REPORT TO CONGRESS FROM THE 

CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL 

ON INTERNATIONAL MONETARY AND FINANCIAL POLICIES

A Report to Congress

consistent with

Section 1701 of the

International Financial Institutions Act, 

as amended by the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 1999

United States Department of the Treasury

2015
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report discusses the participation of the United States in the International Financial 

Institutions (IFIs) during 2014 and U.S. priorities for the IFIs in 2015. The International 

Monetary Fund (IMF) and the multilateral development banks (MDBs), including the World 

Bank and the major regional development banks, continue to play an essential and effective role 

in the international financial system. The IFIs are vital partners for the United States in 

furthering U.S. and global security interests, supporting U.S. and global economic growth and 

jobs, and maintaining open markets and financial stability. 

Our ability to advocate effectively for these priorities depends on our ability to meet our 

financial commitments to the IFIs in a timely fashion, including through passage of the 2010 

IMF quota and governance reforms, and having confirmed U.S. Executive Directors in place at 

these institutions to engage with IFI management and Executive Directors from other member 

countries.

The IFIs helped advance many U.S. priorities in 2014. The IMF renewed precautionary credit 

lines for Mexico and Poland and approved new lending agreements for several countries, 

including Ukraine, Georgia, Honduras, Morocco, and Yemen. The IMF also provided $130 

million in emergency assistance and agreed to debt relief for the Ebola-affected countries. The 

MDBs approved more than $105 billion in new financing for developing countries. This 

financing supports critical areas, such as bolstering Ukraine’s economy, responding to the Ebola 

crisis, improving citizen security in Central America, and expanding access to cleaner, more 

reliable electricity in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The United States will look to the IFIs to 

ensure sustained financial support for these priorities in 2015.

The United States also encouraged the IFIs to undertake a broad range of institutional reforms 

that will further improve their effectiveness in supporting U.S. priorities. The United States was 

took the lead in proposing governance reforms at the IMF that are awaiting Congressional 

approval. We have pushed the IMF to maintain a flat budget in real terms improving cost 

effectiveness. Further, through our efforts the IMF has made siginificant strides in transparency 

and last year the Executive Board approved a reduction in release time for detailed minutes of 

most board meetings from five to three years. The MDBs implemented a range of measures to 

expand their financial capacity, continue updating their environmental and social safeguards and 

strengthen accountability, improve how they measure and evaluate results, and provide more 

effective support for gender, fragile states, and the private sector. Many of these reforms 

represent a fulfillment of commitments that the MDBs made to the United States and other 

shareholders during negotiations for concessional window replenishments and general capital 

increases. 

In 2015, we will be urging the IFIs to continue taking steps to improve their ability to deliver 

effective outcomes and support U.S. goals. Our key priorities at the IMF include continuing 

support for low-income countries; improving foreign exchange and financial sector surveillance; 

promoting strong, sustainable, and balanced growth; enhancing transparency and accountability 

in economic data; and, maintaining budget discipline. At the MDBs, our priorities include 

strengthening the framework and implementation of the World Bank’s environmental and social 
2

safeguards, with special attention on oversight of and compensation for involuntary resettlement; 

updating procurement policies to create a more level playing field for U.S. businesses and 

workers; implementing major institutional reorganizations to improve development effectiveness 

and expand financial capacity; and strengthening independent evaluation.

INTRODUCTION1

The international financial institutions (IFIs) play an essential role in the international financial 

system, further U.S. and global security interests, support U.S. and global economic growth and 

jobs, and help maintain open markets and financial stability. The IFIs fight poverty, address 

environmental challenges, help enhance food security, and respond to emerging crises and 

emergency situations. U.S. leadership was instrumental in founding and designing many of these 

institutions, and the United States continues to use its influence to shape IFI policies and 

activities today. It is critical to retain America’s strong leadership position in these vital 

institutions, which advance our national security, our economic interests, and our values. 

For almost 70 years, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has served the global community 

and promoted U.S. national security and economic interests with strong bipartisan support in the 

United States. The IMF helped Europe and Japan achieve sustained growth in the post-war 

period. After the demise of the Bretton Woods System, the IMF helped the United Kingdom and 

Italy overcome their financial crises in the 1970s, supported the resolution of the Latin American 

debt crisis of the 1980s, and supported economic transition in Eastern Europe and the former 

Soviet Union in the 1990s. The IMF was also central to the response to the Asian and emerging 

market financial crisis in the late 1990s and early 2000s. 

The IMF remains the foremost international institution for promoting global financial stability. 

Since 2008, the IMF has been at the center of the global financial crisis response efforts, helping 

mitigate the impact of the crisis in its member countries and prevent contagion. Through its 

three main activities—surveillance, technical assistance, and lending—the IMF promotes 

economic stability and helps prevent and resolve financial crises when they occur, thereby 

promoting growth, enhancing U.S. national security, and alleviating poverty in its member 

countries. The IMF is providing critical support to U.S. allies and governments whose instability

would jeopardize U.S. national security interests, including Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, and 

Yemen in recent years. It is continuing to play a role in the resolution of the crisis in the euro 

area, and providing financial support to countries in Eastern Europe, including Ukraine, that are 

working to secure long-term stability and prosperity for their relatively new democracies. The 

IMF is assisting low-income countries with needed policy advice and financing, actively 

encouraging transparency and accountability in all of its member countries, and working with the 

G-20 on policies to foster strong, sustainable, and balanced global growth. The IMF recently 

provided emergency financial support and debt relief to Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone to 

help counter the economic impact of the Ebola epidemic. As the world’s first responder to 

financial crises, the IMF continues to play an indispensable role in protecting the U.S. economy 

 

1

Section 1701 of the International Financial Institutions Act, as amended by the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 

1999 (P.L. 105-277, Div. A §101(d) [Title V, §583]), requires the Chairman of the National Advisory Council on 

International Monetary and Financial Policies (the Secretary of the Treasury, as designated pursuant to

Executive Order 11269 of February 14, 1966, as amended) to report annually to Congress on the participation 

of the United States in the international financial institutions (IFIs).
3

– and the prosperity of American workers, households, and businesses – from the destabilizing 

effects of crises abroad. 

In 2010, G-20 Leaders and the IMF membership decided on a set of quota and governance 

reforms designed to strengthen the IMF’s critical role and effectiveness. The 2010 reforms 

modernize IMF governance to better reflect countries’ economic weights in the global economy 

and keep emerging economies anchored in the multilateral system that the United States helped 

design and continues to lead. The reforms preserve U.S. veto power and influence in the IMF, 

without increasing the current U.S. financial commitment to the IMF. The rest of the world has 

acted to ratify the 2010 IMF reforms, and only U.S. acceptance is necessary for these important 

reforms to enter into effect. 

As the United States has delayed approving the 2010 reforms, other countries have sought to 

increase their influence in the institution bilaterally, outside of the IMF’s quota-based financial 

and governance structures in which the United States exercises its leadership role. In 2012, due 

to the U.S. delay, the IMF secured bilateral borrowing agreements with countries such as China 

($43 billion), Korea ($15 billion), India ($10 billion), Mexico ($10 billion), and Russia ($10 

billion). Emerging economies are proposing new and parallel financial institutions such as the 

New Development Bank (the “BRICS Bank”) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. 

Congressional approval of the 2010 reforms is necessary to reaffirm the U.S. leadership position 

and reinforce the IMF’s central position in the global financial system.

Alongside the IMF, the multilateral development banks (MDBs), which include the World Bank 

and the major regional development banks, are essential instruments to promote U.S. national 

security, support broad-based and sustainable economic growth and job creation, and address key 

global challenges like environmental degradation, while fostering private sector development 

and entrepreneurship. MDB concessional lending windows are an important source of financing 

for the development needs of fragile and post-conflict states and for combating extreme poverty 

and hunger. MDB projects promote global stability, prosperity, infrastructure development, and 

private sector growth.

MDB investments in developing and emerging economies – in infrastructure, health, and 

education – foster private sector development in these countries, which creates new markets for 

U.S. exports and jobs for American workers. The MDBs, often alongside the IMF and as 

complements to U.S. bilateral assistance, have been key partners on important priorities such as 

responding to the Ebola outbreak, bolstering Ukraine’s economy against the effects of conflict, 

increasing citizen security in Central America, and expanding infrastructure in Asia, Africa, and 

Latin America.

This report covers the period from January 2014 to January 2015 and looks at prospects for 

the remainder of 2015. It also includes the Report to Congress on the International 

Development Association’s Contributions to Graduation, consistent with 22 U.S.C. § 262r6(b)(2).

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (IMF)

Major Issues Affecting U.S. Participation in the IMF 
4

Background: The United States participates in the IMF through a quota subscription. Quotas are 

the metric used by the IMF to assign voting rights, to determine contributions to the IMF’s 

general resources, and to determine access to IMF financing. The IMF’s recent efforts to 

modernize its governance started during the Bush Administration. In 2006, the IMF membership 

approved an ad hoc quota increase for the most underrepresented emerging market countries 

(China, Korea, Mexico, and Turkey). In April 2008, IMF members reached agreement on a 

broader quota reform package as a further step to modernize the IMF’s governance structure to 

keep pace with the rapid growth and greater economic weight of dynamic emerging market 

countries in the global economy. This agreement included a small increase in the U.S. quota to 

maintain our share and veto power as other members’ quotas were increased. On June 24, 2009, 

the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32), was enacted, providing 

authorization and appropriations for an increase in the U.S. quota in the IMF by the dollar 

equivalent of 4.97 billion Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) (about $7.71 billion as of June 24, 

2009), as well as an increase in the U.S. participation in the New Arrangements to Borrow 

(NAB; discussed below).

At the Pittsburgh Summit in September 2009, G-20 Leaders agreed to further reform IMF 

quotas. At the summit in Seoul in fall 2010, G-20 Leaders agreed on a package that secured 

significant reform of the IMF’s governance structure and voting rights. This agreement better

reflects today’s global economy, thereby enhancing the IMF’s legitimacy and effectiveness. In 

particular, the reform will double total IMF quotas, with a corresponding rollback of the NAB; 

amend the IMF’s Articles of Agreement to move to an all elected Executive Board;2shift more 

than 6 percent of quota shares to dynamic and underrepresented emerging market and developing 

countries; and preserve the quota and voting shares of the poorest member countries. 

2010 Quota and Governance Reforms: In the 2010 IMF reform agreement, the United States 

successfully achieved its negotiating priorities: (1) an increase in the U.S. quota alongside an 

equivalent reduction in U.S. financial participation in the NAB, for no change in the overall U.S. 

financial commitment to the IMF; and (2) the preservation of the U.S. leadership position and 

veto power over major institutional and financial decisions. 

U.S. leadership in the IMF promotes American core interests in three ways; first, the IMF 

strengthens our national security; second, the IMF protects the U.S. economy by serving as a first 

responder when financial crises abroad threaten jobs and growth at home; and third, the IMF 

helps design and promote rules for an open global trade and financial system. The IMF is an 

important partner in strengthening our national security. For example, by helping to anchor 

economic stability in the Middle East—in Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia. As the world’s first 

responder to financial crises, the IMF helps our trading partners stabilize and heal their 

economies. By preventing crises in other countries from spreading to the United States, the IMF 

protects U.S. jobs, exports, and household savings. In Ukraine, the IMF is playing a key role in 

supporting a financial stability and reform program that was expected to be extended and 

increased on March 11, in a clear example of the importance of the IMF in promoting American 

core interests. No other entity could provide the IMF’s level of financing along with essential 

 

2

Under an all-elected Board, the U.S. would retain its current seat.
5

policy advice. The IMF program is also a catalyst for unlocking additional bilateral and 

multilateral support for Ukraine as it undertakes important reforms to strengthen its economy. 

The United States is the largest shareholder in the IMF and the only country that has the ability 

to veto major institutional decisions. Maintaining the unique U.S. leadership position is more 

important than ever. The reforms will advance U.S. interests by strengthening the IMF’s central 

role in the international financial system and preserving U.S. leadership in the IMF so that we 

can continue to shape the norms and practices that ensure an open, resilient global economy. 

The vast majority of the IMF membership has now acted, and U.S. approval is the only 

remaining step for these important reforms to go into effect.3 The failure of the United States to 

approve these reforms led the G-20 and the IMF’s International Monetary and Financial 

Committee to ask the IMF to consider options for moving forward on quota and governance 

reforms without an increase in the U.S. quota. In January 2015, the IMF Executive Board 

informally discussed possible next steps. The G-20 will discuss these options at its meeting in 

April 2015. That is why we have asked Congress to safeguard U.S. leadership in the IMF by

acting expeditiously to approve the 2010 quota and governance reforms. The reforms do not 

increase the current overall level of U.S. financial participation in the IMF. 

New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB): In addition to quota subscriptions, the IMF maintains 

standing borrowing arrangements with 38 financially strong members, including the United 

States. The NAB was designed as a pool of emergency resources for use when the IMF’s 

ordinary quota resources are substantially drawn down in the rare circumstances that threaten the 

stability of the international monetary system, such as those seen during the 2009 global 

financial crisis. As a result of Congress’ failure to approve the 2010 quota and governance 

reforms, the IMF has become reliant on the NAB for its lending programs. Currently, for every 

$4 in IMF loans, $3 comes from the NAB and only $1 from quota resources. Moreover, unlike 

quota resources the IMF does not have automatic access to NAB resources. The availability of 

NAB resources requires “activation” by an 85 percent vote of the shares of NAB participants 

every six months. This requirement gives the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) control 

over the NAB’s resources as the BRIC countries hold more than 15 percent of the NAB’s voting 

power, which is enough to block NAB activation. 

The U.S. commitment under the NAB is currently SDR 69 billion (about $97 billion), which 

includes U.S. participation in the General Arrangements to Borrow.4 When the 2010 quota 

reform enters into effect, U.S. participation in the NAB will be reduced by SDR 40.8 billion 

(about $58 billion), the same amount as the U.S. quota increase.

Promoting International Financial Stability

 

3 Before the quota increase can take effect, the amendments on reform of the Executive Board must be approved by 

three-fifths of the IMF's 188 members (or 113 members) having 85 percent of the IMF's total voting power. As of 

January 27, 2015, 146 members having 77.1 percent of total voting power had accepted the amendment, and 163 

members having 79.6 percent of total quota had consented to the quota increase.

4 The General Arrangements to Borrow is a standing borrowing arrangement that preceded the NAB and totals about 

$26 billion, of which the U.S. share is about 25 percent.
6

The IMF plays a vital role in safeguarding the international financial system and promoting 

financial stability. It also promotes the key U.S. goal of strong, stable global growth through 

effective surveillance of the international monetary and financial system as well as individual 

country economies. As the world’s first responder to financial crises, the IMF works to help 

protect the U.S. recovery and promote increased global growth and stability, which supports U.S. 

jobs and exports, foreign investment in the United States, our financial markets and our 

economic health. 

Effective Crisis Response: The IMF plays a central role in international efforts to resolve and 

prevent the spread of global economic and financial crises by providing its members with timely 

policy advice and financing if needed to address balance of payments problems. New IMF 

lending commitments totaled approximately $67 billion from May 2014 to January 2015, of 

which $63 billion was for a renewal of multi-year precautionary Flexible Credit Lines (FCL) to 

provide a buffer against external risks for Mexico and Poland. Since April 2014, new IMF

lending arrangements have been agreed in seven additional countries: Georgia, Honduras, 

Seychelles, Morocco, Chad, Grenada, and Yemen. 

While the IMF was critical in helping Europe to avoid an economic meltdown, the Europeans 

provided the lion's share of the financing and bore the brunt of the financial risk. Moreover, the 

IMF’s investments in Europe are proving effective, as Ireland and Portugal have emerged from 

crisis and are making early repayments to the IMF. The IMF continues to engage positively with 

Greece as it continues to strive to reform its economy to ensure lasting stability and long-term 

growth.

The IMF’s crisis-response in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region has been crucial 

to encouraging macroeconomic stability in a number of countries that are significant to our 

national security. A stable and more prosperous MENA region helps promote peace and

facilitates more orderly democratic transitions, and thereby opens up opportunities for American 

businesses in the region’s emerging economies. The IMF is closely engaged in the region 

through analytical and technical advice, as well as through substantial financial support. For 

instance, in July 2014, the IMF extended a successor $5 billion precautionary credit line to 

Morocco to support its economic reform program and provide insurance against external shocks. 

U.S. Policy Goals and the IMF

The IMF serves as a critical forum for multilateral consultation and cooperation on international 

monetary and financial policy issues, as well as for promoting global economic and financial 

stability. The sections below discuss the IMF’s functions in supporting low-income countries; 

working with the G-20 to promote strong, sustainable, and balanced growth; enhancing 

transparency and accountability in economic data; maintaining budget discipline; and, improving 

foreign exchange and financial sector surveillance. 

Support for Low-Income Countries: The IMF plays a key role in assisting low-income 

countries (LICs) to achieve macroeconomic stability, a necessary condition for poverty reduction 

and higher long-term growth. In calendar year 2014, the IMF Board approved three lending 

arrangements for low-income country members under the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust 

(PRGT) facilities (Chad, Grenada, and Yemen). In September 2014, the IMF provided a total of 
7

$130 million of emergency financial assistance in the form of highly concessional loans to 

Guinea ($41 million), Liberia ($48 million), and Sierra Leone ($40 million) through its Rapid 

Credit Facilities and augmentations to the program countries with Extended Credit Facilities. 

These funds have helped counteract the revenue shortfall and unplanned Ebola containment 

spending that all three countries have faced as a result of the epidemic. In response to a U.S. 

leadership request, the IMF has provided debt relief to these three Ebola-stricken countries by 

reforming its Post Catastrophe Debt Relief (put in place after the Haitian earthquake) to enhance 

Fund support for low-income countries hit by public health disasters. The IMF will provide 

approximately $95 million in debt service relief ($30 million to Guinea, $36 million to Liberia, 

and $29 million to Sierra Leone). The amounts will free the three countries from debt service 

obligations to the IMF falling due over the next two to four years.

The United States has been a strong advocate for enhancing the IMF’s support for LICs. Since 

2009, the IMF Board has taken steps to boost the PRGT’s concessional subsidy resources for 

lending to LICs. With strong U.S. leadership, in 2009, the IMF Board agreed to extend interest 

rate relief (zero interest) on all PRGT loans through the end of 2012. U.S. leadership has been 

instrumental in securing IMF Executive Board approval to extend the zero percent interest rate 

on PRGT loans through the end of 2016. These initiatives have helped put the PRGT on a more 

sustainable footing and safeguard the IMF’s role in promoting macroeconomic stability, higher 

long-term growth, and poverty reduction in LICs.

Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Growth: The IMF provides critical analytical support to the 

G-20 Framework for Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Growth, where the overarching goal is to 

put the global economy on a robust growth path. In addition to providing regular surveillance 

reports on current and future economic prospects, the IMF also provides assessments of 

individual members’ progress in implementing past policy commitments, with special focus on 

exchange rate, fiscal, and structural reform commitments. A key contribution of the IMF to the 

G-20 cooperative policy process is its annual assessment of the collective consistency of G-20 

members’ policies and the ability of those policies to achieve the goals of strong, sustainable, 

and balanced global growth. It will also play a critical role in monitoring progress towards 

achieving the G-20 collective aspiration of boosting global growth though implementation of 

country growth strategies.

Transparency/Accountability: The IMF promotes transparency through its strong data 

standards. Effective bilateral and multilateral IMF surveillance requires provision of timely, full, 

and accurate data. Transparency is necessary to assess the IMF’s effectiveness in contributing to

global monetary and financial stability and in building broader economic knowledge. The IMF’s 

collection and publication of comparable data – including on exchange rates and reserves –

remains a top U.S. priority. The IMF has begun collecting and disseminating comparable crosscountry data in new areas, such as the Financial Soundness Indicators, but more progress is 

needed.5 The IMF is conducting a review of its Data Standards Initiatives, which will focus on 

increasing the number of member countries participating. In November 2014, China announced 

its intention to subscribe to the IMF’s Special Data Dissemination Standard (SDDS), which will 

help provide better information across a number of data categories, including China’s reserve 

holdings. 

 

5

See http://fsi.imf.org.
8

In February 2015, the United States became one of the first countries to adhere to the IMF’s

SDDS Plus, enhancing the transparency of our economic data. We will urge other countries to 

join us in subscribing.

Budget Discipline: The IMF has maintained a relatively tight budgetary framework, and is 

working toward making more efficient use of existing resources. The IMF’s medium-term 

budget framework includes a nominal 1.9 percent increase in FY 20156, with no increase in the 

annual budget in real terms in 2016 and 2017. The United States continues to be a strong 

advocate of IMF budgetary stringency, and supports the IMF’s strategy of offsetting 

expenditures for new activities with a reduction in spending in other areas.

Effective Surveillance: Surveillance of members’ exchange rates is at the core of the IMF’s 

mandate. For the IMF to fulfill its central role in the international monetary system, it must 

continue to strengthen its efforts to exercise firm surveillance over IMF members’ exchange rate 

policies, and it must be prepared to make tough judgments, especially when evaluating large 

countries that have systemic implications. Without firm surveillance, the global imbalances that 

contributed to the global financial crisis could go unaddressed and pose a threat to future global 

economic stability. Going forward, the United States will continue to advocate for increased 

candor, transparency, and evenhandedness in IMF exchange rate surveillance. In the IMF 

Executive Board, the U.S. Executive Director will also continue to urge the IMF to address 

instances of excessively delayed Article IV reviews (as these reviews are the primary vehicle for 

bilateral surveillance).

The IMF continues to refine and expand its guidance on international reserves issues. In 

December 2015, the IMF Executive Board discussed proposed guidelines for its new reserves 

adequacy metric, which measures the level of foreign exchange reserves needed for 

precautionary purposes. 

In September 2014, the IMF completed the 2014 Triennial Surveillance Review (TSR), designed 

to strengthen the effectiveness and traction of IMF surveillance. The 2014 TSR built upon the 

recommendations of the 2011 TSR recommendations, which included regularly analyzing 

spillovers and cross-country issues, conducting in-depth risk assessments in bilateral and 

multilateral surveillance products, improving financial sector surveillance, and publishing 

assessments of external balances. It also examined evenhandedness and consistency in IMF 

policy advice. 

The IMF works with other international organizations to promote stronger financial systems 

around the world. The joint IMF-World Bank Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) has 

emerged as a critical instrument for financial sector surveillance and advice. The FSAP 

assessments are designed to gauge the stability of the financial sector and to assess its potential 

contribution to growth and development. Since the FSAP was launched in 1999, around 140 

countries have completed the program (many more than once), and more than 25 assessments are 

currently under way or in the pipeline. In September 2010, it was agreed that financial stability 

assessments for jurisdictions with systemically important financial sectors, which include the 

 

6 The IMF’s fiscal year runs from May 1 through April 30. FY 2015 is from May 1, 2014 to April 30, 2015.
9

United States, should take place at least once every five years as a mandatory part of IMF

surveillance. The IMF is expected to release its second FSAP review of the United States in July 

2015.

MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS (MDBS)

This section addresses key U.S. policy goals that are advanced by the MDBs and details 

developments in institutional reforms, priorities, performance and effectiveness at the MDBs

since the previous NAC Report was issued. 

The United States works through the MDBs to: (i) foster U.S. national security by supporting 

engagement by the MDBs with fragile and conflict-affected states (e.g., Liberia and Ukraine) and 

providing assistance that can address the root causes of instability; (ii) promote U.S. economic 

growth through exports by helping the MDBs cultivate emerging markets; (iii) respond to global 

crises, such as the Ebola epidemic in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, and build countries’ 

resilience to future crises; and (iv) address critical global priorities, such as energy security, 

renewable energy, environmental degradation, and food security.

The U.S. contributions to the MDBs leverage significant additional contributions from other 

shareholders and the MDBs themselves, allowing for a level of assistance that is significantly 

higher than what the United States could achieve bilaterally. Meeting the U.S. commitments to 

the capital increases for the MDBs and replenishments of their concessional windows, including 

paying down our unmet commitments, is important for expanding the MDBs’ financial capacity. 

This expanded financial capacity is critical, as we are pressing the MDBs to ramp up their 

already substantial support in a number of areas, including the Ebola response, assisting 

Ukraine’s government, bolstering citizen security in Central America, and co-financing projects 

as part of the President’s Power Africa initiative.

The United States is the largest or joint largest shareholder at all of the MDBs, except the 

African Development Bank, where we are the largest non-African shareholder, and our 

shareholding at the Asian Development Bank will permanently fall below Japan’s unless we 

fully fund our commitments to the general capital increase. We are able to use this status to 

press MDB management for institutional reforms and for financial and political support for 

major U.S. priorities. Meeting our commitments to the MDBs is critical to preserve this 

shareholding and maintain our credibility and leadership at a time when new players are 

challenging U.S. leadership in the multilateral system.

There are several themes that we have prioritized across all of the MDBs over the past year. We 

have urged the MDBs to make more efficient use of their balance sheets to expand the level of 

resources available to developing countries, in accord with recommendations from leaders of the 

G-20. We have pressed the MDBs to update their policies and practices on evaluation to build a 

stronger culture of learning and accountability. We have encouraged stronger attention to 

environmental and social safeguards, with special attention on those related to the environmental 

and resettlement impacts of the construction of large dams. The MDBs are examining options 

for improving their governance structures, including how to reflect the growing weight of 

emerging markets in the global economy and more transparent selection processes for senior 
10

management. In line with President Obama’s Executive Order to incorporate climate resilience 

considerations into U.S. development assistance, we are working with the MDBs to mainstream 

climate resilience considerations in their activities and promote collection and sharing of climate 

resilience data.

Below we summarize the major developments and our upcoming priorities for each MDB. 

World Bank

World Bank Performance in 2014: During the World Bank’s fiscal year 2014 (FY 2014, 

covering July 2013 – June 2014), the World Bank committed $61.3 billion in loans, technical 

assistance, concessional credits, grants, equity investments, and guarantees.

 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) approved $18.6 

billion in loans and technical assistance to middle-income countries. Latin America and 

the Caribbean (25 percent) and Europe and Central Asia (25 percent) received the largest 

portion of the IBRD’s new lending, followed by East Asia and Pacific (22 percent). 

 The International Development Association (IDA) committed $22.2 billion in highly 

concessional credits and grants to the 77 poorest countries. Nearly half of IDA’s annual 

commitments ($10.2 billion) went to countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, followed by South 

Asia (38 percent), and East Asia and Pacific (10 percent). 

 The International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector arm of the World Bank, 

approved $17.3 billion in investments. In FY 2014, IFC mobilized an additional $5.1 

billion from other investors for development projects. Roughly half of IFC projects went 

to the world’s poorest countries.

 The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency provided $3.2 billion in guarantees for 

political risk insurance. The FY 2014 level of guarantees represents a record high 

issuance. Fifty percent of MIGA’s FY 2014 projects were in IDA-eligible countries, with 

29 percent of new guarantees supporting fragile and conflict-affected countries.

 For IBRD and IDA, public administration, law, and justice was the sector that received 

the largest commitment (22 percent), followed by transportation (17 percent), and energy 

and mining (16 percent).

 The World Bank provided notable support in the following areas: providing $2.0 billion 

to Ukraine for policy, health and infrastructure support; approval of nearly $1 billion for 

Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone for Ebola response; and establishment of the Global 

Infrastructure Facility to support infrastructure project preparation and catalyze private 

infrastructure investment with an initial contribution from the World Bank of $15 

million. 

IDA Replenishment: In 2014, World Bank management began implementing the current 

replenishment of IDA resources (IDA-17), including the policy commitments that management 
11

agreed to with IDA donors. IDA-17 was finalized in December 2013, allowing IDA to commit 

up to $17 billion per year over the next three years. As part of the IDA-17 negotiations, the 

United States successfully pressured World Bank management to (i) “raise the bar” on gender 

equality, (ii) increase private sector development in IDA countries, (iii) target additional 

resources for fragile states that are on a path towards stability, and (iv) enhance IDA’s focus on 

climate resilience. We will continue to press World Bank management on the implementation of 

these IDA-17 policy commitments. We are also co-chairing a working group on IDA’s longterm vision and financial sustainability, which will make policy and financial recommendations 

to improve IDA’s future effectiveness based on projected economic and development trends in 

IDA countries. 

Key Institutional Reforms: In 2014, the World Bank transitioned to a new organizational 

structure, reviewed its budget and financial capacity, and advanced a number of major policy 

reviews in addition to carrying out its regular lending activities. 

 Restructuring: The World Bank’s restructuring included the creation of “global 

practices,” departments organized around technical specialties, such as education, water,

and agriculture, and “cross-cutting solutions areas” to address climate change, fragility, 

gender, and jobs. The purpose of the new global practices is to improve knowledge 

sharing about specific sectors across different units of the World Bank and strengthen the 

World Bank’s focus on results. 

 Financial Capacity: The World Bank has taken measures to boost revenue flows, 

increase the leverage of the IBRD’s and IFC’s capital base, and reduce administrative 

costs by $400 million. The United States supports these measures because they respond 

to many of our key financial objectives (e.g., increasing loan charges for borrowers and

better leveraging of existing capital), and will improve both the World Bank’s lending 

capacity and long-term financial sustainability without requiring additional funding from 

shareholders.

 Safeguards Review: The World Bank is undergoing a multi-year review of its 

environmental and social safeguards to develop a strengthened and integrated policy 

framework. The review and update is scheduled to conclude this year. The U.S. 

objective is an up-to-date, integrated safeguards policy framework that improves the 

clarity, coherence, efficiency, and effectiveness of the World Bank’s safeguards. 

The United States believes that the World Bank’s safeguards policies are an integral part 

of its comparative advantage and add value beyond the financing that the World Bank

provides. The safeguards are an essential tool for avoiding or mitigating environmental 

and social risks in World Bank-financed projects, and are a key component of borrower 

and World Bank risk management efforts. Historically, the World Bank has been a 

global leader in safeguards, and the review should result in the establishment of a new 

and comprehensive institutional approach that recognizes safeguards as critical for 

advancing the World Bank’s development goals and meeting developing countries’ 

needs. The World Bank is including several new important areas in the updated 
12

safeguards regime, including labor, and is strengthening its approach to social 

assessments. 

In addition, given the recent reporting on serious weaknesses in the World Bank’s 

implementation of its involuntary resettlement policy, we are encouraging World Bank 

management to markedly improve the World Bank’s performance in this area. 

Management has produced an action plan that outlines the steps that the World Bank will 

take to strengthen the application of the involuntary resettlement policy. Some of the 

steps include significantly increasing the budget for supervising the implementation of 

involuntary resettlement in World Bank-financed projects, introducing better tracking 

tools in order to monitor the status of involuntary resettlement, and providing technical 

assistance to borrowing countries with limited capacity to manage involuntary 

resettlement. While we welcome these steps, we are also considering additional steps 

that will help hold World Bank management accountable for implementing the action 

plan. 

 Procurement Review: The World Bank launched an extensive review of its procurement 

policies in 2012, which it is aiming to conclude in 2015. The procurement review is 

assessing how the World Bank should modernize its procurement policies in light of an 

evolution in its lending portfolio, changes in global procurement practices, and 

development of country capacity to manage procurement processes. Proposed 

improvements include enhanced methodologies for supporting value for money in 

procurement, a more robust complaints mechanism for bidders, greater engagement by 

World Bank staff across the entire contract cycle, and a commitment to strengthen the 

capacity of both borrowing countries’ and the World Bank’s procurement staff. We will 

continue to engage with U.S. businesses, civil society organizations, and experts across 

the United States Government so that the World Bank maintains high standards in order 

to safeguard its resources, creates a level playing field for all bidders, and supports 

capacity building in client countries.

 Program for Results (P4R): P4R is a relatively new World Bank financing instrument 

that pays clients for the achievement of outcomes or results, such as the number of 

children immunized, rather than for inputs, such as the number of vaccine doses 

purchased. We see P4R as an innovation in development finance that can build the 

capacity of borrowing countries, if done correctly. We also support the concept behind 

P4R, which is to link payments to the achievement of development results that are 

tangible, transparent, and verifiable. There has been strong demand for P4R thus far. 

World Bank management recently completed an early implementation review of P4R. 

The review was positive overall, indicated that the World Bank respected all of the 

conditions that the Board set when P4R was approved, and recommended eliminating a

cap on the percentage of World Bank annual commitments for which P4R can be used.

We view P4R as still in a pilot phase. While we believe that there is scope to continue 

rollout of the instrument, we believe that the pace of the rollout should be based on 

experience, including the findings of an independent evaluation. We remain in active 

discussions with World Bank management about this initiative.
13

2015 Priorities: The key U.S. priorities for 2015 are: (i) helping to ensure that the

implementation of the institutional reform strategy, introduced in late 2013, results in a more 

efficient and effective World Bank; (ii) pressing for a more effective and up-to-date 

environmental and social safeguards framework; (iii) pushing for a comprehensive and 

satisfactory update of the World Bank’s procurement policy to maintain a level playing field for 

U.S. firms; (iv) maintaining a reasonable cap on use of P4R, pending completetion of an 

independent evaluation, and (v) further advancing U.S. climate resilience objectives at the World 

Bank, including refining climate resilience indicators.

African Development Bank (AfDB)

Performance in 2014:

 Total AfDB financing commitments were $7.6 billion. Commitments from the AfDB’s 

non-concessional window were $4.8 billion. Financing commitments from the 

concessional window, the African Development Fund (AfDF), totaled $2.4 billion. 

 Of the total AfDB commitments, sovereign loans and grants accounted for $4.6 billion 

(61 percent) and private sector projects, investments, and guarantees accounted for $3.0

billion (39 percent). New financing operations continued to reflect the AfDB’s 

selectivity in its choice of project sectors, with approximately half of total projects 

addressing infrastructure (of which energy is the dominant subsector, followed by 

transportation, water supply and sanitation, and communications). 

 The distribution of total AfDB loan and grant approvals by sub-region was as follows: 

West Africa – 27 percent); Southern Africa – 26 percent; East Africa – 14 percent; 

Central Africa – 8 percent; and North Africa – 7 percent. Loan and grant approvals for 

multinational projects and programs amounted to 18 percent.

 The AfDB provided notable support in the following areas: financing $221 million for 

the response to Ebola, including an innovative program to recruit African doctors and 

health workers to help combat the epidemic, and longer-term support to strengthen public 

health systems in West Africa; committing more than $2.2 billion for energy projects (of 

which 24 percent was financing to the private sector), including support to Power Africa 

projects across the continent; and promoting financial sector development and small and 

medium enterprises (SMEs), including approval of a flagship project to support a 

Nigerian bank that specializes in SME financing and serves over one million clients, 90 

percent of whom are women. 

AfDF Replenishment: In 2014, the AfDB began implementing the reform commitments that the 

United States and other donors advocated for as part of the AfDF’s thirteenth replenishment 

(AfDF-13). Negotiation of AfDF-13 concluded in September 2013 and resulted in an overall 

replenishment of $7.3 billion. During the AfDF-13 negotiations, the United States urged the 

AfDF to build on its strong track record in infrastructure by increasing its focus on mobilizing 

private sector financing for viable infrastructure projects. Key reform commitments during 

AfDF-13 include: (i) developing new concessional risk mitigation and credit enhancement 
14

instruments to catalyze private finance for infrastructure, (ii) strengthening support for gender 

objectives through better use of gender-disaggregated data and indicators, and implementation of

a revised gender framework that tracks gender outcomes, (iii) improving the effectiveness of 

assistance to fragile states that demonstrate the political will to implement key reforms, and (iv) 

strengthening the financial sustainability of the AfDF by changing concessional loan terms. In 

2014, the United States also participated in preliminary working group discussions about policy 

and financial innovations for the next AfDF replenishment.

Key Institutional Reforms: The AfDB adopted a number of new policies in 2014, in particular 

three key strategy documents to guide implementation of AfDF-13 commitments in the areas of 

gender, fragile states, and governance. The AfDB strengthened its approach to gender in 2014 

by appointing a special envoy for gender, and by adopting and implementing an institution-wide 

Gender Policy. The AfDB adopted a new strategy and operational guidelines for addressing 

fragility in Africa, including the incorporation of an innovative “fragility lens” across all 

programming, to help fragile states achieve more resilient and inclusive development. 

Throughout 2014, the United States also engaged with the AfDB on core governance priorities, 

such as reviewing the AfDB’s Independent Review Mechanism (IRM), which provides recourse 

to people adversely affected by projects; updating the AfDB’s evaluation policy to strengthen the 

independence and effectiveness of the AfDB’s independent evaluation unit; and ensuring a 

successful return of the AfDB’s headquarters from Tunis, Tunisia to Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire 

(from which the AfDB moved in 2003 due to civil strife), including putting in place a detailed 

business continuity plan and an Ebola response plan.

2015 Priorities: Our key priorities for the AfDB in 2015 include (i) electing a new AfDB 

president who possesses both a strong vision for the AfDB and the capacity and managerial 

talent to implement that vision; (ii) continuing the AfDB’s strong partnership on key U.S. 

priorities such as the Power Africa Initiative and supporting Ebola-affected countries, and (iii) 

encouraging the AfDB to continue building its capacity to promote African private sector 

growth.

Asian Development Bank

Performance in 2014:

 The AsDB committed $10.4 billion in non-concessional resources for public and private 

sector activities. The Asian Development Fund (AsDF) committed $3.1 billion in 

concessional resources. 

 Top recipients of funds were India (21 percent), China (13 percent), Pakistan (10 

percent), Vietnam (8 percent), and the Philippines (7 percent). 

 Total AsDB commitments focused primarily on infrastructure projects (74 percent), 

mainly in transportation (30 percent), energy (27 percent), and water supply and 

sanitation (14 percent).
15

 The AsDB provided notable support in the following areas: continuing assistance to the 

Philippines to assist with the recovery from Typhoon Yolanda; providing $400 million to 

Pakistan to implement energy sector reforms; and financing support to repair 

infrastructure damaged by flooding in Afgthanistan.

AsDF Replenishment: In 2011, donors agreed on a replenishment level of $12.4 billion for the 

AsDF’s tenth replenishment (AsDF-11), which covers the four-year period from 2013-2016. 

While the overall size of the replenishment represented a 10 percent increase from AsDF-10, the 

U.S. contribution declined by 22 percent, reflecting a multi-year plan to clear U.S. unmet 

commitments to the AsDF. Under AsDF-11, donors and the AsDB agreed to focus efforts on 

inclusive growth that reduces poverty. AsDB management also agreed to changes to increase 

lending capacity, including hardening loan terms for wealthier AsDF countries. AsDF-12 

negotiations will begin in the fall of 2015. 

Key Institutional Reforms: Our reform priority has been the design of the proposed merger of 

the AsDB’s concessional and non-concessional lending resources. This major reform is historic 

and very promising. Merging all lending (whether concessional or non-concessional) into the 

AsDB’s Ordinary Capital Resources increases the ability of the AsDB to leverage its equity. 

This, in turn, allows the AsDB to boost its lending capacity from approximately $13 billion 

annually to $17 billion over the next decade, with no need for additional capital from 

shareholders. The merger will also reduce the level of donor resources required for AsDF 

replenishments. The United States and other donors successfully pressed for assurances that the 

increased lending capacity from the merger would primarily benefit the poorest countries in 

Asia. We also received third-party external validation that the merger would not harm the 

AsDB’s AAA credit rating or financial standing. 

The AsDB also continued to implement reforms negotiated in 2009 as part of its general capital 

increase, including implementing “Strategy 2020,” its medium-term strategy, which aims to 

improve institutional effectiveness. 

2015 Priorities: Our key priorities for the AsDB in 2015 include: (i) approving and 

implementing the merger of the AsDB’s concessional and market rate lending windows; (ii) 

continuing to work with the AsDB to implement its Strategy 2020, including strengthening the 

AsDB’s focus on poverty reduction; and (iii) beginning negotiations for the next replenishment 

of the AsDF.

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)

Performance in 2014:

 EBRD investments in 2014 reached $10.8 billion. 

 Top recipients of investments were Turkey (16 percent), Ukraine (14 percent), Russia (7 

percent), Poland (7 percent), and Egypt (7 percent). 
16

 EBRD business volume in 2014 was concentrated in the following sectors: financial 

institutions (32 percent), corporate (26 percent), infrastructure (23 percent), and energy 

(19 percent).

 The EBRD provided notable support in the following areas: $1.5 billion in approvals for 

Ukraine to support the government’s reform efforts; allocation of $427 million of net 

income for completion of the new safe confinement at Chernobyl; significantly increased 

levels of assistance for Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia; and approval of temporary 

assistance for Cyprus. 

 In response to strong guidance from the United States and other key shareholders, EBRD 

management has not brought forward any new projects for Russia since July 2014. 

Key Institutional Reforms: In 2014, the EBRD completed reviews of three important 

governance policies: Environmental and Social Policy (ESP), Public Information Policy (PIP), 

and Project Complaint Mechanism (PCM). The United States worked to obtain key

improvements in all three policies. Among the wide range of improvements to the ESP, the 

EBRD agreed that “all relevant direct and indirect impacts” will now be covered in

environmental and social assessments. In the PIP, we achieved substantial improvement in 

disclosure of information on all projects. We also secured a key change that extends the period

during which an affected stakeholder can submit a complaint to the PCM.

The EBRD also continued to increase the proportion of its investments in the early (less 

advanced) transition countries (ETCs), such as Armenia, Georgia, and Moldova. Projects in the 

ETCs accounted for 33 percent of the overall number of EBRD projects, with business volume of 

$1.34 billion in the ETCs.

2015 Priorities: Key U.S. priorities for the EBRD in 2015 include: (i) reaching agreement on an 

effective Strategic and Capital Framework for the 2016 – 2020 period, including clear analysis of 

the EBRD’s capital capacity and a compelling case for the use of its capital as the EBRD seeks 

to reenergize the transition to market economies in its borrower countries; (ii) providing 

continued support to Ukraine; (iii) achieving further improvements in EBRD gender and 

inclusion policies; and (iv) strengthening the EBRD’s results measurement and the independent 

evaluation function, including the EBRD’s capacity to measure transition impact.

Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)

Performance in 2014: 

 The IDB committed $13.8 billion in loans and grants in 2014. 

 Top recipients of IDB lending in 2014 were Brazil (22 percent), Mexico (18 percent), 

Peru (9 percent), and Colombia (7 percent). Small and vulnerable borrowing countries 

received 37 percent of new loan approvals.
17

 IDB lending was spread across many sectors, with the largest amounts going to financial 

markets (19 percent), transportation (17 percent), reform/modernization of the state (16 

percent), and social investment (5 percent).

 The IDB provided notable support in the following areas: approval of $200 million in 

new grants and disbursement of $206 million for critical projects in Haiti; engagement 

with Caribbean countries, especially those reliant on Petrocaribe, on diversifying energy 

supplies; and $723 million in commitments for the Northern Triangle countries (El 

Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras), coupled with advice for the governments on the 

design of reform programs to address the root causes of migration. 

Key Institutional Reforms: The IDB continues to make progress in implementing the 

commitments that the United States and other shareholders negotiated in conjunction with the 

IDB’s ninth general capital increase. IDB management and the Board of Directors continue to 

work together to strengthen implementation, including through a periodic update of the IDB’s 

Institutional Strategy and a policy review of country strategies.

 Private Sector Reform: The IDB is working to finalize proposals for a restructuring of its 

private sector activities, which we expect will address many of the shortcomings of the 

current disjointed approach to the private sector that spreads private sector activities 

across four different windows. A major focus of the restructuring is increasing the 

development impact of private sector activities. The United States is advocating for 

efficient use of the IDB’s capital, improved development effectiveness, and greater 

operational efficiency for the new private sector entity, while protecting the IDB’s credit 

rating and current levels of sovereign lending. 

 Capital Adequacy: IDB Governors approved a new capital adequacy mandate in October 

2014, reaffirming the goal of maintaining the IDB’s AAA credit rating. Following 

approval of the mandate, IDB management presented new capital adequacy regulations 

that will define the means of achieving that goal, including creating buffers for credit and 

market risk and a buffer to provide capacity for countercyclical lending. The revised 

regulations proposed by the IDB quantify the major financial risks and determine the 

capital requirements needed for each type of risk in order for the IDB to maintain a AAA 

rating. 

 Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF) Replenishment: The current MIF agreement expires 

at the end of 2015. Due to a change in accounting procedures to bring the MIF’s 

accounts into line with the rest of the IDB, MIF resources are now projected to last 

through the end of 2017. MIF donors are discussing the future of the MIF within the 

context of the private sector reform. The United States is pressing for a solution that will 

provide a more sustainable financing model for the MIF and an increased role in the

financing of the MIF from regional borrowing members.

 Presidential Elections and Term Limits: We negotiated an agreement to limit the current 

IDB president to no more than one additional term and limit future IDB presidents to two 

terms. The agreement also strengthens the vetting process for presidential candidates.
18

2015 Priorities: Key U.S. priorities for the IDB are: (i) successfully enhancing the IDB’s private 

sector work through the consolidation of its activities into one entity, (ii) strengthening the IDB’s 

capital adequacy policy, (iii) working closely with IDB management to provide enhanced 

support for the Northern Triangle countries in carrying out their Plan for Prosperity; and (iv ) 

deciding on the MIF’s future financing and its role in relation to the new private sector entity.

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

Performance in 2014:

 Total IFAD approvals were $902 million. This includes $852 million for new projects 

and additional financing for ongoing projects and $50 million for grants under IFAD’s 

global, regional, and country grant program.

 The regional distribution of IFAD commitments was: Asia and the Pacific – 38 percent; 

Near East, North Africa, and Europe – 26 percent; Western and Central Africa – 22 

percent; Eastern and Southern Africa – 13 percent; and Latin America and the 

Caribbean – 0.6 percent.

 Top funding priorities included integrating rural poor into value chains, rural financial 

services, and climate adaptation activities, each of which received 16 percent of 

resources, followed by improved agricultural technologies (13 percent), natural resource 

management (13 percent), support for producers’ organizations (10 percent), rural 

enterprise development (10 percent), and vocational skills development (6 percent).

 IFAD provided notable support in the following areas: approval of a $63 million loan to 

Egypt to assist with sustainable agricultural and livestock practices, a $50 million loan to 

Uganda to support farmer livelihoods in northern areas affected by conflict, as well as 

grant support to the World Food Program to assist with the emergency response to the 

Ebola crisis in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. 

IFAD Replenishment: Negotiations for the tenth replenishment of IFAD (IFAD-10) 

concluded in December 2014. As part of the replenishment, the United States and other 

donors urged IFAD to consolidate and build upon reforms over the past 10 years to improve 

efficiency, strengthen delivery of results, and improve the long-term sustainability of 

project outcomes. Key commitments from IFAD management include: (i) mainstreaming 

climate adaptation across 100 percent of IFAD programs by end-2018; (ii) continuing to 

improve performance on incorporating gender and nutrition into projects; (iii) increasing 

IFAD’s focus on scaling up successful projects; and (iv) enhancing IFAD’s engagement 

with the private sector.

Key Institutional Reforms: IFAD introduced proposals to improve financial sustainability in 

2014. IFAD collaborated with member states, including the United States, to develop a 

framework to guide sovereign loans through a comprehensive approach that takes into account 

programmatic, administrative, financial, and legal considerations. IFAD also released an update 
19

of its social, environmental and climate procedures in 2014, which were revised to include new 

guidelines for climate risk screening and to better align with the safeguard practices of other 

multilateral institutions. 

2015 Priorities: Our key priorities for IFAD in 2015 include: (i) reaching agreement on IFAD’s 

sovereign borrowing framework; (ii) working with other member states to initiate a review of 

IFAD’s governance arrangements; (iii) continuing IFAD’s strong partnership on key U.S. food 

security priorities, including gender, nutrition, and climate adaptation; (iv) preparing for the 

selection of the next IFAD president in 2016; and (v) initiating a review of IFAD’s performancebased allocation model and potentially updating IFAD’s middle-income country lending policy. 

We will also review the results of IFAD’s impact evaluation initiative, which are expected to 

become available in late 2015, as well as the findings of the Office of Independent Evaluation’s 

study on IFAD’s performance in fragile and conflicted-affected states.

North American Development Bank (NADB)

Performance in 2014: 

 NADB commitments totaled $324 million, which reflects continued growth in private 

sector investments in sectors such as renewable energy.

 Wind energy constituted 60 percent of lending, followed by solar energy (13 percent), air 

quality and paving (14 percent), water infrastructure (10 percent), and public 

transportation (3 percent).

Key Institutional Reforms: In 2014, the Board of Directors of NADB and the Border 

Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) passed a resolution that recommended the 

merger of the two institutions. NADB and BECC already have plans to implement joint project 

development and technical assistance measures, as well as to foster closer staff collaboration. 

The two institutions work together on common projects and will function more efficiently as one 

institution, including requiring fewer resources from the United States and Mexico for 

administrative budgets. The NADB and BECC are also combining and modernizing their 

procurement standards. In addition, NADB has started to perform comprehensive results 

measurement studies of its completed projects, and the United States will continue to work with 

NADB to further promote the use of robust impact evaluations.

2015 Priorities: In 2015, key priorities for NADB are: (i) finalizing commitments on a general 

capital increase to allow the NADB to continue its strong support for projects on both sides of 

the border; (ii) negotiating and implementing the merger of the NADB and BECC; (iii) 

implementing changes to NADB’s management structure following the merger, including 

appointment of a chief environmental officer; and (iv) developing a strategic direction plan for 

the NADB’s core and emerging sectors in coming years, including continuing to build results 

measurement and evaluation capabilities. 
20

Report on IDA Contribution to Graduation

The U.S. Department of the Treasury presents this report consistent with 22 U.S.C. § 262r6(b)(2). That section directs the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress on how the 

World Bank’s IDA-financed projects contribute to the eventual graduation of a representative 

sample of countries from reliance on financing on concessionary terms and international 

development assistance.

IDA provides highly concessional funds to the poorest countries, and ideally supports growth 

and development that ultimately allows these countries to graduate from IDA. The United States 

believes strongly that IDA should direct its scarce concessional resources to the poorest countries 

that have the most limited access to other sources of finance. Reviewing the process by which 

IDA helps its richer, more creditworthy clients sustainably graduate from reliance on 

concessional resources is an important priority within the working group that the United States is 

co-chairing during IDA-17 on IDA’s long-term vision and financial sustainability.

The IDA graduation process is normally triggered when a country’s per capita income exceeds 

the “operational” graduation threshold (currently $1,215) for at least two consecutive years and 

the country is deemed creditworthy enough to receive loans from the World Bank’s IBRD. The 

process involves a phasing out of IDA lending and phasing in of IBRD lending. Before 

graduation, there is typically an intermediate stage of undetermined length, known as “blend” 

status, during which countries can access both IDA and IBRD resources. There are currently 18 

blend countries: Bolivia, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Republic of Congo, Dominica, Grenada, 

Moldova, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and 

the Grenadines, Timor-Leste, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe.

IDA’s goal is to help countries achieve levels of growth and institutional capacity that allows 

them to finance their own development needs. To date, 32 countries have graduated from IDA. 

Angola, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Georgia graduated in 2014. India also 

graduated in 2014, but since there is a constraint on its additional access to IBRD lending (as it 

has already reached its sustainable borrower limit), India will remain eligible for a limited 

amount of transitional assistance from IDA during IDA-17 to avoid a precipitous drop in 

development resources. During IDA-17, IDA management plans to form a graduation task force 

that will evaluate the following countries’ readiness and help the countries’ authorities prepare 

for graduation: Bolivia, Moldova, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, 

Timor-Leste, and Uzbekistan. Vietnam is expected to graduate at the beginning of IDA-18 in 

2017.