This paper proposes a comprehensive Strategy to strengthen IMF support to FCS in accordance with the Fund’s mandate and comparative advantage. The Strategy is a response to the Board-endorsed recommendations of the 2018 Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) Report on The IMF and Fragile States. To achieve these goals, the Strategy will benefit from additional resources reflected in the FY23-25 Medium-Term Budget, as per the budget augmentation framework discussed by the Board in December 2021. The Strategy also provides measures to better support staff working on FCS. Given the inherent risks in FCS engagement, the Strategy will be phased in starting in FY22, with implementation gradually accelerating between FY23-FY25.

This note provides operational advice and information to help staff implement the IMF Strategy for Fragile and Conflict-Affected States (FCS) approved by the Executive Board on March 9, 2022. Topics covered include (i) the new IMF FCS classification methodology, which is aligned with that of the World Bank; (ii) the preparation of Country Engagement Strategies (CES) that will be rolled out across FCS to ensure that Fund engagement is appropriately tailored to country-specific manifestations of fragility and/or conflict; (iii) advice on tailoring the thematic focus of Article IV consultations and Fund analytics to FCS, as well as on the prioritization, design, and implementation of capacity development (CD) projects in fragile contexts; (iv) guidance on making full use of the flexibilities of the lending toolkit; (v) guidance on engaging in specific FCS situations, including building accountable institutions to exit fragility, cases of rising fragility risks, active conflict, post-conflict, and addressing the impact of external shocks and spillovers; and (v) strengthening partnerships with humanitarian, development, and peace actors, in accordance with the Fund's mandate. Dedicated annexes provide additional information on the CES process, addressing good governance in FCS, program design, and country examples of Fund engagement in FCS.

Based on internal data, this paper finds that the capacity development program of the IMF’s Statistics Department has prioritized technical assistance and training to fragile and conflict-affected states. These interventions have yielded only slightly weaker results in fragile states than in other states. However, capacity development is constantly needed to make up for the dissipation of progress resulting from insufficient resources that fragile and conflict-affected states allocate to the statistical function, inadequate inter-agency coordination, and the pervasive impact of shocks exogenous to the statistical system. Greater coordination with other capacity development providers and within the IMF can help partially overcome low absorptive capacity in fragile states. Statistical capacity development is more effective when it is tailored to countries’ level of fragility.

This volume is the Forty-Third Issue of Selected Decisions and Selected Documents of the International Monetary Fund. It includes decisions, interpretations, and resolutions of the Executive Board and the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund, as well as selected documents, to which frequent reference is made in the current activities of the Fund. In addition, it includes certain documents relating to the Fund, the United Nations, and other international organizations.

This volume documents decisions, interpretations, and resolutions of the Executive Board and Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund, as well as documents relating to the United Nations and other international organizations.

Capacity Development (CD), comprising technical assistance and training, fosters economic development by improving human capital and institutions in member countries. Every five years, the IMF reviews its CD Strategy to ensure that CD continues to be of high quality and well-focused on the needs of its members. This review calls for CD to become more flexible, integrated with the Fund’s policy advice and lending, and tailored to respond to member needs. The review benefitted from the recent independent evaluation of the Fund’s CD and a wide range of inputs, including internal and external consultations, surveys of recipients and development partners, staff background studies and recommendations of an External Advisory Group. The vision for CD is informed by the Fund’s comparative advantages and surveillance priorities. The proposals of the current review center around the six key areas: (1) strengthening CD prioritization and integration; (2) enhancing the funding model; (3) strengthening monitoring and evaluation; (4) modernizing modalities; (5) enhancing field presence; and (5) strengthening human resources policies for staff working on CD.

In this study we introduce and apply a set of machine learning and artificial intelligence techniques to analyze multi-dimensional fragility-related data. Our analysis of the fragility data collected by the OECD for its States of Fragility index showed that the use of such techniques could provide further insights into the non-linear relationships and diverse drivers of state fragility, highlighting the importance of a nuanced and context-specific approach to understanding and addressing this multi-aspect issue. We also applied the methodology used in this paper to South Sudan, one of the most fragile countries in the world to analyze the dynamics behind the different aspects of fragility over time. The results could be used to improve the Fund’s country engagement strategy (CES) and efforts at the country.

This supplement includes five background papers and provides background information on various aspects of capacity development (CD) for the main Board paper, Review of the Fund’s Capacity Development Strategy—Towards a More Flexible, Integrated, and Tailored Model. It is divided into five sections, each consisting of a different background paper. The five sections cover (1) CD Delivery Modalities; (2) Evaluation and Impact; (3) Regional Capacity Development Centers and Field Presence; (4) HR Policies; and (5) Mapping the Fund’s Position vis-à-vis Other CD Providers.

This paper reviews the implementation of the “2018 Framework for Enhanced Fund Engagement on Governance” (the “2018 Governance Framework”). The Board adopted the 2018 Governance Framework to promote a more systematic, effective, candid, and evenhanded engagement with member countries regarding corruption of macro critical dimensions and governance vulnerabilities that allow corruption. Building upon various sources of information, including surveys with key stakeholders, the paper provides a comprehensive stocktaking of the Fund’s work in governance and corruption since 2018, and makes specific proposals to further improve implementation of the Framework.

Russia’s war in Ukraine has exacerbated food insecurity that had already been on the rise for half a decade. Low-income countries are affected the most. This note suggests that the food and fertilizer price shock would add $9 billion in 2022 and 2023 to the import bills of the 48 most affected countries. The budgetary cost of protecting vulnerable households in these countries amounts to $5–7 billion. Strong and timely action on a global scale is needed to support vulnerable households through international humanitarian assistance and domestic fiscal measures; to maintain open trade; to enhance food production and distribution; and to invest in climate-resilient agriculture. The IMF has been stepping up its engagement to help tackle the global food crisis, working closely with partners, by providing policy advice, capacity building and financing. IMF financing is a third line of defense in meeting external financing needs associated with the global food shock, which should ideally be covered by donor grants and concessional borrowing from MDBs. A new food shock window under the emergency financing instruments is expected to be approved soon to further strengthen its lending response to the food crisis.