As part of their strategic evaluation and planning processes for lending to individual countries, most IFIs prepare some kind of “country strategy” document, usually an in-depth analysis of economic, social and even political developments.
The importance of these assessments for decision-making varies, but in general they constitute an action plan; defining the kinds and levels of aid to be provided and the conditions that will be imposed.
Commonly the process of preparing them involves confidential negotiations between officials of the IFIs and the governments.
Inhibiting greater participation in the development of country strategies is the widespread refusal to release draft documents. Such materials stimulate debate by indicating the directions under consideration by IFI and government officials. Despite years of pressure, the IMF has resisted issuance of its draft Article IV staff report, a key priority-setting document. Nor does the EBRD, the IDB, or the IFC. The World Bank is experimenting with some CAS consultations, but does not normally release drafts. On the other hand, the AfDB in March 2004 decided to release its draft Country Strategy Papers, minus confidential information as agreed to with the government. Additionally, the ADB had begun to make draft CSPs available to in-country stakeholders before management reviews the strategy.
With reforms in 2003, the EBRD also moved somewhat ahead of the pack, and now issues a Management Note prior to reviewing country strategies. The Management Note outlines the main areas to be focused on in the review, but the EBRD decided against putting out a more specific draft country strategy. The EBRD later issues a summary of external comments and the staff team’s responses, a rarity among the IFIs. The World Bank releases a schedule for its work on Country Assistance Strategies and the IMF’s schedule of work on Article IV reports is available.
While many of the IFIs eventually issue the approved country-specific papers, there are many exceptions. The AfDB, for example, doesn’t disclose its Country Environmental Profile, Country Portfolio Review, or Public Investment Programme. The IDB still allows borrowing governments to request that country strategies not be disclosed, and they can prevent the release of “confidential” material. Similar disclosure veto power is allowed by the World Bank for Country Assistance Evaluations and for Country Assistance Strategies. The IFC never discloses its Country Strategy Papers. The IMF allows governments to block disclosure of the Concluding Statements of Article IV Missions, the Article IV report itself, and various associated documents.
On the other hand, timing issues and exceptions aside, there is a wealth of research material available. These include: the financial sector analysis reports from the IMF and the WB, and the so-called “gray cover” reports from the WB, Country Economic Reviews from the ADB, and others.
IFI evaluations of operations in specific countries, and progress reports, are sometimes released. Those making such documents available include: the ADB, the EBRD (sometimes), the IDB (on an ad hoc basis), and the WB (subject to country limitations). Annual Progress reports on the PRSP countries are released.
By contrast, another major planning document -- the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), instituted by the WB and the IMF in 1999 -- is intended to spring from wide-ranging civic consultations in the designated countries. This goal of more grassroots participation, however, has not been fully achieved, in part because of transparency problems. For example, issuance of a draft PRSP is discretionary with governments. The World Bank and the IMF don’t reveal their joint staff assessment of proposed PRSPs before approval.
The final PRSPs are released. Although the PRSP is officially a government document, its eventual release is enforced by the threat that if it is not disclosed the staff will recommend against approval, a threat not applied in other contexts.