## IMF Executive Board Considers External Evaluation of the Independent Evaluation Office _IMF News, July 19, 2024_ ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [IMF Executive Board Considers External Evaluation of the Independent Evaluation Office](https://www.imf.org/en/news/articles/2024/07/19/pr-24282-imf-considers-external-evaluation-of-independent-evaluation-office) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/en/news/articles/2024/07/19/pr-24282-imf-considers-external-evaluation-of-independent-evaluation-office/index.md) - [Structured JSON version](/en/news/articles/2024/07/19/pr-24282-imf-considers-external-evaluation-of-independent-evaluation-office/index.json) - [Bundle manifest](/en/news/articles/2024/07/19/pr-24282-imf-considers-external-evaluation-of-independent-evaluation-office/bundle-manifest.json) ## Bibliographic details - Published: July 19, 2024 --- ### Publication details - Press Release No. 24/282 - July 19, 2024 - IMF Communications Department - MEDIA RELATIONS — PRESS OFFICER: Randa Elnagar - Phone: +1 202 623-7100 - Email: MEDIA@IMF.org - Location: Washington, D.C. ### Purpose of the fourth external evaluation - Assess how successfully the IEO has met its goals to: - serve as a means to enhance the learning culture within the IMF, - strengthen the IMF’s external credibility, - support the Executive Board’s institutional governance and oversight responsibilities. - This review was the fourth external evaluation of the IEO. Previous evaluations were published in 2006, 2013, and 2018. ### Evaluation team - Pablo García‑Silva (Chair) — currently Professor at Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez; former Vice Governor of the Central Bank of Chile; former Executive Director of the IMF. - Daouda Sembene — founder and CEO of AfriCatalyst; former senior economic advisor to the President of Senegal; former Executive Director of the IMF. - Zhongxia Jin (up to April 29, 2024) — former Director‑General of the International Department at the People’s Bank of China; former Executive Director of the IMF. ### Executive Board assessment — high-level findings - Directors welcomed the fourth external evaluation and thanked the Panel for its thorough analysis and recommendations. - The IEO has: - established a high degree of credibility, - developed a reputation for rigor, - been fundamental to strengthening the IMF’s learning culture, - supported institutional governance and oversight, - enhanced the IMF’s external credibility. - These objectives were generally considered to be equally important. ### Executive Board assessment — specific issues and positions - Early‑stage evaluations - Most Directors supported the suggestion for the IEO to consider undertaking early‑stage evaluations to provide timely feedback on emerging issues while respecting non‑interference. - Directors considered the non‑interference clause to provide sufficient flexibility for targeted early‑stage evaluations when warranted, but recommended being judicious. - A few Directors cautioned that early‑stage evaluations should be avoided in general to prevent interference with ongoing operations and blurring mandates. - Human resources (HR) policy and staffing - Directors broadly welcomed the Panel’s recommendation to eliminate rigidities and better balance objectives in the IEO’s HR policy within the budgetary envelope. - Expected benefits: alleviate staffing pressures, preserve institutional memory, and address recruitment and retention challenges. - Encouraged the IEO to work with the Evaluation Committee (EVC) and HRD to review HR policy. - Several Directors cautioned against bespoke HR policies for the IEO that would conflict with Board requests for streamlining and harmonization. - Topic selection - Directors welcomed the finding that topics selected during the evaluation period have been appropriate and relevant and noted a more strategic focus relative to past evaluations. - Broad support for enhancing the topic selection process — making it more structured, transparent, and informed by Management’s and Executive Board’s suggestions — while preserving IEO independence in final topic decisions. - Some Directors expressed reservations about Management suggesting topics; others saw no need to set explicit criteria for topic selection to preserve flexibility. - Product line, timeliness, and workload - Merit seen in simplifying IEO product line to short and full‑scale evaluations. - Recommendation: full‑scale evaluations completed within 18 months to support timeliness and relevance. - Many Directors wanted flexibility to adapt evaluations (including number of recommendations) to topic complexity. - A few Directors cautioned against a proliferation of evaluations due to resource, staff workload, and IMF absorptive capacity implications. - Engagement, ownership of recommendations, and interim reporting - Directors agreed ownership of IEO recommendations could be strengthened through early and informal engagement with the Executive Board, Management, and staff, while preserving IEO independence; engagements should be flexible and informal. - Many Directors did not see merit in introducing an “interim findings report” because of risks of prematurely locking in findings and increasing demands; a few were open to interim reports to enhance prioritization. - Follow‑up, implementation, and monitoring - Broad support to enhance ownership in implementation and improve follow‑up processes. - Consideration of a Management Buff on the Periodic Monitoring Report (PMR), noting the PMR is already endorsed by Management when circulated to the Board. - Agreement that actions in the Management Implementation Plan (MIP) should be SMART while keeping IEO recommendations more general. - General agreement that the Global Policy Agenda could reference implementation of IEO recommendations. - Support for IEO participation and issuance of statements in Board meetings on the MIP and PMR. - The EVC noted as an appropriate venue for the IEO to advise the Board on evaluation matters. - Joint evaluations and coordination with other IFIs - Many Directors saw potential for joint evaluations by the IEO and other IFI evaluators in common areas, emphasizing careful coordination and a structured but practical approach mindful of resource constraints. - Some Directors were skeptical about joint evaluations given practical challenges. - Directors saw value in concurrent but separate evaluations and benefits from collaborative approaches to sharing information, methodologies, and best practices. - Evaluation policy - Directors welcomed the suggestion for the IEO to develop an evaluation policy. - They look forward to the IEO developing this policy in coordination with the EVC and in consultation with staff. ### Follow‑up and next steps - Recommendations with broad support and outstanding issues will be followed up by the EVC, the IEO, staff, and Management. - Directors will have further opportunities to discuss concrete proposals in the coming months. *IMF Executive Board Considers External Evaluation of the Independent Evaluation Office — Press Release No. 24/282, July 19, 2024* --- ## References - [Chile and the IMF](http://www.imf.org/external/country/CHL/index.htm) - [Colombia and the IMF](http://www.imf.org/external/country/COL/index.htm) - [Senegal and the IMF](http://www.imf.org/external/country/SEN/index.htm) - [Press Releases](https://www.imf.org/en/news/searchnews) - [PRESS CENTER](http://presscenter.imf.org/) - [Fourth External Evaluation of the Independent Evaluation Office](https://ieo.imf.org/en/our-mandate/External-Evaluations) - [http://www.IMF.org/external/np/sec/misc/qualifiers.htm](http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/misc/qualifiers.htm) - [https://www.imf.org/en/home](https://www.imf.org/en/home) _Source: https://www.imf.org/en/news/articles/2024/07/19/pr-24282-imf-considers-external-evaluation-of-independent-evaluation-office_