Information about Asia and the Pacific Asia y el Pacífico
Journal Issue
Share
Article

FY2017--Output Cost Estimates and Budget Outturn Paper

Author(s):
International Monetary Fund. Office of Budget and Planning
Published Date:
July 2017
Share
  • ShareShare
Information about Asia and the Pacific Asia y el Pacífico
Show Summary Details

FY2017 Highlights

Overview

1. Operating within a flat real budget envelope, the Fund delivered on the priorities and initiatives laid out in the Global Policy Agenda (GPA). Across the Fund, there was a slight shift away from country and regional work, toward policy work. Within the former, there was a shift from lending activities towards bilateral surveillance and capacity development (CD). Active use of the carry-forward allowed some departments (mainly support) to exceed the structural budgets and led to an execution rate of close to 100 percent against the approved structural budget at an aggregate level.

Spending by Output1

A. The Shifting Composition of Outputs

2. Country work declined slightly as a share of the Fund’s direct outputs, led by a drop in lending-related expenditure in FY 17.2 Fund-financed country work (surveillance, lending and CD) saw an unexpected drop relative to budget plans (Figure 1). A decline in expenditures on lending and near-lending activities was only partially offset by higher-than-expected spending on bilateral surveillance and a moderate expansion of externally financed CD, resulting in a small overall decline in country work (0.6 percentage points). Expenditures related to oversight of global systems and multilateral surveillance were broadly unchanged and were in line with budgeted expectations. Support and governance expenditures were higher than budgeted owing to increased spending related to security, language and other corporate services, IT support, and slower than expected realization of IT savings.

Figure 1.Net Shifts in Fund-financed Outputs, FY 17 1/

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

1/ Change relative to FY 16.

3. The FSAP program drove the increased share of bilateral surveillance in total direct spending (Figure 2). Leading the increase in bilateral surveillance, a second round of mandatory FSAPs has been underway. The share of spending on Article IV consultations and other bilateral surveillance work dropped slightly, though average spending per country remained stable (Figure 3). Overall, spending on bilateral surveillance increased by 0.5 percentage points.

Figure 2.Changes in Shares of Country and Analytical Work, FY 16 vs. FY 17

(Percent of total direct spending; red line shows the total change across categories)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, ACES.

4. Despite an increase in the number of financial programs beyond what was expected, the share of spending on lending activities fell by 1.4 percentage points.3 This reflects a decline in the cost of some expensive program cases (GRA and PRGT), and countries transitioning from programs to non-financial instruments (e.g., post-program monitoring, staff-monitored program). Non-financial programs are classified as lending arrangements but typically require less staff time and fewer missions. These declines more than offset the increase in spending on lending in other countries where the engagement was intensified.

5. Fund-financed CD activity was broadly unchanged from FY 16, though externally financed CD activity increased. The increase was primarily devoted to technical assistance (TA) on public financial management and revenue administration to African countries, as well the opening of the South Asia Regional Training and Technical Assistance Center (SARTTAC) (see Annex I). This increase in externally financed CD was insufficient to keep country work from falling as a share of Fund output by 0.6 percentage points.

6. Analytical and policy work focused on the international financial architecture and vulnerabilities and cross cutting analysis in FY 17. These supported a work program that focused on topics such as fiscal space, macro-financial and macro-structural issues, low-income country issues, capital flows, global integration, and inclusive growth in line with the GPA. At the same time, regional analysis was pared back, reflecting some winding down of large projects and some reallocation of resources towards country work. Work on the role of the Fund also fell in intensity as integration of the Renminbi in the SDR basket was completed. The share of multilateral surveillance, policy and other analytical work declined by 0.2 percentage points.

B. Country Spending Aligned with Risk and Vulnerability

7. Average country spending remains broadly aligned with assessment of risk, and comparable with observed levels in FY 16 (Figure 3). Some small shifts relative to FY 16 can be observed, as a small reduction in support to intensive surveillance countries led to greater support to program countries. In general, the level of average spending is highest for countries with programs or those identified as vulnerable by staff, with vulnerable program countries on average receiving the most resources across country categories reflecting more intense engagement. This pattern also applies to spending on capacity development; program and vulnerable program countries receive higher levels of TA and training on average.

Figure 3.Average Spending per Country, FY 16 and FY 17

(Direct cost in millions of FY 17 dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, ACES.

1/ Includes spending that is attributed specifically to individual member countries, territories or regional bodies, and therefore excludes some spending by the regional technical assistance centers.

2/ Vulnerable is a subset of, and overlaps with, all main groupings.

8. Across regions, average spending by country has been higher in African countries, reflecting the high share of program countries. Spending on vulnerable countries has been higher than other categories across virtually all regions (Figure 4). As expected, average spending is the lowest on standard surveillance countries.

Figure 4.Average Country Spending by Region and Status, FY 17

(Direct cost in millions of U.S. dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, ACES.

1/ Includes spending that is attributed specifically to individual member countries, territories or regional bodies, and therefore excludes some spending by the regional technical assistance centers.

2/ Vulnerable is a subset of, and overlaps with, all main groupings.

9. Looking back, total spending by output has shifted in recent years from lending and multilateral surveillance toward bilateral surveillance and capacity development (Figure 5). Reflecting earlier streamlining efforts, the share of multilateral surveillance and oversight of global systems in total spending has fallen by 2.6 percentage points between FY 12 and FY 17 and now represent 30 percent of total spending. Country work, whose share has increased commensurately, represents close to two-thirds of total spending (including by RTACs), comprising bilateral surveillance, lending, and CD. The share of lending has fallen by 4 percentage points since FY 12, as crisis countries have exited formal financial arrangements. A natural result of this decline is an increase in the share of spending on bilateral surveillance, by 2.8 percentage points. At the same time, the share of CD has increased by 4 percentage points, including from efforts to step up support to intensive surveillance/vulnerable countries.

Figure 5.Spending Shares by Output, FY 12 and FY 17 1/

(Shares)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, ACES.

1/ Includes support and governance costs. Change is calculated as the difference between FY 17 and FY 12.

10. The main input cost differences across outputs can be found in travel and governance expenditures (Figure 6). The labor share is the key cost driver for all output groups. Travel costs are lowest in multilateral surveillance and highest in CD, reflecting the large difference in the number of missions. Support costs are roughly even across activities, while CD governance costs are very low, reflecting less direct involvement by the Executive Board in CD activities relative to other Fund outputs. Relative to FY 16, travel costs declined across output categories, as departments benefited from favorable prices for air travel. At the same time, support costs increased, reflecting higher security costs and demand for corporate services (see next section).

Figure 6.Relating Outputs to Inputs

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, ACES.

1/ Operating cost of Resident Representative posts and Regional Technical Assistance Centers.

2/ Governance cost refers to expenditure related to Fund management, the Executive Board, Independent Evaluation Office and Secretary’s Department, as well as time recording to governance activities.

Spending by Input

A. Overview

11. Relative to FY 16, net expenditures increased 0.8 percent in real terms against a broadly flat budget. The FY 17 budget included a small real increase ($6 million) for security but also the reduction relative to last year ($5 million) for overseas annual meetings. Excluding Annual Meetings cost from the base, the spending increase was slightly higher.

12. Execution against the approved (structural) budget was close to 100 percent. Continued low vacancy rates, greater upfront allocation to departments of resources carried forward from FY 16, higher usage of central HR programs, and supplemental contributions to the Retired Staff Benefit Investment Account (RSBIA) contributed to full utilization of the Fund-financed personnel budget. As in FY 16, there was higher spending on facilities, IT and contractual services, plus a shortfall in receipts, which were partly offset by underspending in travel and the contingency. Overspending in building and other expenses reflects the use of carry forward (see next section).

Table 1.Administrative Budget, FY 16–17(Millions of U.S. dollars, unless otherwise noted)
FY 16FY 17
BudgetOutturnVarianceUtilization (percent)BudgetOutturnVarianceUtilization (percent)
Total Gross Expenditures1,2471,2153397.41,2731,2551898.6
Total Net Expenditures1,0521,0381398.71,0721,066699.4
Fund-financed:
Gross expenditures1,0911,0751698.51,1131,105899.3
Personnel8048031/199.88258251/199.9
Travel8981990.38375890.4
Building and other expenses187191−4102.2193205−11105.9
Contingency 2/100100.0110110.0
Receipts−39−34−587.8−40−35−588.0
Net expenditures1,0521,0401198.91,0721,070399.7
Externally-financed:
Gross expenditures1571401789.31601501093.6
Personnel103931090.2108981190.2
Travel4139294.84039198.2
Building and other expenses128464.91113−1110.7
Receipts−157−142−1590.7−160−153−795.9
Net expenditures 3/0−220−44
Memorandum items:
Carry forward from previous year4243
Total net available resources and spending1,0941,0385694.91,1161,0665095.5
Source: Office of Budget and Planning.Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

Includes an additional contribution of $8 million in FY 16 and $2 million in FY 17 to the Retired Staff Benefit Investment Account (RSBIA).

Includes the contingencies for OED, IEO, and staff.

Externally-financed expenses do not always equal externally-financed receipts due to timing and costing differences.

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

Includes an additional contribution of $8 million in FY 16 and $2 million in FY 17 to the Retired Staff Benefit Investment Account (RSBIA).

Includes the contingencies for OED, IEO, and staff.

Externally-financed expenses do not always equal externally-financed receipts due to timing and costing differences.

B. Total Available Resources and Departmental Spending

13. Execution against total available resources (structural plus carry-forward funds) was lower at 96 percent. $43 million in eligible unspent resources was carried over from FY 16 and available for FY 17 spending. Of the $29 million available to staff departments, $18 million was made available early in the year to facilitate transitional or temporary aspects of departmental work programs. An additional $6 million was distributed throughout the year. While Support and Functional non-TA departments utilized all resources available to them (structural budget plus carry forward), several departments utilized only a portion of their total available resources.

Figure 7.Available Resources and Use of Carry Forward, FY 17

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

14. Use of carry forward by some departments to meet needs beyond their structural budgets, was offset by underspending elsewhere, leaving the stock of carry forward available for FY 18 unchanged. In FY 17, additional resources were allocated to the Information Technology Department (ITD) to meet new demands, including technical work associated with HQ1 renewal office moves, project management consulting services, and IT support services. Moreover, there were delays in initiatives that were expected to produce savings. The Corporate Services and Facilities Department (CSF) also experienced continued high demand for translation and multimedia services and security-related activities. The Strategy Policy and Review Department (SPR) required additional resources to support the G20 Presidency, for mainstreaming macro-financial and structural work, and for work on long-term uncertainties. The Monetary and Capital Markets Department (MCM) had higher spending for systemic FSAP work and costs associated with the macro-financial surveillance. The Human Resources Department (HRD) incurred unexpected costs in support of HR system fixes and a replacement effort for work on the HR strategy. On the other hand, underutilization in the European Department (EUR) was related to larger reductions in program work than anticipated, resulting in fewer missions and larger than planned personnel vacancies. In the African Department (AFR), delays in onboarding and filling vacancies as well as the impact of the strong dollar on overseas expenditures resulted in lower spending (Figure 8).

Figure 8.Structural (Over) Under Spending by Department— Fund-Financed Activities, FY 17

(Millions of U.S. dollars)

1/ Includes contingencies and resources in centrally-administered accounts, e.g., for the resident representative program, HR-related programs, standard cost adjustments.

C. Spending on Personnel, Travel and Other Inputs

15. The Fund-financed personnel budget was almost fully utilized. This outcome reflects the implementation of the second phase of Categories of Employment (CoE) reform, an increase in staff separations under the IMF’s Separation Benefits Funds (SBF), proactive vacancy management, and an additional contribution to the RSBIA.

16. Overall staffing levels increased by 1 1/2 percent (Table 2).4 While contractual employment remained at comparable levels to FY 16, externally funded regular staffing levels increased by 11 percent and Fund-financed by 1.6 percent, which is largely attributable to the CoE reform in which 53 new staff positions were created in FY 17 for work that was previously undertaken by contractual employees. The overall vacancy rate was, like last year, about 1.4 percent. However, vacancy rates varied by department and ranged from a high of 2.0 percent in area departments to a low of 0.4 percent in support departments (Figures 9 and 10).

Figure 9.Budgeted Staff Positions vs. Outturn, FY 13–17 1/

(Full-Time Equivalent (FTEs))

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

1/ Both Fund- and externally financed FTEs excluding OED and IEO.

Figure 10.Vacancy Rate by Department Type, FY 16–17 1/

(Percent)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning

1/ Lines represent Fundwide averages for both Fund- and externally-financed.

Table 2.FTE Utilization, FY 15–17
FY 17
FY 15FY 16BudgetOutturn
Fund-financed
Regular, fixed term, limited term staff2,7272,7672,8442,813
Expert and contractual staff 1/582556n/a556
Externally-financed
Regular, fixed term, limited term staff57697077
Expert and contractual staff 1/296313n/a316
Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

Fund-financed and externally-financed experts (including short term experts), contractual staff, visiting scholars, secretarial support staff, paid overtime, and other.

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

Fund-financed and externally-financed experts (including short term experts), contractual staff, visiting scholars, secretarial support staff, paid overtime, and other.

17. The average salary paid increased is in line with budget. Consistent with patterns observed in the past, staff turnover lowered the average salary midpoint as vacancies were generally filled at lower grades than those of the incumbents. This erosion provided the resources for the following year’s merit increase.

18. The average overtime rate declined further in FY 17. Overtime came in at 10.8 percent compared with 11.5 percent at the end of FY 16, bringing the Fund close to the target rate of 10 percent. All departments except three reduced overtime rates during the year, suggesting declining work pressures and better management. Nevertheless, overtime rates remained high in a number of departments especially at senior management levels.

19. Despite an increase in the number of missions during FY 17, travel spending fell year-on-year (Table 3, Figure 12). Fund-financed travel spending decreased compared to FY 16, even after adjusting for the Annual Meetings in Lima in FY 16. Externally financed travel spending was broadly unchanged. The drop in spending reflects falling unit costs as travel volume metrics (number of trips and miles) increased slightly.

Table 3.Travel, FY 15–17(Millions of U.S. dollars)
FY 15FY 16FY 17
BudgetOutturn
Expenditures112120123115
Fund-financed78818375
Business travel6264 1/6659
Seminars6665
Other travel 2/10111111
Externally-financed35394039
Business travel25283229
Seminars and other travel911910
Source: Office of Budget and Planning.Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

Includes an estimated $3.8m of costs related to travel to the Annual Meetings in Lima.

Includes travel expenditures related to interviews, settlement, and evacuations.

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

Includes an estimated $3.8m of costs related to travel to the Annual Meetings in Lima.

Includes travel expenditures related to interviews, settlement, and evacuations.

  • Both the number of missions and number of mission nights saw increases. Among area departments, there was a further decline in missions to EUR, reflecting reduced lending activity in the region, but this was more than offset by Functional TA departments, who increased delivery, primarily in the AFR region (see Annex II, Table 5).
  • Transportation cost per mile fell by around three percent in FY 17, resulting from favorable airline pricing. The trend of departments taking advantage of this lower pricing to increase the number of missions fielded continued in FY 17.

Figure 11.Overtime, FY 15—17 1/

(Percent)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

1/ Excludes small offices.

Figure 12.Travel Metrics, FY 12–17 1/

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

1/ Based on international travel ticketed via Travelocity. Excludes Annual Meetings, IEO and OED.

20. Spending on building and other services exceeded budgeted levels (Table 4). Carry forward resources were provided in this cost category to cover increased costs related to security (Box 1), continued high demand for language services, higher contractual services, the Spring and Annual Meetings, and to accommodate delays in implementing certain IT savings initiatives.

Table 4.Building and Other Expenditures, FY 16–17(Millions of U.S. dollars)
FY 16FY 17
BudgetOutturnBudgetOutturn
Total buildings and other expenses20099205218
Fund-financed187191193205
Building occupancy56585661
Information technology60596164
Contractual services32323839
Subscriptions and printing20201921
Communications7877
Supplies and equipment7666
Other5857
Externally-financed1281113
Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

Box 1.Security-Related Spending

The Board-approved increase of $6 million to cover security needs was fully utilized.1 Security-related spending increased to $35.6 million in FY 17 which was $0.9 million higher than assumed in the budget. Continued pressure remains due to uncertainty in the global environment and threats associated with operating in the field and for activities at headquarters.

  • Field security spending decreased due to delay in purchases of armored vehicles which was partially offset by additional country security assessments extending beyond High-Risk Locations (HRLs); hiring of additional security protection consultants; higher costs associated with UN fees and intelligence report subscriptions; evacuations, training, and cost of rest and recuperation of staff residing in HRLs.
  • HQ security expenditures rose due to contractual cost increases and need for increased protection of physical assets, staff, and Annual and Spring Meetings participants.
  • IT security continues to require considerable resources to protect information assets. Globally, the sophistication and volume of cyber security attacks has increased and commensurately, the threats faced by the Fund and its members. The increase in spending in FY 17 was related to investments to reduce the exposure to cyber threats seeking to access the Fund’s network, and for acquiring skilled cyber technical resources and services. Spending pressure in this area is expected to continue due to a surge in the costs of cyber personnel and third-party services resulting from global high demand. Investments in IT security have been proven to be effective in hardening our security posture and preventing breaches from common cyber threats, as evidenced by recent independent assurance activities conducted to test the Fund’s cyber resiliency and staff awareness and response to cyberattacks.
  • Capital expenditures for security are largely related to IT projects. An appropriation for HQ facilities improvements in FY 17 is expected to be spent in FY 18 and FY 19, after ongoing feasibility studies are completed.
1 See FY2017–FY2019 Medium-Term Budget, Box 3 “Spending on Security” and “Institutional Demands and Savings.”
Security Related Spending, FY 15–17(Millions of FY 17 dollars, unless otherwise indicated)
FY 15FY 16FY17
Administrative expenses29.233.135.6
Field security8.010.29.7
HQ security14.014.315.7
Business continuity0.60.70.9
IT security6.67.99.3
In percent of administrative budget2.32.62.9
Capital expenses7.24.34.2
Sources: Office of Budget and Planning, Area, Technical Assistance, Corporate Services and Facilities and Information Technology departments.
Sources: Office of Budget and Planning, Area, Technical Assistance, Corporate Services and Facilities and Information Technology departments.

D. Receipts

21. Receipts grew considerably although by less than expected (Table 5). The growth was driven by reimbursements from externally funded CD due to increased project activity year-on-year (see next section). The shortfall compared to budget is related to implementation delays and some security concerns. General receipts were in line with FY 16 but lower than budget, which was partly due to lower reimbursements under cost-sharing agreements with the World Bank.

Table 5.Receipts, FY 15–17(Millions of U.S. dollars)
FY 15FY 16FY 17
BudgetOutturn
Total167176200189
Externally-financed capacity development (direct cost only)131142160153
General receipts37344035
Of which:
Administrative and trust fund management fees 1/9101111
Publications income3222
Fund-sponsored sharing agreements 2/4353
HQ2 lease 3/5445
Secondments1110
Concordia apartments3343
Parking3333
Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

Trust fund management fee of 7 percent under the new financing instrument.

Includes reimbursements principally provided by the World Bank for administrative services provided under sharing agreements.

Includes lease of space to the World Bank, Credit Union and retail tenants.

Source: Office of Budget and Planning. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

Trust fund management fee of 7 percent under the new financing instrument.

Includes reimbursements principally provided by the World Bank for administrative services provided under sharing agreements.

Includes lease of space to the World Bank, Credit Union and retail tenants.

E. Externally Financed Outturn

22. Spending on externally financed CD activities increased by 5 percent in real terms in FY 17, due in part to the opening of the new CD center in India (SARTTAC). The small shortfall compared to planned levels is related to implementation delays of some projects and activities, as well as security concerns.

  • Externally financed personnel spending grew 3 percent in real terms due to higher staff participation in externally financed CD delivery in FY 17, compared to an increase of 0.4 percent in Fund-financed personnel spending.
  • The number of regular staff FTE covered by external financing increased by 11 percent to 77 percent due in part to the continued implementation of the CoE reform. At the same time utilization of experts and other contractual staff increased by less than one percent.
  • Externally financed travel spending grew slightly in FY 17, compared to a slight decline in Fund-financed travel spending. The volume of externally financed missions increased by 3 percent.

Capital Investment

23. Spending on capital investments totaled $122 million in FY 17 out of the $364 million available in appropriations (Table 6). Unspent appropriations from prior years of $236 million (Annex II, Table 6) are mostly attributable to the HQ1 Renewal program, where the remaining $183 million in authorized budget will be expensed over the coming years as the program moves toward completion. Other remaining appropriations are earmarked for specific projects that have been approved but not yet completed.

Table 6.Capital Expenditures, FY 17(Millions of U.S. dollars)
FacilitiesITHQ1 RenewalTotal
FY 17 Budget Appropriations32.528.00.060.5
+ Unspent FY 15 and FY 16 Funding29.414.7259.2303.4
= Total funds available in FY 17 1/62.042.7259.2363.9
Expenditures FY 1717.927.976.3122.1
Sources: Office of Budget and Planning; and Corporate Services and Facilities Department.

Approved capital funding is available for three consecutive years, except for HQ1 Renewal which is available until April 2025.

Sources: Office of Budget and Planning; and Corporate Services and Facilities Department.

Approved capital funding is available for three consecutive years, except for HQ1 Renewal which is available until April 2025.

  • Facilities spending of $18 million was primarily for audio visual systems in HQ1 finished spaces. Construction of the Innovation Lab was also completed in FY 17. This space will be used to promote a culture of innovation and facilitate creative thinking on how to improve Fund policies and processes. The remaining capital spending was used for ongoing tenant renovations, furniture breakage replacements and other minor facilities work. Funding appropriated in FY 17 for HQ1 furniture replacement and for HQ security improvements is expected to be spent in FY 18 as selection and procurement of the furniture is completed and feasibility studies for the building improvements are concluded, although some of the spending will carry over into FY 19.
  • IT capital investments totaled nearly $28 million in FY 17. This was significantly less than the level of spending projected earlier in the year, but higher than in FY 16. Several large projects were halted or delayed during the year due to change in strategy (document management replacement initiative) shifting priorities in IT security, and slower than anticipated implementation progress for other projects. Projects delivering key strategic capabilities expanded, with investment in initiatives to improve data management. Infrastructure spending was higher due to cyclical end-of-life equipment purchases. Other notable capital spending was incurred for IT security investment and remediation of vulnerabilities, development of knowledge management systems, and upgrading and improvement of communications tools and platforms.
  • The HQ renewal project spent $76 million in FY 17, bringing total expenditures to 68 percent of the total project budget. All public spaces, cafeteria, and third and fourth floors were completed and reoccupied. Construction is underway on fifth to seventh floors and activities are being closely monitored for impact on schedule and budget. Updates on the status of the project are provided quarterly to the Executive Board.

Figure 13.IT Capital Spending by Capability, FY 16-17

(Millions of U.S. dollars)
Annex I. Capacity Development1

1. This annex provides additional information on capacity development activities. It reports on overall spending on CD activities, sources of external financing, and the volume of technical assistance and training.2 The last section provides an update on progress toward improved measurement of results and the review of CD strategy planned for 2018.

A. Overall Spending on CD Activities

2. The share of spending on CD has increased steadily since FY 09 reflecting successful partnerships with donors. CD, which comprises TA and external training, has been the Fund’s largest single output since FY 12, rising from about 24 percent of total spending in FY 12 to about 28 percent in FY 17. While both Fund- and donor-financed CD have grown, the increase in CD spending continues to be driven by a scaling up in donor-financed TA over the past five years (Figure 1). TA delivery accounts for most of the total spending on CD, at about 84 percent in FY 17.

Figure 1.Capacity Development Expenditures, FY 13–17 1/

(Millions of FY 17 U.S. dollars)

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

1/ Fund-financed and externally-financed expenditures, including support and governance.

3. The execution of externally-financed CD activities improved further in FY 17 (Table 1). The gap between budgeted and delivered activities was $7 million, or 4 percent of the budget, in FY 17. The small remaining discrepancy between budgeted and executed amounts can be attributed to ongoing political instability and security risks in some countries. Delays in filling long-term advisor positions to be based in the field also held back execution in a number of cases; and, to a lesser degree, delays in donor approvals and disbursements caused a number of projects to be launched later than anticipated.

Table 1.Externally-Financed Budget vs. Outturn, FY 13 – 171(Millions of U.S. Dollars)
FY 13FY 14FY 15FY 16FY 17
Outturn 1/117124131142153
Budget127138154157160
Difference101423157
Source: Institue for Capacity Development (ICD).

Outturn and budget exclude administrative fee of 13 percent under the old financing instrument and a trust fund management fee of 7 percent under the new financing instrument. Also excluded are the Regional Training Center (RTC) expenses not reflected in IMF accounts.

Source: Institue for Capacity Development (ICD).

Outturn and budget exclude administrative fee of 13 percent under the old financing instrument and a trust fund management fee of 7 percent under the new financing instrument. Also excluded are the Regional Training Center (RTC) expenses not reflected in IMF accounts.

B. Sources of External Funding

4. Over the last five years, the top 15 partners contributed $646 million, or 84 percent of total external funding (Table 2). Five partners contributed more than $40 million during this period: Japan, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and Canada. Other key characteristics of external funding are as follows:

Table 2.Top 15 Partner Contributions, FY 13–17 1/
ContributionShare
Donor(Millions of U.S. dollars)(Percent of Total)
Japan15420
European Union12116
United Kingdom658
Switzerland638
Canada436
Kuwait395
Austria294
Netherlands294
Mauritius203
Norway152
Korea152
Singapore152
India152
Germany122
Luxembourg111
Other donors and international institutions12016
Total766100
Source: Capacity Development Information Management System (CDIMS), adjusted for RTC costs covered directly by the hosts, which are not reflected in IMF accounts.Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

Funds received during FY13–17.

Source: Capacity Development Information Management System (CDIMS), adjusted for RTC costs covered directly by the hosts, which are not reflected in IMF accounts.Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

Funds received during FY13–17.

  • Partner contributions are made to either multi-donor vehicles (ten Regional Technical Assistance Centers (RTACs), four Regional Training Centers (RTCs), and eleven topical and country trust funds (TTFs)) or bilateral programs/projects. In addition, host countries manage three regional training programs (RTPs), where Fund staff provides training. Over the last five years, the top 10 partners provided more than half of their contributions to multi-partner vehicles (Table 3).
  • Contributions to multi-partner funding vehicles tend to be relatively concentrated (Table 4). However, an expansion in the donor base has helped reduce the share of the top three partners to 42 and 47 percent of all funding to RTACs and thematic funds, respectively. In addition, the share of recipient members’ contributions rose to 34 percent, from 18 percent in FY 16— further fostering ownership and sustainability.
Table 3.Capacity Development Vehicles: Top 10 Partner Contributions, FY 13–17 1/
ContributionShare
(Millions of U.S. dollars)(Percent of Total)
Multidonor37556
Topical Trust Funds (TTFs)8613
Regional Technical Assistance Centers (RTACs)18628
Regional Training Centers (RTCs)10315
Bilateral29144
Total666100
Source: Capacity Development Information Management System (CDIMS), adjusted for RTC costs covered directly by the hosts, which are not reflected in IMF accounts.Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

Funds received during FY 13–17.

Source: Capacity Development Information Management System (CDIMS), adjusted for RTC costs covered directly by the hosts, which are not reflected in IMF accounts.Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

Funds received during FY 13–17.

Table 4.RTACs and TTFs: Partner and Member Contributions to Current Cycle 1/
RTACsTTFs
(Millions of U.S. dollars)(Percent of total)(Millions of U.S. dollars)(Percent of total)
Top 3 donors126428247
Other (other donors and international institutions)73249353
Members (RTAC recipients)10134
Total299100175100
Source: Capacity Development Information Management System (CDIMS).Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

Signed contributions and pledges for current cycle as of April 30, 2017.

Source: Capacity Development Information Management System (CDIMS).Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

Signed contributions and pledges for current cycle as of April 30, 2017.

C. CD Volume and Distribution

5. The broad composition of CD activities across regions and topics is driven by the demands and needs of member countries and guided by the CD priorities of the Fund. This process is supported by strengthened governance of CD activities following the Executive Board’s review of the Fund’s CD strategy in June 2013, which presented the first integrated strategy for CD. Prioritization has also been strengthened in accordance with the 2014 CD Policy Statement.3 Fund policies seek to ensure adequate funding for CD in crisis situations, allowing donor financing when donor interests are consistent with Fund priorities and objectives, and relying on Fund financing when donor support is not available. The planning and prioritization of CD activities takes place at the institutional level and are informed by the Global Policy Agenda and other initiatives discussed by the Executive Board, e.g., on Financing for Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as area departments’ Regional Strategy Notes. Key priorities are updated, if necessary, each year. For FY 17, CD priorities included continued scaling up of support to fragile states, increased assistance on domestic revenue mobilization and sound public financial management (PFM), financial market deepening for Low-Income Developing Countries (LIDCs), and closing data gaps.

D. Technical Assistance

6. The volume of Fund TA measured in field delivery was 300 FTEs in FY 17, a slight decline from FY 16 (Table 5). By region, continued growth in TA delivery to the Middle East and Central Asia Department (MCD), AFR and EUR was largely offset by a decline in TA to the Asia and Pacific Department (APD) and Western Hemisphere Department (WHD).

Table 5.TA Delivery by Region, Income Group, and Program Status, FY 13–17 1/(Person-years of field delivery)
FY 13FY 14FY 15FY 16FY 17
Region
AFR103111113117126
APD4751565448
EUR3237343334
MCD3028253235
WHD5751565851
Multiple regions 2/56687
Income Group 3/4/
Advanced economies2329252117
Emerging market and middle-income economies111110120128125
Low-income developing countries136140137146151
Multiple regions 2/56687
Program Status 5/
Program112979191110
Number of countries5446444144
Non-Program157181191203184
Multiple regions 2/56687
Total274285288303300
Sources: Monitoring of Fund Arrangements (MONA) database; and Travel Information Management System (TIMS).

An effective person-year of field delivery of technical assistance is defined as 260–262 working days of Fund staff or experts.

TA delivered simultaneously to a number of countries from more than one region.

TA delivered to regional groups has been allocated evenly among member countries of each group.

Advanced economies are classified according to the April 2017 World Economic Outlook. Advanced economies include small islands and territories. Low-income developing countries are those designated eligible for the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT) in the 2013 PRGT-eligible review and whose per capita gross national income was less than the PRGT income graduation threshold for “non-small” states. Emerging market and middle-income economies include those not classified as advanced economies or low-income developing countries.

Program status from MONA database.

Sources: Monitoring of Fund Arrangements (MONA) database; and Travel Information Management System (TIMS).

An effective person-year of field delivery of technical assistance is defined as 260–262 working days of Fund staff or experts.

TA delivered simultaneously to a number of countries from more than one region.

TA delivered to regional groups has been allocated evenly among member countries of each group.

Advanced economies are classified according to the April 2017 World Economic Outlook. Advanced economies include small islands and territories. Low-income developing countries are those designated eligible for the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT) in the 2013 PRGT-eligible review and whose per capita gross national income was less than the PRGT income graduation threshold for “non-small” states. Emerging market and middle-income economies include those not classified as advanced economies or low-income developing countries.

Program status from MONA database.

7. In FY 17, LIDCs received the largest gains in TA delivery, while delivery to advanced economies continued to fall. The delivery of TA to program countries grew by about 20 percent in FY 17 to one-third of the total, as the number of Fund-supported programs increased.

8. Fiscal TA continued to grow in FY 17, driven by the scaling up of externally-funded TA. Fiscal and monetary and financial sector TA together continue to account for over three-quarters of the Fund’s TA (Table 6). TA on monetary and financial sector fell by about 8 percent in FY 17 compared to FY 16, reflecting some delays in mobilizing resident advisors. Statistical TA continued to decrease in FY 17 to more sustainable levels after several years of steady increases through FY 15. TA on legal issues remained about the same. TA delivery by short-term experts increased slightly to about a third of Fund TA, while long-term experts continued to account for the largest share of TA.

Table 6.Technical Assistance Delivery by Topic, Staff Type, and by Funding Source, FY 13–17(Person-years of field delivery)
FY 13FY 14FY 15FY 16FY 17
Topic
Fiscal148149146152158
Monetary and financial sector6368727972
Statistical3237423835
Legal1415121212
Other1715162223
Staff type
Long-term resident experts110116118122118
Short-term experts94100979397
HQ-based staff7069738885
Funding source
Fund-financed4753545151
Externally-financed227232234252250
Total274285288303300
Source: Travel Information Management System.
Source: Travel Information Management System.

9. Externally financed TA accounts for about 83 percent of TA field delivery in FY 17. The ratio of donor-financed to total TA delivery has been relatively stable since FY 13 at just over 80 percent.4

10. Increases in TA delivery broadly achieved the CD priorities established for FY 17 (Table 7). TA delivery increased by about 7 percent to fragile states and in domestic revenue mobilization and by about four percent in PFM in FY 17. TA delivery in financial market deepening for low-income counties also grew, from a very small base. There was a slight decrease in TA to close data gaps and in financial supervision and regulation as overall TA delivery by the Statistics Department (STA) and MCM declined.

Table 7.Technical Assistance Delivery to Priority Area, FY 14–17(Person-years of field delivery)
FY 14FY 15FY 16FY 17
Priority Area
Closing data gaps37423835
Domestic revenue mobilization74727783
Financial market deepening1112
Financial supervision and regulation30293131
Fragile states 1/76787782
Public financial management74727073
Source: Travel Information Management System.Note: The priority groups overlap. Financial supervision and regulation data excludes advanced economies (including other countries). Financial market deepening data is for LICS.

Fragile states as defined in IMF Engagement with Countries in Post-Conflict and Fragile Situations‐Stocktaking, May 2015.

Source: Travel Information Management System.Note: The priority groups overlap. Financial supervision and regulation data excludes advanced economies (including other countries). Financial market deepening data is for LICS.

Fragile states as defined in IMF Engagement with Countries in Post-Conflict and Fragile Situations‐Stocktaking, May 2015.

E. Training

11. Training volume under the Institute for Capacity Development (ICD) Training Program increased modestly in FY 17 to about 15,300 participant weeks (Table 8). Training was mostly delivered by ICD, followed by STA. Training to MCD and AFR regions increased, while there was a decrease in training in the other regions. The share of training received by emerging and middle income countries and LIDCs remained broadly stable over the past five years, at almost 60 percent and 35 percent respectively (Table 9).

Table 8.ICD Training Program Participation by Department(Participant-weeks of training)
FY 13FY 14FY 15FY 16FY 17
Department
FAD259216170212353
ICD6,7557,8927,88011,90512,686
LEG333361373410368
MCM298414415507355
STA1,9402,0671,4151,9991,487
Other 1/51589414791
Region
AFR2,1342,2322,2863,4073,451
APD2,4692,6232,3303,2753,009
EUR1,6801,8561,7042,7622,674
MCD2,3892,9532,7813,6004,146
WHD9651,3451,2462,1352,059
Total9,63611,00910,34715,17915,339
Source: Participant and Applicant Tracking System.Note: FY 17 data are preliminary. ICD Training Program includes training coordinated by ICD, and delivered by ICD and other departments in headquarters and globally at the IMF’s Regional Training Centers and Programs to country officials as well as IMF online courses successfully completed by country officials. Training is also provided by functional departments outside the ICD traning Program.

Includes reported training not attributed to above departments.

Source: Participant and Applicant Tracking System.Note: FY 17 data are preliminary. ICD Training Program includes training coordinated by ICD, and delivered by ICD and other departments in headquarters and globally at the IMF’s Regional Training Centers and Programs to country officials as well as IMF online courses successfully completed by country officials. Training is also provided by functional departments outside the ICD traning Program.

Includes reported training not attributed to above departments.

Table 9.ICD Training Program Participation by Income Group, FY 13–17 1/(Participant-weeks of training)
FY 13FY 14FY 15FY 16FY 17
Income Group
Advanced economies6267697001,162896
Emerging market and middle-income economies5,3166,4325,8648,6478,810
Low-income developing countries3,4853,6583,6115,1145,392
Other 2/210150173256242
Total9,63611,00910,34715,17915,339
Source: Participant and Applicant Tracking System.Note: See Table 8.

See footnotes in Table 5.

Includes regional training delivered to multiple countries across regions and training to non-member territories.

Source: Participant and Applicant Tracking System.Note: See Table 8.

See footnotes in Table 5.

Includes regional training delivered to multiple countries across regions and training to non-member territories.

12. Online learning continues to be an important part of the ICD Training Program (Table 10). Training under the online learning program started in FY 14, and has since grown to account for almost 40 percent of training in FY 17. The number of online courses offered increased to nineteen in FY 17 from thirteen in FY 16, although participation in online learning remained broadly stable in FY 17. Online learning increased strongly in MCD region, reflecting in part the introduction of a course in Arabic. The training curriculum for the ICD Training Program for both face-to-face and online learning adapts to member countries’ needs and promotes effective macroeconomic management. During FY 17, there was a significant increase in training participation for courses in financial sector policies. General macroeconomic analysis continues to be the largest category of courses under the ICD Training Program, followed by courses on financial sector policies, fiscal policy and statistics.

Table 10.ICD Training Participation by Venue and Course Group, FY 13–17(Participant-weeks of training)
FY 13FY 14FY 15FY 16FY 17
Training Venue
Regional Training Centers5,9246,3405,9956,5056,762
IMF HQ1,5651,6141,3211,5061,305
Other training locations1,5801,5231,1861,2701,390
Distance learning567200
Online learning 1/1,3311,8455,8995,882
Course Category
Financial Sector Policies1,4011,4021,5791,7552,552
Fiscal Policy6241,9471,1631,6031,919
Specialized Fiscal Issues (FAD)259216170212419
General Macroeconomic Analysis3,5343,0423,8666,9876,240
Macroeconomic Statistics (STA)1,9402,0671,4151,9991,487
Legal courses including AML-CFT (LEG)333361373410368
Monetary and Financial Sector (MCM)298414415507355
Monetary, Exchange Rate, and Capital Account Policies569618448387715
Safeguards Assessments (FIN)48585911258
Special Topics5697708101,1501,152
Other Courses62114505774
Total9,63611,00910,34715,17915,339
Source: Participant and Applicant Tracking System.Note: FY 17 data are preliminary. ICD Training Program includes training coordinated by ICD, and delivered by ICD and other departments in headquarters and globally at the IMF’s Regional Training Centers and Programs to country officials as well as IMF online courses successfully completed by country officials.

Online learning course volume calculated using conversion factors to estimate the equivalent number of full training days for each course.

Source: Participant and Applicant Tracking System.Note: FY 17 data are preliminary. ICD Training Program includes training coordinated by ICD, and delivered by ICD and other departments in headquarters and globally at the IMF’s Regional Training Centers and Programs to country officials as well as IMF online courses successfully completed by country officials.

Online learning course volume calculated using conversion factors to estimate the equivalent number of full training days for each course.

13. Training to CD priority groups increased in FY 17. Training to Fund-supported program countries and fragile states grew strongly by about 30 percent and 17 percent, respectively (Table 11). Training to low-income developing countries rose by about 5 percent in FY 17.

Table 11.ICD Training Participation by Priority Area, FY 13–17 1/(Participant-weeks of training)
FY 13FY 14FY 15FY 16FY 17
Priority Area
Fragile states1,6811,8531,6222,1272,488
LIDCs3,4853,6583,6115,1145,392
Program countries3,0202,7362,5903,7744,842
Source: Participant and Applicant Tracking System.Note: FY 17 data are preliminary. ICD Training Program includes training coordinated by ICD, and delivered by ICD and other departments in headquarters and globally at the IMF’s Regional Training Centers and Programs to country officials as well as IMF online courses successfully completed by country officials.

See footnotes in Table 5 and Table 7.

Source: Participant and Applicant Tracking System.Note: FY 17 data are preliminary. ICD Training Program includes training coordinated by ICD, and delivered by ICD and other departments in headquarters and globally at the IMF’s Regional Training Centers and Programs to country officials as well as IMF online courses successfully completed by country officials.

See footnotes in Table 5 and Table 7.

F. Progress Toward Improved Measurement of Results and 2018 Review of CD Strategy

14. Monitoring and evaluation is being strengthened as a new framework for Results-Based Management (RBM) has been adopted Fund-wide, based on an agreed catalog of expected CD outcomes. A new common evaluation framework was adopted in 2016, and is expected to make future evaluations more focused and comparable, and will allow the information in CD evaluations to be used more effectively to alter practices or shift the targeting of CD resources.

15. The Fund’s strengthened RBM framework is being applied to all CD efforts. Log frames have been established for all new externally financed projects commencing since May 2016. As a result, as of end-FY 17, CD Departments are monitoring over 1,200 log frames in the Capacity Development Project Outcomes and Results Tracking (CD-PORT) system. Most of these log frames were for donor-financed projects as departments are phasing in RBM for Fund-financed projects during FY 18. Results on individual projects entered last year are being tracked, initially at the milestone level, and eventually tracking higher level outcomes and indicators.

16. A review of the CD strategy is scheduled for 2018. The review will consider how the prioritization, funding, monitoring and evaluation, and delivery of CD has evolved since the 2014 Policy Statement and provide an opportunity to outline reforms to increase the impact of CD. The 2018 review will focus on further integrating CD with surveillance and policy advice, strengthening the framework to improve CD targeting to priority country needs by seeking innovative ways to deliver CD, sharing Fund CD knowledge with the membership, and entrenching the results-based approach.5

Annex II. Statistical Tables
Table 1.Gross Administrative Fund- and Externally-financed Spending Estimates by Output, FY 12–17 1/
Millions of FY 17 U.S. dollarsPercent of total
FY 17 2/FY 17 2/
FY 12FY 13FY 14FY 15FY 16Budget EstimateOutturnFY 12FY 13FY 14FY 15FY 16Budget EstimateOutturn
Total output estimates 3/1,1491,1681,2041,2141,2241,2721,235100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0
Multilateral surveillance25324824625324524624222.021.220.520.820.019.319.6
Global economic analysis11612312312412112012010.110.510.210.29.89.49.7
WEO1717161717161.51.51.31.41.41.3
GFSR1315151515141.21.31.21.31.21.2
General research3134373940362.72.93.13.23.32.9
General outreach5457555248534.74.84.64.34.04.3
Cooperative economic policy solutions242122222323222.11.81.91.81.91.81.8
Multilateral consultations7567660.60.40.50.50.50.5
Support and Inputs to multilateral forums1716171616161.51.31.41.31.31.3
Tools to prevent and resolve systemic crises696658615959636.05.74.85.04.84.65.1
Analysis of vulnerabilities and imbalances2022171716171.71.91.41.41.31.4
Other cross cutting analysis4942374139424.23.63.13.43.23.4
Fiscal Monitor0343340.00.20.30.30.30.4
Regional approaches to economic stability443843464345383.83.23.63.83.53.53.1
REOs1913161820181.71.11.31.51.61.5
Surveillance of regional bodies131213121081.11.01.11.00.80.7
Other regional projects1212131613121.01.01.11.31.11.0
Oversight of global systems12212012412712413112810.610.310.310.510.110.310.4
Development of international financial architecture272936403640402.42.53.03.33.03.23.2
Work with FSB and other international bodies6666670.50.50.50.50.50.6
Other work on monetary, financial, and capital markets issues2123313430331.92.02.52.82.42.7
Data transparency373940383535363.23.43.33.12.82.82.9
Statistical information/data2627282728292.32.42.42.32.32.3
Statistical manuals4544320.40.40.30.30.20.2
Statistical methodologies7787550.60.60.60.50.40.4
The role of the Fund585248505355525.14.43.94.14.34.34.2
Development and review of Fund policies and facilities excl. PRGT and GRA2320192019192.01.71.51.71.51.5
Development and review of Fund policies and facilities - PRGT1714111011121.51.20.90.90.91.0
Development and review of Fund policies and facilities - GRA10996890.90.70.80.50.60.7
Quota and voice5766760.40.60.50.50.60.5
SDR issues3237970.30.20.30.60.70.6
Bilateral surveillance25427328728529628730822.123.323.823.524.222.625.0
Assessment of economic policies and risks21823725225326125626219.020.321.020.921.320.121.2
Article IV consultations17318019218519419415.015.416.015.315.815.7
Other bilateral surveillance4557606867683.94.95.05.65.55.5
Financial soundness evaluations - FSAPs/OFCs282825222621372.42.42.11.82.11.73.0
Standards and Codes evaluations981010101090.80.70.80.80.80.80.8
ROSCs2233220.20.20.30.20.10.2
AML/CFT1112220.10.10.10.20.10.1
GDDS/SDDS5455660.50.40.40.40.50.5
Lending (incl. non-financial instruments)20218518418118019316617.615.815.214.914.715.213.4
Arrangements supported by Fund resources17616014513813714613515.313.712.011.411.211.511.0
Programs and precautionary arrangements supported by general resources10290817778718.97.76.76.46.35.7
Programs supported by PRGT resources7470646160646.56.05.35.04.95.2
Non-financial instruments and debt relief 4/262539424348302.22.13.23.53.53.72.5
Capacity development27430231932233836434523.925.926.526.527.628.627.9
Technical assistance21424526426928230728818.621.021.922.123.124.123.3
Training605756535657575.34.94.64.44.64.54.6
Miscellaneous 5/434043464241463.83.43.63.83.43.23.7
Contingency11
Memorandum items:
Gross administrative expenditures (in current U.S. dollars) 6/1,0821,1021,1491,1771,2151,2721,255
(in FY 17 U.S. dollars)1,1711,1861,2171,2221,2381,2721,255
Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

Support and governance costs are allocated to outputs.

Budget estimates are not prepared at the detailed output level.

Totals do not reconcile fully to the budget outturns in the Fund’s financial system (see memorandum item); for example, standard costs for personnel are used in the ACES model rather than actual personnel costs in the financial system.

Includes Post Program Monitoring (PPM), Policy Support Instruments (PSI), Staff Monitored Program (SMP), Near Programs, Ex-Post Assessments (EPA), Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative-I (MDRI-I), MDRI-II, Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC), Joint Staff Advisory Note (JSAN), Post Catastrophe Debt Relief (PCDR), Catastrophe Containment Relief Trust (CCRT), and trade integration mechanisms.

The "Miscellaneous" classification includes expenditures that currently cannot be properly allocated within the ACES model.

Expenditures as per the Fund’s financial system.

Source: Office of Budget and Planning, Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES).

Support and governance costs are allocated to outputs.

Budget estimates are not prepared at the detailed output level.

Totals do not reconcile fully to the budget outturns in the Fund’s financial system (see memorandum item); for example, standard costs for personnel are used in the ACES model rather than actual personnel costs in the financial system.

Includes Post Program Monitoring (PPM), Policy Support Instruments (PSI), Staff Monitored Program (SMP), Near Programs, Ex-Post Assessments (EPA), Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative-I (MDRI-I), MDRI-II, Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC), Joint Staff Advisory Note (JSAN), Post Catastrophe Debt Relief (PCDR), Catastrophe Containment Relief Trust (CCRT), and trade integration mechanisms.

The "Miscellaneous" classification includes expenditures that currently cannot be properly allocated within the ACES model.

Expenditures as per the Fund’s financial system.

Table 2.Administrative Expenditures: Budgets and Outturn, FY 02–17(Millions of U.S. dollars, except where indicated otherwise)
Financial YearBudgetOutturn 1/2/Outturn to Budget VarianceBudget to Budget VarianceOutturn to Outturn Variance
AmountPercentAmountPercentAmountPercent
A. Net Budget
2002695677−19−2.7456.8396.1
2003746720−26−3.5517.3436.4
2004786748−38−4.8395.2283.8
20053/850826−24−2.8648.27810.5
2006876874−2−0.2263.1485.8
2007912897−15−1.6364.1232.6
2008922891−32−3.4101.1−7−0.7
2009868813−55−6.3−54−5.9−77−8.7
2010932863−69−7.4647.3506.2
2011953917−36−3.8222.3546.2
20129854/947−38−3.9323.3303.2
20139975/948−50−5.0131.310.1
20141,0076/988−19−1.890.9404.3
20151,0277/1,010−17−1.7202.0212.2
20161,0528/1,038−13−1.3252.4292.8
20171,0729/1,066−6−0.6212.0282.7
B. Gross Budget
2002737721−16−2.1476.8466.8
2003794764−30−3.8577.8435.9
2004838806−31−3.7435.4425.5
20053/905892−13−1.4688.18610.7
2006937930−7−0.7323.5384.3
2007980966−14−1.5434.6353.8
2008994967−27−2.7141.410.1
2009967885−82−8.5−27−2.7−82−8.5
20101,032950−81−7.9656.7657.4
20111,0751,021−54−5.0434.2717.4
20121,1234/1,082−41−3.7484.5616.0
20131,1595/1,102−57−4.9353.2201.8
20141,1866/1,149−37−3.2272.3474.3
20151,2247/1,177−46−3.8383.2292.5
20161,2478/1,215−33−2.6241.9383.2
20171,2739/1,255−18−1.4252.0403.3
Source: Office of Budget and Planning.Note: Figures may not add to total due rounding.

Includes contributions to the SRP service credit buy back program of $8.0 million in FY 05, $10.0 million in FY 06, $20.5 million in FY07, and $2.1 million in FY 08 and a one off voluntary contribution of $12 million in FY 09.

Includes one-off supplementary contribution to the Retired Staff Benefit Investment Account (RSBIA) of $27 million in FY 09, $30 million in FY 10; $45 million in FY 11; $30 million in FY 12; $12 million in FY 13; $8 million in FY 16; and $2 million in FY 17.

The figures for FY 05 include $48 million in the contribution to the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) following the Executive Board decision to set contributions at 14 percent of gross remuneration.

Excludes FY 11 carry forward funds of $34.4 million.

Excludes FY 12 carry forward funds of $40.6 million.

Excludes FY 13 carry forward funds of $41.9 million.

Excludes FY 14 carry forward funds of $41.7 million.

Excludes FY 15 carry forward funds of $42.5 million.

Excludes FY 16 carry forward funds of $43.2 million.

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.Note: Figures may not add to total due rounding.

Includes contributions to the SRP service credit buy back program of $8.0 million in FY 05, $10.0 million in FY 06, $20.5 million in FY07, and $2.1 million in FY 08 and a one off voluntary contribution of $12 million in FY 09.

Includes one-off supplementary contribution to the Retired Staff Benefit Investment Account (RSBIA) of $27 million in FY 09, $30 million in FY 10; $45 million in FY 11; $30 million in FY 12; $12 million in FY 13; $8 million in FY 16; and $2 million in FY 17.

The figures for FY 05 include $48 million in the contribution to the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) following the Executive Board decision to set contributions at 14 percent of gross remuneration.

Excludes FY 11 carry forward funds of $34.4 million.

Excludes FY 12 carry forward funds of $40.6 million.

Excludes FY 13 carry forward funds of $41.9 million.

Excludes FY 14 carry forward funds of $41.7 million.

Excludes FY 15 carry forward funds of $42.5 million.

Excludes FY 16 carry forward funds of $43.2 million.

Table 3.Total Fund Employment, FY 15–17(Full-time Equivalents)
FY 15FY 16FY 17
Total Fund employment3,6613,7043,762
Regular, fixed term, limited term staff 1/2,7842,8352,890
Of which:
Independent Evaluation Office (IEO)151414
Office of Executive Directors (OED)246244250
Expert and contractual staff 2/877869872
Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

Includes Fund-financed and externally-financed FTEs.

Fund-financed and donor-financed experts (including short term experts), contractual staff, visiting scholars, secretarial support staff, paid overtime, and other.

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

Includes Fund-financed and externally-financed FTEs.

Fund-financed and donor-financed experts (including short term experts), contractual staff, visiting scholars, secretarial support staff, paid overtime, and other.

Table 4.Departmental Business and Seminar Travel Expenditures, FY 15–17(Millions of U.S. dollars)
FY 15FY 16 1/FY 17
By type of cost102108103
Transportation606260
Per diem424543
By type of financing102108103
Fund-financed687064
Externally-financed343839
By department102108103
Area292928
TA functional545659
Other functional666
Support295
Governance595
OED and IEO575
M emorandum item:
In percent of total gross expenditures8.68.98.2
Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

Includes Annual Meetings travel of approximately $3.8 million.

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

Includes Annual Meetings travel of approximately $3.8 million.

Table 5.Travel Metrics, FY 15–17 1/
FY 15FY 16FY 17
Number of missions7,7768,0058,170
Area1,3131,4051,370
TA Functional4,7384,7904,960
Functional9149841,001
Support & Governance811826839
Mission nights88,09492,97993,668
Area24,93325,93124,722
TA Functional54,85457,41360,939
Functional4,9416,0674,560
Support & Governance3,3663,5683,447
Mission persons12,32613,11413,153
Area3,4973,8273,557
TA Functional6,6616,9877,252
Functional1,1271,2071,203
Support & Governance1,0411,0931,141
Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

Excludes Annual Meetings, IEO, OED.

Source: Office of Budget and Planning.

Excludes Annual Meetings, IEO, OED.

Table 6.Capital Expenditures, FY 12–17(Millions of U.S. dollars)
Formula KeyFacilitiesInformation TechnologyHQ2HQ1 RenewalConcordia RenovationTotal Capital
FY 12
New appropriations(1)5.133.90.084.038.9161.9
Total funds available(2)25.553.60.184.038.9202.1
Expenditures(3)9.324.00.03.77.344.4
Lapsed funds 1/(4)2.50.70.00.00.03.2
Remaining funds 2/(5) = (2)-(3)-(4)13.728.90.180.331.6154.6
FY 13
New appropriations(6)7.434.30.0347.00.0388.7
Total funds available(7) = (5)+ (6)21.163.20.1427.331.6543.3
Expenditures(8)7.437.10.022.022.388.8
Lapsed funds 1/(9)1.40.50.00.00.01.8
Remaining funds 2/(10) = (7)-(8)-(9)12.425.60.0405.39.3452.6
FY 14
New appropriations(11)17.423.80.00.00.041.2
Total funds available(12) = (10) + (11)29.849.40.0405.39.3493.8
Expenditures(13)10.136.60.092.24.8143.8
Lapsed funds 1/(14)0.50.00.00.03.94.4
Remaining funds 2/(15) = (12)-(13)-(14)19.212.80.0313.10.6345.7
FY 15
New appropriations(16)22.029.80.00.63/52.4
Total funds available(17)= (15) + (16)41.242.6313.10.6397.4
Expenditures(18)10.529.395.70.3135.8
Lapsed funds 1/(19)0.60.30.00.31.2
Remaining funds 2/(20) = (17)-(18)-(19)30.112.9217.40.0260.4
FY 16
New appropriations(21)14.427.7132.0 4/174.1
Total funds available(22)= (20) + (21)44.540.6349.4434.5
Expenditures(23)14.625.890.1130.5
Lapsed funds 1/(24)0.40.10.00.6
Remaining funds 2/(25) = (22)-(23)-(24)29.414.7259.2303.4
FY 17
New appropriations(26)32.528.00.060.5
Total funds available(27)= (25) + (26)62.042.7259.2363.9
Expenditures(28)17.927.976.3122.1
Lapsed funds 1/(29)5.40.20.05.6
Remaining funds 2/(29) = (27)-(28)38.714.6182.9236.2
Sources: Office of Budget and Planning and Corporate Services and Facilities Department and Information Technology Department.

Figures reflect funds that were not spent within the three-year appropriation period; e.g., FY 15 appropriated funds lapsed at the end of FY 17.

Figures reflect the unspent amount of the budget appropriation in the period concerned. Those funds can be used for authorized projects in the period cover d by the appropriation.

Unspent Concordia funds appropriated in FY 12 expired at the end of FY 14 with the exception of $0.6 million that was specifically reappropriated for FY 15 to complete the remaining work under the project.

Additional appropriations were approved for the HQ1 Renewal Program during FY 16.

Sources: Office of Budget and Planning and Corporate Services and Facilities Department and Information Technology Department.

Figures reflect funds that were not spent within the three-year appropriation period; e.g., FY 15 appropriated funds lapsed at the end of FY 17.

Figures reflect the unspent amount of the budget appropriation in the period concerned. Those funds can be used for authorized projects in the period cover d by the appropriation.

Unspent Concordia funds appropriated in FY 12 expired at the end of FY 14 with the exception of $0.6 million that was specifically reappropriated for FY 15 to complete the remaining work under the project.

Additional appropriations were approved for the HQ1 Renewal Program during FY 16.

1

This section describes the main trends in spending observed using the Analytic Costing and Estimation System (ACES), which has been in use since FY 11. The ACES model takes the Fund’s input costs and allocates them to outputs, with the single most important input being self-reported time. Support and governance costs are tracked as intermediate inputs that feed into the production of outputs. For details on ACES, see “FY2015 Administrative and Capital Expenses and Output Cost Estimates”, Box 2.

2

Direct spending refers to spending on outputs before support and governance costs are added to arrive at total spending. These shares will therefore not correspond to those shown in Annex II, Table 1.

3

“Lending” encompasses spending on arrangements supported by Fund resources as well as that on non-financial instruments and debt relief. The latter includes Post-Program Monitoring (PPM), Policy Support Instruments (PSI), Staff Monitored Program (SMP), Near Programs, Ex-Post Assessments (EPA), and Catastrophe Containment Relief Trust (CCRT).

4

Includes Fund- and externally financed regular and contractual employees.

1

Prepared by Lidia Brito, Nathalie Carcenac, Pinyi Chen, Matias Costas Navarro, Michael Filippello, Eva Jenkner, Wasima Rahman-Garrett, Malina Savova, and Andre Vieira de Carvalho (all ICD).

2

Different but complementary data sources are used to present information on CD, specifically: (i) data on spending on CD activities are from ACES, consistent with the main paper; (ii) data on external financing by donor comes from the External Financing Resource Management System (EFRMS), ICD’s Global Partnerships fundraising database, and the operating costs provided by Regional Training Center (RTC) hosting members; and (iii) data on TA and training volume are in physical units: field delivery time for TA and participant weeks for training, as drawn from the Travel Information Management System (TIMS) and the Participant and Applicant Tracking System (PATS), respectively.

3

The Fund’s Capacity Development Strategy--Better Policies Through Stronger Institutions, May 21, 2013. Executive Board Review of the Fund’s Capacity Development Strategy, Public Information Notice No. 13/72, June 27, 2013. IMF Policy and Practices on Capacity Development, August 26, 2014.

4

TA spending data from ACES, as discussed in the main report, presents a broader view of TA as it reflects spending at headquarters as well as in the field. Overall, donor-funded TA accounts for roughly 44 percent of total spending on TA, including support and governance costs.

5

See 2018 Quinquennial Review of the Fund’s Capacity Development Strategy—Concept Note, March 2017.

Other Resources Citing This Publication