The Chair’s Summing Up—Implementation Plan in Response to IMF Executive Board and Management Endorsed Recommendations of the 2022 Institutional Safeguards Review, Executive Board Meeting, 22/102, December 16, 2022

Executive Directors supported the implementation plan (IP) in response to the recommendations arising from the 2022 Review of Institutional Safeguards, positively noting that it is the result of a careful and thorough consultation process involving the Board’s Steering Group on Institutional Safeguards, management, and staff. Directors reiterated their strong commitment to a durable change in the organizational culture of the institution, where discourse and dissent are recognized as critical to the Fund’s ability to continue to deliver at the highest standards on its mandate. In this context, they agreed that the IP incorporates comprehensive, mutually reinforcing measures that should help maintain the highest standards of institutional governance and preserve the high quality of Fund advice, noting that this will require a deliberate approach and strong, sustained commitment from the top of the institution, including the Board and management.

Directors welcomed the focus on measures to bolster data and analytical integrity. Recognizing that work in this area is well underway, they looked forward to the initiatives to clarify both the role of management in the clearance of staff papers and staff’s engagement with the Offices of Executive Directors (OEDs), which will require articulating a definition of undue influence that takes into account the dual roles that Executive Directors play in practice, being officers of the Fund who owe an overriding fiduciary duty to it, while at the same time representing the views of their country authorities. They called for the Steering Group and the Board to be fully involved in this workstream. Directors supported steps to ensure evenhanded coverage of emerging areas in surveillance and to strengthen transparency and documentation of the internal review process. A few Directors raised concerns about the mechanisms to address situations where countries could have been subjected to lack of evenhandedness, and a few other Directors reiterated the importance of strengthening the framework to mitigate the risk of leaks of confidential documents. Many Directors considered the review of the Transparency Policy an important related priority and reiterated their calls for its prompt review.

Directors stressed the importance of demonstrating the Board and management’s commitment to upholding the highest standards of ethical conduct and transparency and to strong accountability mechanisms. They welcomed the emphasis on setting the tone from the top by enhancing the ethical frameworks applicable to the Board and management and 2 introducing ethics training for all Board members and their staff. Directors also placed importance on measures to ensure greater transparency on the work of the Ethics Committee and to facilitate the publication of financial disclosures of the Managing Director and Deputy Managing Directors, positively noting that work is already underway. Directors encouraged steps to grant access of OED employees to the informal services of the Dispute Resolution System (DRS) and to strengthen the role of the External Audit Committee in internal audit workplans.

Directors recognized the need to enhance staff’s trust in the DRS and Ethics and Integrity Offices. They welcomed policy initiatives to address concerns around retaliation, develop a Whistleblower Policy, improve the Grievance Committee process, increase accessibility to the DRS, and improve transparency and access to information relating to the DRS. Directors noted that the timeliness of DRS and ethics and integrity processes is essential to foster trust and confidence in the system and to ensure effective protection of staff’s voice. In this context, they supported the focus on addressing delays and inefficiencies by clearing existing backlogs and reviewing the adequacy of resources and staffing.

Directors noted that the resourcing of agreed IP-related actions will be incorporated in the FY2024 and future budget cycles within the overall envelope approved by the Board through reprioritization. They considered that the Board should be involved in any decisions that may require significant resources. Noting the limits of reprioritization, some Directors favored providing additional gross resources where needed. Directors welcomed the envisaged prioritized workstreams on outstanding issues to help define the modalities and content of the responses to those recommendations. They stressed that the outcome of these workstreams will depend crucially on stakeholders agreeing on a common path and on the feasibility of resourcing the envisaged costs.

Directors highlighted the importance of supporting the execution of the IP through a rigorous and evidence-based validation process. They supported the plans for an interim implementation update to the Board by end-CY2023. Directors welcomed that the Office of Internal Audit progress report for CY2024 would provide an independent validation of the extent to which specific actions have been fully completed and report on workstreams and actions in-train. Directors also agreed with the IP’s proposal not to implement a few of the Review’s recommendations, either because they do not fit well with the Fund’s operations or because existing frameworks are working well. More generally, they recognized that building trust and durable cultural change is a long-term agenda and that some actions will take longer than others and will require ongoing work and monitoring including via more regular staff engagement surveys.

SU/22/175,

December 21, 2022