The Acting Chair’s Summing Up—Review of the Fund’s Involvement in the G-20 Mutual Assessment Process, Executive Board Meeting 11/56, June 3, 2011

Executive Directors welcomed the review of the Fund’s role in the G-20 Mutual Assessment Process (MAP) and supported the continuation of Fund engagement in this work.

Directors observed that the Fund’s involvement in the G-20 MAP has significant synergies with its surveillance, most notably at the multilateral level. Most Directors noted that the MAP has helped enhance the traction of Fund advice by opening up new channels of communication to G-20 policymakers. Directors considered it important to review the implications of broader G-20/Fund collaboration for the Fund’s surveillance as part of the forthcoming Triennial Surveillance Review.

Directors agreed that, while the MAP has evolved, the Fund’s input to the exercise has remained within the framework set in December 2009. In this context, Directors took note that the legal nature of the Fund’s involvement as technical assistance had not changed. However, a number of Directors considered whether, in substance, such involvement should be treated as surveillance rather than technical assistance.

Directors concurred that Board involvement in this work should be consistent with G-20 ownership of the MAP and preserve the independent nature of staff analysis and input. They appreciated timely briefings by staff of their work in this regard, but differed on the timing and form of Board involvement. While the majority of the Board supported maintaining the current procedure of holding informal Board discussions of MAP reports at the time of submission to the G-20, a number of other Directors suggested advancing such informal discussion ahead of submission and a number of others expressed support for formal Board discussions.

Directors considered resource implications of the Fund’s involvement in the G-20 MAP. Most Directors noted that any additional cost, which has in part been met through reprioritization and reallocation of existing resources, should be seen in light of the benefits of this work for the Fund’s membership at large, including the synergies with the Fund’s surveillance. Some Directors emphasized the need for ongoing assessment of the evolving cost.

BUFF/11/84,

June 9, 2011