reported frustration in obtaining up-to-date Assessment Letters from the Fund, particularly amid rapidly changing macroeconomic conditions.
- Initially, the JMAP called on PREM and SPR to develop a resource window to facilitate analytical cross support; subsequent consultations within the Bank indicated the binding constraint was the availability of staff to undertake short-notice work not already in annual work programs.
- It was agreed that annual country team consultations should be the main vehicle to facilitate timely cross support.
- In June 2009, all Fund area departments and Bank regions identified senior contact persons charged with addressing urgent needs for analytical cross support that could not be accommodated by country teams.
- The Bank’s Africa Region and the Fund’s African Department report regular and very fruitful discussions between the contact persons.
- Survey findings: four out of ten Fund staff and two out of ten Bank staff perceived delays in receiving analytical cross support.

### Regional front office meetings
- JMAP encourages Fund area departments and Bank Regional Vice Presidencies to hold joint “front office” meetings to enhance collaboration; recommendation flowed from the pilot project to improve collaboration on Africa.
- The Bank’s Africa Region and the Fund’s African Department continue to meet once a month on average.
- Similar meetings are infrequent among other front offices; some hold meetings prior to or after the Spring and Annual Meetings.
- Senior staff in some departments consider regular meetings unnecessary, arguing less formal and occasional contacts suffice.

### Coordination of review processes for joint documents
- The External Review Committee raised questions about coordination of the institutions’ respective review processes, given the relatively decentralized organizational structure of the Bank.
- The JMAP called for PREM and SPR to examine review processes for joint documents and elaborate a statement of good practice to replace ad hoc arrangements.
- The interim JMAP review identified lack of awareness of respective institutional structures and clearance requirements as a major contributing factor to tensions in preparing joint country and policy products.
- PREM and SPR, in consultation with other departments, prepared and disseminated an Information Note on the Review of Joint Bank-Fund Documents describing respective review processes and suggesting ways to coordinate reviews of various types of joint documents.

### New and emerging issues: crisis response and collaboration
- The JMAP predated a series of global crises: food and fuel price surges of 2008, the financial crisis of 2008–09 and the ensuing global recession.
- The G20 called for the Bank and Fund to clarify mandates and enhance efficiency, including improving collaboration.
- Staff survey and experience indicate collaboration during the crisis has generally been good; collaboration benefited from the creation of a Low-Income Countries Strategy Unit in SPR.
- The crises increased attention to:
  - the FSAP reform;
  - a G20 call for a further review of the joint DSF;
  - the Fund’s role in providing analysis of collective macroeconomic implications of G20 national policies, with the Bank assessing implications for development and poverty reduction of related macroeconomic scenarios prepared by the Fund.
- The Bank will provide inputs to the Fund, as needed, for the Fund's analysis of G20 policy plans in the area of structural reform; the Fund and Bank will work closely in preparing their respective reports.

### Financing roles of the Bank and Fund during crises
- Shareholders called for both institutions to step up lending in response to unprecedented financial needs.
- Distinct and complementary roles:
  - Bank: mobilizing investment to augment human and physical resources, financing projects and structural and policy reforms for long-term growth and poverty reduction.
  - Fund: helping countries achieve and maintain external stability and sustainable macroeconomic positions, providing temporary liquidity support to smooth adjustment.
- Bank support helps establish an enabling macroeconomic environment; Fund support provides a macroeconomic anchor, especially in LICs.
- In LICs both Bank and Fund support involve permanent resource transfer given the grant element of lending to LICs; long maturities on Bank lending (up to 40 years) imply significantly greater concessionality than that of the Fund.
- In developing and emerging market member countries the Bank generally maintains sustained lending relationships, while Fund financing is episodic and temporary.
- Concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of the Fund providing longer term “development” financing to low-income countries and about precautionary elements of some Bank budget support operations (e.g., the Deferred Drawdown Option for emerging markets) being considered primarily balance of payments support.
- Areas of overlap:
  - Both institutions provide de facto budget and balance of payments support since financial support from each provides foreign exchange and tends to loosen fiscal constraints.
  - In low-income countries with protracted balance of payments problems the Fund has provided longer period financial support to smooth adjustment; the Bank may step up support to protect development objectives in the short-term.

### Budget support and crisis responses
- Box 6 summary: Bank direct budget support typically via DPOs; project finance can be indirect budget support by loosening fiscal constraints. Fund financing typically provided via lending to the central bank and can provide indirect budget support; Fund has sometimes lent directly to treasuries.
- Fund budget support—direct or indirect—is not possible in the absence of a balance of payments need.
- Close cooperation between the Bank and the Fund on both shorter- and longer-term fiscal policies is critical, with each institution guiding the other in its core areas of expertise.
- Box 7 summary: In shocks or crises:
  - Fund generally leads on macroeconomic effects, providing liquidity and coordinating with the Bank and other partners to ensure coherent budget and balance of payments financing within a consistent macroeconomic program.
  - Bank has a key role in ensuring development spending in health, education and infrastructure is maintained and in scaling up social spending to mitigate poverty impacts; Bank is developing a new Crisis Response Window within IDA funds.
  - The Fund is concerned that Bank crisis support be provided in the context of a well-designed macroeconomic framework, presumably in the context of a Fund-supported program.
  - Close coordination on policy and financing between the institutions is particularly important in times of shocks or crisis.

*Source: Excerpt from IMF/World Bank Joint Management Action Plan review document (sections 35–48).*

### 49.      In response to the concerns of some LICs facing significant financing constraints in

### _030310 - 49.      In response to the concerns of some LICs facing significant financing constraints in

### Reviews and Reforms of the Debt Sustainability Framework (DSF) and Debt Policies
- G20 called on the Fund and the Bank to review the joint DSF to determine whether additional flexibility was needed to support the developmental objectives of the increasingly diverse universe of LICs.
- Staffs reviewed the DSF, resulting in a joint Board paper and a revised guidance note.
- Additional flexibility introduced into the DSF review included:
  - greater recognition of the impact of public investment on growth;
  - more explicit consideration of remittances in the determination of risk ratings (data availability permitting);
  - buffering of the effects of fluctuations in Country Policy and Institutional Assessment scores on debt distress thresholds and ratings;
  - more flexible treatment of external debt of state-owned enterprises;
  - greater recognition in the write up of the authorities’ views.
- Fund reviewed its policy on debt limits, with reforms that became effective in December 2009.
- Bank is reviewing its non-concessional borrowing policy; both institutions are moving away from a single design for concessionality requirements toward a menu of options.
- Reforms aim to reflect the diversity of situations in LICs and have a stronger analytical underpinning via systematic link to DSAs.
- Bank and Fund staff consulted extensively; process culminated in a coordinated assessment of macroeconomic and public financial management capacity in November 2009.

### Bank-Fund Collaboration: Progress, Drivers, and Assessment
- Collaboration improvements over the last two years:
  - more frequent contacts among staff, including at the country level;
  - improved flow of information and sharing of early drafts of policy documents for comment;
  - increased cross attendance by staff at relevant Board meetings.
- Increased staff mobility (mainly from the Fund to the Bank) helped spread understanding and contributed to greater trust.
- Senior-management collaboration is very strong: Fund Managing Director and Bank President, and Fund Deputy Managing Directors and Bank Managing Directors, consult regularly.
- Factors contributing to improvements:
  - rapid succession of global crises beginning in 2008 forcing closer staff collaboration;
  - increased staff mobility aided by removal of some obstacles (e.g., agreement on transfer of pension rights);
  - Fund downsizing followed by re-tooling.
- JMAP (Joint Management Action Plan) effects:
  - positive impact in several areas despite implementation shortcomings;
  - annual consultations between country teams have improved information flow, consistency of policy advice, working relationships, coordinated work programs, and analytical cross support—though still far from universal practice;
  - FAD-PREM website improved sharing of fiscal information and analysis;
  - noteworthy improvements in collaboration on debt management;
  - overall, JMAP played a supporting rather than central role in enhancing collaboration.

### Next Steps and Key Management Actions (timing preserved)
- Managements will focus on measures with greatest potential to enhance collaboration and phase out measures that do not yield expected benefits.
- Key actions:
  - Give joint country-team consultations a new push:
    - Regular (i.e., at least annual) consultations between country teams recommended.
    - Across-the-board deadline of August 2010 for all teams working on countries in which both the Bank and the Fund are active (or potentially active) to have completed at least their first annual consultation.
    - Fund area departments and Bank regions to report to Management (through PREM and SPR) on compliance annually beginning in September 2010.
    - Country-level staff should generally invite counterparts to review meetings on subjects of mutual interest.
  - Make greater use of cross-institutional feedback in assessing performance:
    - Human resource departments, in consultation with other departments, will develop joint guidelines and modalities for implementing a framework to obtain cross-institutional feedback at the level of Bank and Fund managers.
    - Framework could be tested in the performance assessment cycle that begins in 2011.
    - Consideration of a recognition award for staff that demonstrate particularly strong commitment to working constructively with Bretton Woods counterparts.
  - Strengthen staff mobility between the institutions:
    - Human resource departments to identify remaining impediments and, by December 2010, present a strategy to address them.
    - Particular interest in secondments with a more strategic and coordinated approach and stronger incentives.
  - Enhance clarity on information sharing:
    - Establish a joint task force to develop, by December 2010, guidelines on information sharing between Bank and Fund staff.
    - Guidelines to set out rules, provide practical suggestions for obtaining information, and highlight good practice examples.
    - Endorsing a presumption that relevant documents and data can be shared between Bank and Fund staff unless there are clear reasons not to share.
  - Improve awareness of organizational structures:
    - Integrate information on institutions’ structures and review processes into orientation programs for new staff;
    - Identify contact points within each institution to assist staff in identifying counterparts;
    - Provide guidance on how to identify institutional counterparts.
- Accountability and monitoring:
  - Staff will continue to monitor progress in improving Bank-Fund collaboration.
  - Managements will present a joint report to the Executive Boards in two years time.

### Annex 1: JMAP Matrix — Selected Monitorable Actions and Status Highlights
- Country/Regional Work
  - All teams working on low- or middle-income countries where both institutions are active (or intend to be active in the year ahead) to consult at least once a year and summarize outcome in brief memo and action matrix.
  - Compliance by less than half of country teams, with large variation across regions/departments.
  - Guidance note on issues to be covered at annual joint meetings prepared and disseminated (Done). — Responsibility: SPR/PREM.
- Contact persons to assist mobilizing analytical cross support:
  - Mechanism is only being used by African departments; some other departments/regions unaware of counterparts.
- Country web portals:
  - Information note on establishing web portals produced and available internally; staff awareness limited. — Responsibility: SPR/PREM Regional Directors.
  - New, more user-friendly infrastructure made available. — Responsibility: TGS.
- JSANs and DSAs:
  - Processes streamlined; inputs often but not always provided on a timely basis. — Responsibility: Fund Area Departments / OPCS and PREM.
- Financial Sector Work
  - No plans for creating a web portal at this time; MCM views proposal as impracticable. Some consideration for LICs portal.
  - FSLC (Financial Sector Liaison Committee) strengthened in context of September 2009 joint review of the FSAP; new terms of reference being drafted.
  - Subcommittee established to review FSAP policies and practices; review completed and discussed by both Boards in September 2009.
- Fiscal Sector Work
  - Joint FAD-PREM website created and populated with IMF and World Bank documents. — Responsibility: PREM/FAD.
  - Cross participation in missions increased; monthly meetings on public debt management held every two months.
- Statistical Work
  - Integration to Joint External Debt Hub: Done. — Responsibility: IMF STA/Bank DDG.
  - QEDS progress: Data for 31 GDDS countries and 60 SDDS subscribers posted; expansion continues.
  - Draft template for quarterly total central government debt data developed and sent to relevant international agencies; further consultation planned.
  - Contact points for statistics issues in each region: Done in January 2010.
- Technical Assistance Provision
  - FAD’s Regional Allocation Plans and Fiscal Strategy Briefs posted on FAD-Bank web portal since 2008; sharing by MCM varies across regions.
  - Routine sharing by Bank staff of CASs; systematic sharing on financial and statistical issues varies.
  - Sharing of ROSC and PEFA mission schedules done through FAD-PREM website and PREM country managers/IMF functional departments.

*Source: IMF–World Bank joint management paper and JMAP annex (text as provided).*

### Annex 1. Joint Management Action Plan: Matrix of Monitorable Actions

### Annex 1. Joint Management Action Plan: Matrix of Monitorable Actions

### Human Resources Management
- Enhance incentives for good collaboration:
  - When preparing managerial performance assessments, take into account quality of collaboration; request feedback on collaboration from counterparts in sister institution.
    - Status: Implemented to a limited extent at the Fund. At the Bank, managerial assessments include consideration of knowledge sharing and working across organizational boundaries. However, there is no explicit call to apply these principles inter-institutionally.
    - Responsibility: Bank and Fund staff supervisors
  - Each institution to obtain a full performance assessment from host institution for staff on secondment and take it into account in determining seconded staffs’ merit pay.
    - Status: Implemented to a limited extent at the Fund (based on very small sample). At the Bank, while not staff were on secondment to the Fund during the review period, staff on secondment are encouraged (but not required) to participate in the OPE process.
    - Responsibility: Bank and Fund staff supervisors

- Minimize impediments to staff mobility generated by different remuneration and retirement arrangements:
  - Remove administrative impediments to inter-institution mobility including by opening internal vacancies to staff from sister institution and advertising all internal and external vacancies in each other’s internal websites.
    - Status: Agreement in place on transfer of pension rights. Fund staff are generally permitted to apply to internal Bank vacancies. HRD has indicated that Bank staff can apply for advertised Fund internal vacancies simultaneously with Fund applicants for economist positions at the A11 to A14 levels and advertised internal B-level positions.
    - Responsibility: Bank and Fund HRD
  - Give Bank staff access to internal Fund job listings, reciprocating the access that Fund staff have to internal Bank job listings.
    - Status: Done through a link on Bank Job World site.
    - Responsibility: Fund HRD and TGS

### Internal Processes
- Establish mechanisms to promote collaboration and facilitate the exchange of information, consistent with applicable confidentiality rules:
  - Enhance region-wide collaboration by encouraging periodic (e.g., quarterly or bi-annual) joint front office meetings to discuss issues of mutual interest, as has been done for AFR.
    - Status: African departments continue to do this routinely; other regions may meet prior to, or immediately following, Annual/Spring Meetings.
    - Responsibility: Fund Area Departments and Regional Vice Presidencies
  - Establish, disseminate, and regularly update information on points of contact to assist staff with issues related to Bank-Fund collaboration.
    - Status: Joint PREM/SPR website created with detailed contact information but information is outdated. Website is being upgraded with help from TGS.
    - Responsibility: PREM/SPR
  - Coordinate substantive Bank-Fund agenda for, and follow up to, Spring/Annual Meetings and other relevant international meetings, e.g., G20.
    - Status: Ongoing.
    - Responsibility: PREM/SPR with SEC
  - Jointly prepare periodic reports to Management on progress toward closer Bank-Fund collaboration.
    - Status: JMAP Implementation Progress Reports prepared in November 2008 and September 2009.
    - Responsibility: PREM/SPR

- Enable smoother review of joint papers:
  - Prepare guidance/information note for Bank and Fund staff on how the review processes work in the Fund and the Bank, and on how best to coordinate reviews of joint papers.
    - Status: Done and posted on respective internal websites.
    - Responsibility: PREM/SPR

- Enhance sharing of TA reports:
  - For Bank and Fund TA reports, transmittal letters to authorities to indicate that, unless otherwise instructed, reports will be made available to other institution.
    - Status: Done.
    - Responsibility: PREM, FSP, and DEC; FAD, MCM, and STA

*Italic source: Annex 1. Joint Management Action Plan: Matrix of Monitorable Actions*

---

### Annex 2. Staff Survey Results

### Methodology
- Survey scope and administration:
  - Conducted in November 2009 to obtain views on Bank-Fund collaboration from Bank and Fund staff working on one or more of the 143 LICs and MICs in which both institutions had substantial operations.
  - Sent to 195 Fund staff (mission chiefs and resident representatives) and 189 Bank staff (country directors and managers and an economist (either lead or senior) working on each country in which the Bank was active).
  - Administered by the Bank via an external third party provider to guarantee anonymity.
  - E-mailed to staff on November 13, 2009, with responses accepted until December 1, 2009.
  - Response rates: 67 percent for Fund staff; 41 percent for Bank staff.

### Characteristics of Respondents (Questions 1 to 6 and Question 28)
- Location and roles:
  - Approximately 70 percent of Bank respondents were located in the field; 30 percent stationed in Washington.
  - For the Fund, approximately 70 percent of respondents were in Washington; 30 percent in the field.
  - Approximately one third of responses came from staff working primarily on African countries in both institutions.
  - Three-quarters of Fund respondents had been in their current position for at least 6 months compared with 93 percent of Bank respondents.
- Country focus and positions:
  - One half of respondents worked primarily on MICs; the remainder on LICs.
  - Just over one half of Bank responses were from staff working in countries which have a Fund-supported program, or have been negotiating one in the last 12 months. This compares with 61 percent of Fund respondents.
  - Mission chiefs accounted for about three-quarters of Fund responses.
  - 60 percent of Bank responses came from country economists.
  - Note: Four percent of respondents served as both mission chiefs and resident representatives.

### Satisfaction with Degree of Coordination between Country Team and Bretton Woods Counterparts (Question 7)
- Overall satisfaction:
  - “Very satisfied” responses: 57 percent of Fund staff; 52 percent of Bank staff.
  - “Not satisfied”: less than 1 percent of Fund staff; 7 percent of Bank staff (most of which were located in the field).
- Regional and income-level differences:
  - Bank staff working on African countries: 64 percent “very satisfied” compared to 46 percent in other regions; all Bank staff working on African countries were at least “somewhat satisfied.”
  - Fund staff working on African countries: 40 percent “very satisfied” compared with 65 percent of Fund staff working on non-African countries.
  - Fund staff working on LICs: 51 percent “very satisfied” compared with 62 percent of Fund staff working on MICs.
  - The report notes correlation across demographic factors (e.g., LICs concentrated in Africa; IMF-supported programs concentrated in Africa).

### Satisfaction with Degree of Coordination between World Bank and IMF Counterparts
- Program status effects (countries with vs without Fund-supported programs):
  - Bank staff: 61 percent of those working on countries with (or negotiating) Fund-supported programs reported being “very satisfied” compared with 42 percent of those working on countries without existing or pending Fund-supported programs.
  - Bank staff working on countries without Fund-supported programs were four times as likely (12 percent) to report being “not satisfied” than those working on countries with programs.
- Presence of Fund Resident Representative:
  - Bank staff working on countries with a Fund Resident Representative: 56 percent “very satisfied” compared with 43 percent for those without.
  - Fund respondents: 56 percent “very satisfied” with a Resident Representative present compared with 54 percent without.

### Frequency of Contact (Question 8)
- Contact frequency:
  - About one half of both Bank and Fund respondents reported being in contact (via e-mail, telephone or in person) at least once a week.
  - Almost 10 percent of Bank staff reported being in contact “rarely, if ever” or “only during missions” compared with 3 percent of Fund staff.
  - Contact more frequent in LICs: 71 percent of Bank staff and 53 percent of Fund staff reported at least weekly contact in LICs, compared with 18 percent and 38 percent (respectively) in MICs.
  - In countries with (or negotiating) Fund-supported programs, almost two-thirds of both Fund and Bank staff reported at least weekly contact versus 31 percent (Bank) and 22 percent (Fund) in countries without programs.

### Impact of the JMAP on Country-Level Collaboration (Question 9)
- Reported impact:
  - Improved collaboration reported by: 20 percent of Bank respondents; 14 percent of Fund respondents.
  - No change reported by: just over one half of Bank respondents; 44 percent of Fund respondents.
  - Remainder had no opinion.
- Subgroup differences:
  - Fund staff working on countries without Fund-supported programs: 20 percent believed JMAP improved collaboration versus 10 percent for those working on program countries.
  - Bank staff: almost one quarter working on countries with Fund-supported programs (or on LICs) indicated JMAP had improved collaboration, compared with 15 percent for countries without programs and 14 percent for MICs.
  - Bank respondents working on African countries: just under a third reported a positive impact from JMAP compared with 15 percent of those in other regions.
  - Fund respondents: 18 percent for Africa; 13 percent for other regions.

### Impact of the Crises on Collaboration (Question 10)
- Perceived improvement due to economic shocks (food and fuel price surges, financial crisis, global recession):
  - Almost two thirds of respondents in both institutions reported an improvement in collaboration.
- Bank subgroup patterns:
  - Washington staff more likely to signal improvement: 38 percent (Washington) versus 43 percent (field) — note: text appears to show reversed percentages; original phrasing: "At the Bank, staff working in Washington were more likely to have signaled an improvement (38 versus 43 percent in the field)..." (preserve as in source).
  - Staff working on countries with a Fund-supported program: 47 percent versus 30 percent in the field.
  - Staff working on LICs: 47 percent attributed improvement to the crises versus 36 percent for MICs.
- Fund subgroup patterns:
  - Washington staff: 41 percent versus 32 percent in the field.
  - Staff working on countries with Fund-supported programs: 41 percent versus 33 percent.
  - Staff working on MICs: 41 percent versus 34 percent for LICs.

### Soliciting Views and Sharing of Information (Questions 12 to 16)
- Sharing of drafts and documents:
  - Just over three quarters of Fund respondents and almost two thirds of Bank respondents report that their Bretton Woods counterparts routinely provide them with drafts of key country documents for information or comment.
- Bank perceptions of Fund sharing:
  - Fund more likely to share documents in countries with a Fund program: 79 percent (with programs) compared to 52 percent (without programs).
  - With a Fund Resident Representative: 75 percent compared to 48 percent without.
  - In LICs: 71 percent compared with 61 percent in MICs.
  - In Africa: 82 percent versus 58 percent in other regions.
- Fund perceptions of Bank sharing:
  - Bank staff more likely to share documents on countries that have a Fund Resident Representative: 80 percent versus 74 percent when there is no Resident Representative.
  - Bank staff more likely to share with those working on non-African countries: 81 percent versus 65 percent for Africa.
  - Little difference across income level or Fund program status for Fund respondents.
- Technical assistance (TA) awareness and report sharing:
  - About two thirds of respondents indicated counterparts made them aware of TA activities in their areas of expertise.
  - 54 percent of Fund respondents report routinely receiving copies of final technical assistance reports from Bank counterparts.
  - 73 percent of Bank respondents report receiving final Fund technical assistance reports in areas of relevance to their work.
  - Copies of terms of reference (TORs) and requesting comments on draft TORs:
    - 38 percent of Bank respondents and 44 percent of Fund respondents indicated counterparts provide copies of TORs for TA in areas of mutual interest.
    - 37 percent of Fund respondents indicated Bank colleagues provide draft TORs for comment.
    - 24 percent of Bank respondents reported being asked to provide comments on Fund technical assistance TORs.

### Analytical Cross Support (Questions 17 and 18)
- Requests and fulfillment:
  - Analytical cross support requested in the last six months by 39 percent of Bank respondents and 46 percent of Fund respondents.
  - Four-fifths of Bank respondents reported receiving the requested support from the Fund “most of the time” compared with 57 percent of Fund respondents receiving support from the Bank “most of the time.”
  - One third of Fund respondents were able to obtain cross support from the Bank “only some of the time.”

### Annual Joint Country Team Consultations (Questions 19 to 22)
- Awareness and conduct:
  - Awareness of management-imposed requirement that all country teams meet at least annually: 80 percent of Bank respondents; 86 percent of Fund respondents.
  - Consultations conducted within the last 12 months: 70 percent of Bank respondents; 79 percent of Fund respondents.
- Reasons for not holding consultations:
  - Most commonly cited: “no issues of common interest” or “too time consuming.”
  - A few respondents cited “insufficient support from senior management.”
  - Awareness of Guidance Note on Good Practice for Annual Bank-Fund Country Consultations: just over two thirds of both Bank and Fund respondents.

### Joint Country Team Web Portals (Questions 23 to 27)
- Adoption and intentions:
  - 89 percent of Bank respondents and 84 percent of Fund respondents indicated they had not established joint country web portals nor planned to establish one.
  - Less than 3 percent of respondents indicated they had established a web portal and it was kept up to date.
  - Similarly few indicated a portal had been established but was out of date.
  - Among Fund respondents, 11 percent indicated an intention to establish such a portal in the future compared with 7 percent of Bank respondents.
  - 9 out of 10 percent of respondents had not seen the guidance note on establishing joint country team web portals and were not aware that resources were available to assist in establishment.

### Debt Sustainability Analyses (DSA) and Joint Staff Advisory Notes (JSAN) (Questions 29 to 32)
- Timeliness of inputs:
  - Of respondents working on LICs for which a DSA had been prepared in the last 12 months:
    - 93 percent of Bank respondents indicated they generally received input from Fund counterparts on time.
    - 73 percent of Fund respondents reported receiving input from Bank staff on time.
  - On preparation of JSANs over the last 12 months:
    - 92 percent of Bank respondents reported receiving “timely” input from Bretton Woods counterparts.
    - 79 percent of Fund respondents reported receiving “timely” input.

### Staff Views on Areas of Collaboration Most in Need of Improvement
- Key areas identified:
  - Information sharing: most often identified, with calls for more routine sharing of early drafts of country documents.
  - Concerns that openness and sharing depend on personalities rather than systematic incentives.
  - Lack of clarity on what documents can be shared may contribute to insufficient sharing.
  - Better collaboration on technical assistance (prioritizing and planning, drafting TORs, sharing final reports).
  - Desire for more joint work: more joint strategizing, technical assistance, analytical work, and missions.
  - Other areas cited: better coordination of Bank sectoral analysis with Fund needs; more timely inputs from the Bank; greater clarity on responsibilities within the Bank; better information on Bank country-level activities.
  - Divergent views: while a significant majority wanted more joint work, a minority of Fund staff called for a more distinct division of labor and for the Bank to stay out of areas within the Fund’s mandate.

*Italic source: Annex 2. Staff Survey Results*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/np/pp/eng/2010/_030310.pdf_