On December 19, 2016 the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) concluded
the Article IV consultation with
Suriname.
[1]
Suriname is in an economic crisis triggered by a significant commodity
terms of trade shock and exacerbated by insufficient buffers and policy
responses. The drop in international gold and oil prices and the cessation
of alumina production resulted in large fiscal and current account deficits
and the onset of a deep recession in 2015. During the boom, there was no
institutional arrangement to save resources for future price corrections,
and implementation of IMF advice on strengthening the policy framework was
limited. Suriname has thus had a much sharper recession, steeper exchange
rate depreciation, and larger rise in inflation and government debt than
most commodity exporters.
The authorities launched an ambitious adjustment plan in late 2015. The
government cut the budget deficit by reining in spending, began phasing out
electricity subsidies, and curbed monetary financing. To facilitate the
adjustment, and to support a rebuilding of foreign reserves, the
authorities floated the exchange rate in March 2016 which, together with
the tight fiscal stance, reduced the current account deficit. Suriname’s
adjustment efforts received support from the international community in the
form of a 24-month Stand-By Arrangement (SBA) with the IMF approved in May
2016 as well as financing commitments from other international financial
institutions.
By mid-2016, progress on a number of policy items stalled. The government
kept the fiscal deficit below 6 percent of GDP (annualized) and implemented
a number of planned reforms, including preparing for the introduction of a
broad-based VAT. However, the decisions to freeze fuel pump prices and
partially reverse the increase in electricity prices led to significant
public sector losses. With limited action by the authorities to raise
interest rates, there has been a move out of local currency assets, with
bouts of exchange rate depreciation and a rapid increase in inflation,
which reached 77 percent in September 2016. The first and second reviews of
the SBA have not taken place.
The economic outlook remains challenging. For 2016, a GDP contraction of 9
percent is projected, following a 2.7 percent contraction in 2015. In
October, the Newmont Merian gold mine opened, which will support economic
activity, and the recession is expected to ease in 2017. Inflation is
projected to be 60 percent at end-2016 and to decline in 2017. Import
compression has narrowed the external current account deficit, which is
projected at below 4 percent of GDP in 2016. A current account surplus of
about 2 percent of GDP is expected in 2017, on the back of exports from the
new gold mine. The budget deficit is projected at about 6 percent of GDP in
2016, with the debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to reach 68 percent,
including the recent issuance of an external government bond. [2]
Against this background, the focus of the Article IV Consultation was on
strategies to improve the sustainability of the fiscal position, lower
inflation, protect the poor from the costs of adjustment, and stimulate
private investment and job creation to lay a path toward sustained growth.
Executive Board Assessment [3]
Executive Directors noted that Suriname faces numerous challenges given a
severe recession, rising government debt, and high inflation. Directors
agreed that ensuring a return to macroeconomic stability and growth will
require decisive reforms. In this regard, they called for redoubled efforts
to put the fiscal position on a sustainable track, reduce inflation,
strengthen the financial sector, and stimulate private investment to foster
sustainable and inclusive growth.
Directors emphasized that fiscal consolidation should be at the center of
the policy efforts. Achieving a primary surplus by 2018 is needed to put
public debt on a downward path and avoid monetary financing. Directors
welcomed the authorities’ intentions to eliminate energy subsidies in 2017,
fully reinstate fuel taxes, and implement the VAT in 2018. They emphasized
the need to refrain from large wage increases, and to launch a broad-based
reform of the civil service. Directors called for mitigating the impact of
macroeconomic adjustment on the most vulnerable by redirecting resources to
the most disadvantaged. To strengthen public sector resilience over the
medium term, Directors emphasized the importance of institutional reforms
to bolster fiscal discipline. They considered that a clear fiscal anchor
together with a sovereign wealth fund would provide an important buffer
against volatility in mineral revenue, and that a new public financial
management law is needed to improve budget preparation and expenditure
control.
Directors considered that the central bank should adopt a more active
approach to reducing inflation. They called for prompt initiation of open
market operations and raising interest rates to positive levels in real
terms to slow the pace of currency depreciation and restore confidence in
local currency assets. Directors welcomed the authorities’ commitment to
preserving exchange rate flexibility, which they saw as vital for
rebuilding international reserves to adequate levels, and called for
phasing out the central bank’s role as a distributor of foreign exchange to
large importers.
Directors emphasized the urgent need to strengthen the framework for
addressing banking sector strains. They underscored the importance of
developing a contingency planning framework with clear modalities for
providing emergency liquidity assistance, and promptly establishing a
Financial Stability Committee to coordinate all aspects related to systemic
stability and crisis prevention and management. Directors welcomed the
development of a new bank resolution law and called for its expedited
adoption, which would empower the central bank to promptly take preventive
and corrective measures. Further strengthening the AML/CFT framework was
also encouraged.
Directors called for an ambitious agenda of structural reforms to promote
diversification of Suriname’s commodity-dependent economy and boost
productivity growth. They encouraged reforms to improve the business
environment, promote competition, and strengthen governance. Decisive steps
to increase labor market flexibility, including investments in education,
supported by a well targeted social safety net, would also help to promote
job-rich and inclusive growth.
|
Suriname: Selected Economic Indicators
|
|
|
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proj.
|
Proj.
|
Proj.
|
|
National income and prices
(annual percent change)
|
|
|
Real GDP growth
|
2.9
|
0.4
|
-2.7
|
-9.0
|
-0.7
|
0.9
|
|
|
Nominal GDP growth
|
3.3
|
1.8
|
-3.6
|
43.9
|
39.6
|
22.0
|
|
|
GDP deflator
|
0.4
|
1.5
|
-0.9
|
58.1
|
40.6
|
20.9
|
|
|
Consumer prices (period average)
|
1.9
|
3.4
|
6.9
|
60.3
|
38.6
|
23.3
|
|
|
Consumer prices (end of period)
|
0.6
|
3.9
|
25.0
|
61.0
|
30.4
|
16.1
|
|
|
|
Money and credit
(annual percent change, unless otherwise indicated)
|
|
|
Broad money (constant exchange rate)
|
14.9
|
7.8
|
0.1
|
4.3
|
5.4
|
9.9
|
|
|
Broad money in local currency (percent of GDP)
|
26.1
|
27.8
|
28.8
|
21.5
|
17.2
|
16.9
|
|
|
Reserve money (constant exchange rates)
|
0.6
|
-8.8
|
18.0
|
4.0
|
5.2
|
18.5
|
|
|
Reserve money (percent of GDP)
|
14.1
|
12.7
|
15.6
|
12.1
|
9.2
|
8.9
|
|
|
Private sector credit (constant exchange rate)
|
17.5
|
8.1
|
5.7
|
-6.7
|
3.8
|
5.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central government
(percent of GDP)
|
|
|
Revenue and grants
|
25.8
|
24.1
|
22.1
|
13.8
|
16.3
|
20.3
|
|
|
Total expenditure 1/
|
32.9
|
32.0
|
31.4
|
20.0
|
20.4
|
22.5
|
|
|
Primary expenditure
|
31.6
|
31.1
|
29.9
|
18.3
|
18.0
|
20.1
|
|
|
Overall balance (net lending/borrowing)
|
-7.1
|
-7.9
|
-9.3
|
-6.1
|
-4.1
|
-2.1
|
|
|
Primary balance
|
-5.8
|
-7.0
|
-7.8
|
-4.5
|
-1.7
|
0.3
|
|
|
Net acquisition of financial assets 2/
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
10.7
|
2.9
|
0.0
|
|
|
Net incurrence of liabilities
|
7.1
|
7.9
|
9.3
|
16.8
|
7.0
|
2.1
|
|
|
Net domestic financing
|
3.9
|
6.4
|
7.6
|
-3.1
|
-3.7
|
1.3
|
|
|
Net external financing
|
3.3
|
1.5
|
1.6
|
19.9
|
10.7
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central government debt
(percent of GDP) 3/
|
31.6
|
29.0
|
45.7
|
67.8
|
60.7
|
54.4
|
|
|
Domestic
|
16.7
|
13.1
|
24.1
|
16.5
|
10.6
|
7.9
|
|
|
External
|
14.9
|
16.0
|
21.6
|
51.2
|
50.1
|
46.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External sector
(percent of GDP)
|
|
|
Current account balance
|
-3.8
|
-7.9
|
-16.6
|
-3.6
|
2.5
|
1.1
|
|
|
Capital and financial account
|
8.3
|
13.1
|
15.2
|
-13.7
|
-9.7
|
-3.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Memorandum items
|
|
|
GDP at current prices (SRD billions)
|
17.0
|
17.3
|
16.7
|
24.0
|
33.5
|
40.8
|
|
|
Terms of trade (percent change)
|
-10.1
|
-4.0
|
0.9
|
8.8
|
2.7
|
-0.3
|
|
|
Gross international reserves (US$ millions)
|
779
|
625
|
330
|
447
|
515
|
417
|
|
|
In months of imports
|
3.4
|
2.8
|
2.1
|
2.6
|
2.9
|
2.3
|
|
|
Adjusted international reserves (US$ millions) 3/
|
…
|
…
|
36
|
150
|
256
|
345
|
|
|
In months of imports
|
…
|
…
|
0.2
|
0.9
|
1.4
|
1.9
|
|
|
Real effective exchange rate
(percent change, + = appreciation)
|
1.4
|
2.9
|
13.1
|
-14.4
|
1.2
|
8.5
|
|
|
Exchange rate (SRD per US$, period average)
|
3.3
|
3.3
|
3.4
|
…
|
…
|
…
|
|
|
Exchange rate (SRD per US$, end of period)
|
3.3
|
3.3
|
4.0
|
…
|
…
|
…
|
|
Sources: Suriname authorities; United Nation Development
Program, Human Development Index (HDI); World Bank, World
Development Indicators; and Fund staff estimates and
projections.
1/ Includes statistical discrepancy.
2/ Includes acquisition of a stake in the gold mine and
loans to state owned enterprises.
3/ The debt-to-GDP ratio is different when computed using
the definition in the Government Debt Act of Suriname.
4/ Official reserve assets excluding foreign currency swaps
and reserve requirements on banks' foreign currency
deposits.
|
[1] Under Article IV of the IMF's Articles of Agreement, the IMF
holds bilateral discussions with members, usually every year. A
staff team visits the country, collects economic and financial
information, and discusses with officials the country's economic
developments and policies. On return to headquarters, the staff
prepares a report, which forms the basis for discussion by the
Executive Board.
[2] The debt-to-GDP ratio is different when computed using the
definition in the Government Debt Act of Suriname.
[3] At the conclusion of the discussion, the Managing Director, as
Chairman of the Board, summarizes the views of Executive Directors,
and this summary is transmitted to the country's authorities. An
explanation of any qualifiers used in summings up can be found
here:
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/misc/qualifiers.htm
.