This letter provides an assessment of recent macroeconomic developments in Benin and an update on the discussions of Fund staff with the Beninese authorities on macroeconomic policies and structural reforms that could form the basis for the authorities’ request for a new arrangement under the Extended Credit Facility (ECF). An earlier assessment letter to donors was issued in December 2009 and is available at http://www.imf.org/external/pp/longres.aspx?id=4399.

The FY 13–15 Medium-Term Budget presented in this paper reflects the following main features: Unchanged administrative budget in real terms for FY 13. Overall spending (structural plus crisis/temporary) will be kept unchanged in real terms in FY 13 relative to the FY 12 budget (excluding the one-off additional cost of the 2012 Annual Meetings in Tokyo).Broadly unchanged administrative envelope in nominal terms for FY 13. This reflects the impact of the Executive Board’s decision in March to grant no increase in the staff salary structure in the context of the 2012 Compensation Review. The “structure increase” is the main component in the budget deflator applied to map the real total envelope into nominal terms. A capital budget dominated by the impact of the HQ1 Renewal Program. The final appropriation for this project, approved by the Executive Board in March 2011, is reflected in the proposed capital budget for FY 13.

With the global financial landscape still unsettled, temporary spending looks set to remain at current levels over the next few years. Lending commitments and crisis-management activities have surged since the onset of the crisis: by the end of December 2010, there were 60 program and financial arrangements in place, compared with 40 at the time of the Fund’s restructuring in early 2008. The higher lending has generated a sharp but temporary rise in income, but has also required an increase in temporary spending. This expenditure will unwind over time, but only marginally over the FY 12–14 MTB period

The proposed FY 14–16 Medium-Term Budget was formulated within the Fund’s strengthened strategic planning framework and seeks to align the allocation of resources to the delivery of institutional priorities. Despite the additional resources that have been provided to meet crisis demands, crisis related work and overall work pressures remain elevated. At the same time, available resources are not being fully utilized. Therefore, the budget strategy—instead of asking for further additional resources—is geared toward making more efficient use of existing resources to reduce work pressures and meet new demands.

For the net administrative budget, the FY 16–18 medium-term budget (MTB) proposal includes: In FY 16, an unchanged budget envelope in real terms, for the fourth year in a row. To accommodate new and ongoing strategic priorities of the Fund within a flat envelope, efforts to reallocate resources away from lower-priority activities and achieve efficiency gains were stepped up both at the departmental level and across the institution. Savings measures implying a reallocation of resources of close to 5 percent of the net administrative budget were identified through this process. The bulk of these savings would be used to help meet the new priorities highlighted in the Global Policy Agenda and in Management’s Key Goals, while preserving room at the departmental level to further reduce work pressures, phase in the new streamlining measures and, more generally, cope with business uncertainties and unanticipated demands. This robust prioritization effort implies difficult trade-offs and the willingness to cut lower-priority activities in order to create space for new initiatives. For FY 17–18, as a baseline assumption, a flat real budget envelope as well. Against the backdrop of a robust income position, the Fund’s medium-term budget formulation is guided primarily by considerations of prudence and credibility. The medium-term spending path will depend on new demands placed on the institution, and the scope for further reprioritization, and will be reassessed in the context of the FY 17–19 budget.

At the request of the Government of Liberia (GoL), the IMF Fiscal Affairs Department (FAD) led an external assessment of the central government’s public financial management (PFM) systems based on the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) methodology. The assessment was undertaken in close collaboration with the Ministry of Finance’s (MoF) PFM Reform Coordination Unit (RCU), with the participation of staff of the African Development Bank and the World Bank, and with financial support from the European Union and Sida. The assessment examines progress since the PEFA assessment of 2007 and provides a renewed baseline for monitoring progress in PFM reform and for supporting the GoL in refining, where necessary, the current PFM reform strategy. The assessment snapshot date was April 23, 2012. The report was reviewed by the GoL, the PEFA Secretariat, a donor reference group, and FAD, the latter being at the same time responsible for quality assurance.