50365 INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION AND INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative and Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI)-Status o f Implementation Prepared by the Staffs o f International Development Association (IDA) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Approved by Otaviano Canuto (IDA) and Reza Moghadam (IMF) September 15. 2009 Contents Page Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... i . I Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 I1. Progress in the Implementation o f the HIPC Initiative and MDRI ............................... 1 I11. An Update on the Costs o f the HIPC Initiative and the MDRI..................................... 6 I V. Remaining Challenges .................................................................................................. -9 A . Taking Remaining Countries through the HIPC Initiative Process.......................... 9 B. Ensuring the Full Participation of All Creditors ..................................................... 12 C . Ensuring Financing o f the HIPC Initiative and MDRI........................................... 15 V. Debt Sustainability ...................................................................................................... 16 V I. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 20 Tables 1. L i s t o f Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (as o f end-July 2008) ............................................ 2 2 . HIPC Initiative: Costs by Main Creditor and Country Group ............................................... 7 3 . MDRI Costs by Creditor and Country Group ....................................................................... 9 4 . Distribution o f risk o f debt distress by country groupings .................................................. 17 Figures 1. Post-Decision-Point HIPCs' Debt Stock under ..................................................................... 4 2: Average Debt Service and Poverty Reducing Expenditures ................................................. 6 3 . Distribution o f Potential Costs under the HIPC Initiative and MDRI by.............................. 8 4 . Duration o f the Interim Period under the Enhanced HIPC Initiative .................................. 11 Boxes 1. Debt Sustainability Framework. ........................................................................................ 16 2 . Simulation Methodology .................................................................................................. -22 Annexes . I Country Status Under the Enhanced HIPC Initiative.......................................................... 23 I1. Country Coverage. Data Sources. and Assumptions for the HIPC Initiative and MDRI Costing Exercise ...................................................................... 30 Appendix Tables 1. Summary o f Debt Service and Poverty Reducing Expenditures 1999-2013 ................ -32 2. Debt Service of33 Post-Decision-Point HIPCs. 2001-2013 .......................................... 33 3 . Poverty-Reducing Expenditure o f 33 Post-Decision-Point HIPCs 200 1-2013 ............. -36 4 . HIPC Initiative and MDRI: Committed Debt Relief and Outlook ................................. 39 5 . HIPC Initiative: Cost Estimates to Multilateral Creditors and Status o f their Commitments to Post-Completion-Point HIPCs ............................................................ 40 6A . Status o f Delivery o f HIPC Initiative and MDRI Assistance by the World Bank .........41 6B . World Bank Group Debt Service after HIPC Initiative and MDRI Debt Relief. 2000-2011 ....................................................................................................................... 42 7A . Implementation o f the HIPC Initiative and MDRI by the IMF ...................................... 44 7B. IMF HIPC Initiative and MDRI Debt Relief. 1998-2009 .............................................. 45 S . Status o f Delivery o f HIPC Initiative and MDRI Assistance by the African A Development Bank ......................................................................................................... 46 8B. AfDB Group Debt Service after HIPC Initiative and MDRI Debt Relief, 2000-2013 ....................................................................................................................... 47 9. Status o f Delivery o f HIPC and IaDB-07 Initiatives Assistance by the Inter-American Development Bank ............................................................................... 49 10. Status o f Bilateral Donor Pledges to the HIPC Trust Fund............................................ 50 11. HIPC Initiative: Cost Estimates to Paris Club Official Bilateral Creditors by Creditor Country ............................................................................................................. 51 12. Debt Relief Committed and Delivered by the Paris Club Official Bilateral Creditors ......................................................................................................................... 52 13. Paris Club Official Bilateral Creditors' Delivery o f Debt Relief under Bilateral Initiatives beyond the HIPC Initiative ............................................................................ 53 14. HIPC Initiative: Cost Estimates to Non-Paris Club Official Bilateral Creditors by Creditor Country ............................................................................................................. 54 15. Delivery o f HIPC Initiative Debt Relief by Non-Paris Club Official Bilateral Creditors ........................................................................................................................ -56 16. Commercial Creditor Lawsuits Against HIPCs ............................................................. 57 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AfDB African Development Bank AfDF African Development Fund AFESD Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development AFRITAC Africa Regional Technical Assistance Centers AMF Arab Monetary Fund AsDB Asian Development Bank BADEA Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa BCEAO Central Bank o f West African States BDEAC e Banque d Ddveloppement des Etats de 1'Afrique Centrale (Central African States Development Bank) BDEGL e Banque d Ddveloppement des Etats des Grand Lacs (Development Bank o f Great Lake States) BEAC e Banque des Etats d 1'Afrique Centrale (Bank o f Central African States) BOAD e Banque Ouest Africaine d Developpement (West African Development Bank) CABEI Central American Bank for Economic Integration CAF Corporaci6n Andina de Foment0 CDB Caribbean Development Bank CEMLA e Centro d Estudios Monetarios Latinoamericanos CIRR Commercial Interest Reference Rate CMCF CARICOM MultilateralClearing Facility CPIA Country Policy and InstitutionalAssessment CP Completion-Point DeMPA Debt Management Performance Assessment DP Decision-Point DRC Democratic Republic o f the Congo DRF Debt Reduction Facility DSA Debt Sustainability Analysis DSF Debt Sustainability Framework EADB East African Development Bank EBID ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development ECF Extended Credit Facility EFF Extended Fund Facility EIB European Investment Bank EPCA Emergency Post-Conflict Assistance ESF Exogenous Shocks Facility EU European Union FDI Foreign Direct Investment FEGECE Fonds d'Entraide et de Garantie des Emprunts du Conseil de 1'Entente (Fund o f Aid and o f Loans Guarantee o f the Agreement Council) FOCEM Fondo Centroamericano de Estabilizaci6n Monetaria FONPLATA Fund for the Financial Development o f the River Plate Basin FSID Fonds de solidaritd islamique pour l e ddveloppement (Islamic Fund for Solidarity and Economic Development) GDP Gross Domestic Product HIPC Heavily Indebted Poor Countries IaDB Inter-American Development Bank IBRD International Bank for Reconstructionand Development IDA International Development Association IDA 15 FifteenthReplenishment o f IDA IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IMF International Monetary Fund I-PRSP Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper IsDB Islamic Development Bank JSAN Joint Staff Advisory Note LICS L o w Income Countries MDB Multilateral Development Bank MDGs MillenniumDevelopment Goals MDRI Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative MEFMI Macroeconomic and Financial Management Institute for Eastern and Southern Afiica MTDS Medium-Term Debt Management Strategy NDF Nordic Development Fund NIB Nordic Investment Bank NPV N e t Present Value ODA Official Development Assistance OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development OPEC Organization o f Petroleum Exporting Countries OFID OPEC Fund for International Development PRGF Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper PTA Eastern and Southern Aii-ican Trade and Development Bank SDR Special Drawing Rights SMP Staff Monitored Program UNCTAD United Nations Conference o n Trade and Development WAEMU West Afiican Economic and Monetary U n i o n WAIFEM West AfXcan Institute for Financial and Economic Management WE0 World Economic Outlook i Executive Summary This report updates the status o f implementation, impact, and costs o f the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI).' Debt relief provided under the Initiatives has substantially alleviated debt burdens in recipient countries. Aided by continued flexibility on the part o f IDA and the Fund, substantial progress has been achieved under the Initiatives since the last ,report, and a number o f post-decision-point countries have already benefited from debt relief. 0 Since September 2008, two countries reached the decision-point and qualified for HIPC Initiative assistance, and three countries reached the completion-point and qualified for irrevocable debt relief from the HIPC Initiative and the MDFU. 0 In total, 35 (out o f 40) HIPCs have qualified for HIPC Initiative assistance, o f which 26 have reached the completion-point. 0 A number o f interim HIPCs are making progress, and are expected to reach the completion-point in the next 12- 18 months. Assistance committed to the 35 post-decision-point HIPCs represents on average about 40 percent o f these countries' 2008 GDP, and after the full delivery o f debt relief, will help to reduce their debt burden by about 80 percent. However, a number o f challenges remain in order to fully implement the Initiatives. 0 For the remaining pre-decision and several interim HIPCs to reach completion point, they will need to strengthen their policies and institutions, underpinned by continued support from the international community. 0 Another challenge i s to ensure that HIPCs get full debt r e l i e f from all their creditors. These include smaller multilateral creditors, non-Paris Club bilateral official creditors, and private creditors. 0 A final challenge will be to ensure that the HIPC Initiative and the MDRI are fully financed. Although resources are adequate to deliver debt relief committed to most HIPCs, additional funds would be needed to provide debt r e l i e f to protracted arrears cases, and for countries that may become eligible for HIPC Initiative debt relief in the future. Notwithstanding debt relief, maintaining debt sustainability beyond the completion-point i s a concern for many HIPCs, and the current global crisis has exacerbated such concerns. However, staffs analysis does not indicate a risk o f a major debt crisis in HIPCs. Nonetheless, HIPCs need to implement sound borrowing policies and strengthen their capacity to manage their public debt-two areas where the Bank and the Fund have already been assisting their low-income members. Henceforth, for brevity references to the enhanced H I P C Initiative will drop the word "enhanced." I. INTRODUCTION^ 1. This report reviews the implementation o f the Heavily Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI). Section I1reports o n the progress made in the implementation o f both initiatives since the publication o f the 2008 Status o Implementation reportY3 f while Section I11updates the estimated costs o f debt relief. Section I V discusses the main remaining challenges and Section V reviews the debt sustainability outlook o f HIPCs in light o f the global financial and economic crisis. 11. PROGRESS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HIPC INITIATIVE AND MDRI 2. Significant progress has been made in the past year, with five countries reaching key milestones: 0 Reached Completion-point: Burundi (January 2009), Central African Republic and Haiti (June 2009) have reached their respective completion points and qualified for irrevocable debt relief. 0 Reached Decision-point: Togo (November 2008) and C6te d'Ivoire (March 2009) have reached their respective decision points and begun receiving interim debt relief. 0 A total o f 35 countries (out o f 40)4 are now past their decision point, o f which 26 are past their completion point (Table 1). * This paper was prepared by Paul Moreno-Lopez, Luca Bandiera, Mona Prasad, and Signe Zeikate (World Bank); and Bhaswar Mukhopadhyay, Kadima Kalonji, Frangois Painchaud, Anna Unigovskaya, Jayendu D e and Shannon Mockler (IMF). Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative and Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI) - Status o f Implementation, EBD/08/89, August 28,2008 and IDA report number IDA/SecM2008-0561/1. The total number o f HIPCs (Le., countries that are potentially eligible for debt r e l i e f and may wish to avail themselves o f the HIPC Initiative) decreased fkom 4 1 to 40 countries after the Nepalese authorities informed the IMF and the IDA that Nepal does not wish to avail i t s e l f o f debt r e l i e f under the HIPC Initiative and MDRI. 2 Table 1. List of Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (as of end-July 2009) 26 Post-Completion-PointHIPCs Benin Gambia, The Niger Bolivia Haiti Rwanda Burkina Faso Honduras Silo Tom6 and Principe Burundi Madagascar Senegal Cameroon Malawi Sierra Leone Central Afiican Republic Mali Tanzania Ethiopia Mauritania Uganda Ghana Mozambique Zambia Guyana Nicaragua 9 Interim HIPCS */ Afghanistan Congo, Dem. Rep. o f the Guinea-Bissau CBte d'Ivoire Congo, Rep. o f Liberia Chad Guinea Togo 5 Pre-Decision-Point HIPCs 3 / 4 / Comoros Kyrgyz Republic '/ Sudan Eritrea Somalia 11 Countries that have qualified for irrevocable debt relief under the HIPC Initiative. 21 Countries that have qualified for assistance under the HIPC Initiative (Le,, reached decision point), but have not yet reached completion point. 31 Countries that are potentially eligible and may wish to avail themselves o f the HIPC Initiative or MDRI. 41 In February 2009, the Nepalese authorities communicated to I D A and the IMF that Nepal had decided not to avail itself of debt relief under the HIPC Initiative. Accordingly, Nepal has been removed from the list. SRhe Kyrgyz authorities indicated in early 2007 that they did not wish to avail themselves o f debt relief under the HIPC Initiative but subsequently expressed interest in the MDRI. Based on the latest available data, however, indebtedness indicators were estimated to be below the applicable HIPC Initiative thresholds, while income levels were estimated to be above the IMF MDRI thresholds. 3. While preserving the core principles o f the HIPC initiative, IDA and the IMF have continued to make use o f the flexibility available in the frame~ork.~ hasThis allowed HIPCs to receive early debt relief by taking into account individual country situations. Pre-decision-point arrears clearance operations: Major multilateral creditors, including the African Development Bank (AfDB) and IDA, provided grants in support o f arrears clearance operations for Togo and C6te d' Ivoire, which facilitated their reaching the decision point.6 In both countries, early (Le. pre-decision point) clearance o f arrears was made possible by the HIPC Initiative's provision that allows See section 1I.B o f the 2008 Status o Implementation report for a review o f the H I P C cases in which f flexibility was exercised in the past. In Togo, IDA provided an exceptional allocation o f US$146 million through a development policy operation, o n grant terms, which was used to finance the arrears clearance to IDA. The AfDB provided US$24 million, 99 percent on grant terms from i t s Fragile States Facility, to finance arrears clearance to AfDB. In CBte d'Ivoire, a similar grant-financing mechanism applied to h a l f o f the arrears t o IDA (US$271 million) and two- thirds o f the arrears to the AfDB (US$357 million, which i s in excess o f the required H I P C r e l i e f o f US$200 million). 3 the grant element o f the clearance o f arrears to count towards HIPC Initiative debt reliefa7 Establishment o a track record o reforms and economic stability: C6te d'Ivoire, f f after emerging from years o f civil conflict with significantly weakened institutional and administrative capacity, was able to build a track record towards the decision point with the implementation o f programs supported by two consecutive Emergency Post-Conflict Assistance (EPCA) purchases. Progress towards completion-point triggers: Judgment has continued to be used in this area. In the cases o f Burundi and Haiti, while some triggers had been only partially implemented, the Boards decided that sufficient progress had been made towards the underlying objectives. Preparation and implementation o poverty reduction strategies: Togo reached the f decision point on the basis o f an Interim-Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper ( - I PRSP). In a country with limited administrative capacity, debt r e l i e f could have been significantly delayed had a full PRSP been required. 4. Debt relief provided under the Initiatives has substantially alleviated debt burdens in recipient countries. The overall assistance committed to the 3 5 post-decision- point HIPCs under the Initiatives represents on average about 408percent o f these countries' 2008 GDP.' The debt burden for these countries i s expected to be reduced by about 80 percent, compared to pre-decision-point levels, owing to this debt relief, together with relief under traditional mechanisms and additional ("beyond HIPC") relief from Paris Club creditors (Figure 1). See "HIPC Debt Initiative: The Chairman's Summary o f the Multilateral Development Banks' Meeting," March 6, 1998, I D N S e c M98-90. Compared to last year's report, the ratio o f nominal debt relief committed in percent o f GDP i s lower by 10 percentage points, due t o GDP growth and smaller nominal debt r e l i e f ratios for the two additional countries (C6te d'Ivoire and Togo) that reached decision point. 'Debt relief committed under the Initiatives amounts to around US$124 billion in nominal terms, o f which about US$52 billion are under the MDRI (including projected assistance under the MDRIto interim HIPCs). 4 Figure 1. Post-Decision-Point HIPCs' Debt Stock under Different Debt Relief Stages (In billions o f U.S. dollars, in end-2008 N P V terms) Before traditional After traditional debt After HIPC Initiative After additional After MDRI debt relief relief debt relief bilateral debt relief Sources: H I P C Initiative country documents, and IDA and IMF staff estimates. Note: Estimates based o n decision-point debt stocks. 5. Beyond debt relief, IDA and the IMF are providing other forms of assistance to help countries maintain debt sustainability. Specifically, such assistance has taken the following forms: Scaling up o debt management technical assistance to Low-Income Countries (LICs) f and IDA-only countries through the Debt Management Facility (DMF).lo o f end- As July 2009, Debt Management Performance Assessments (DeMPAs)'' were carried out in 33 countries, including 21 HIPCs. These assessments will help country authorities 10 These efforts are being supported by financing from the Debt Management Facility, a grant facility financed by a multi-donor trust fund managed by The World Bank, established in November 2008. The DMF helps strengthen debt management policies and institutions in eligible countries by financing the systematic application o f the W o r l d Bank's Debt Management Performance Assessment (DeMPA) tool. I t also supports World Bank participation in technical assistance efforts to facilitate the country-led application o f a toolkit for formulating and implementing a Medium-Term Debt Management Strategy (MTDS). The Fund intends to establish a debt-related Topical Trust Fund to help provide resources to support the Fund's involvement in this work. See "Managing Public Debt: Formulating Strategies and Strengthening Institutional Capacity", March, 2009, IDA/SecM2009-0100 and SMl09l64. A l1 methodology for identifying the strengths and weaknesses o f debt management operations through a set o f indicators spanning the full range o f government debt management functions. See www.worldbank.org/debt. 5 identify areas where technical assistance might be required to achieve a satisfactory level o f capacity. Technical assistance in implementingthe Medium-TermDebt Strategy (MTDS) toolkit" has been provided to six countries since the last Status of Implementation report. Efforts to promote the use o the Debt Sustainability Framework (DSF) are also f The contin~ing'~. Fund and the Bank have continued DSF outreach activities by organizing three workshops for country authorities from low-income countries, including HIPCs. Since 2006, outreach efforts have been successful in enhancing coordination among creditor^'^ and promoting better understanding o f the DSF among debtors as a guide for their borrowing decisions. In addition, IDA'Snon- concessional borrowing policy (NCBP) stresses the importance o f sound debt management, improved debt reporting, and, if warranted by debt sustainability concerns, a reduction in the volume o f IDA financing and adjustment to IDA lending terms. l5 6. Concomitant with progress under the Initiative, HIPCs were able to increase their poverty reducing expenditure. For the 35 post-decision-point HIPCs, poverty reducing expenditure between 2001 and 2008 increased by 2 percentage points o f GDP, on average, while debt service obligations declined by the same order o f magnitude (Figure 2, and Table 1 in the Appendix). 7. Despite these positive developments, post-completion-point HIPCs have made uneven progress towards meeting their MDGs. With the exception o f improvements in primary education and ensuring gender equality, more than half o f post-completion-point l2The available toolkit includes a Guidance Note, a template for strategy documentation, and a quantitative tool for cost-risk analysis, w i t h a User's Guide. See http://~~~.imf.or~external/pp/longres.aspx?id=4326and www. worldbank.orddebt. l3See "A review o some aspects o the low-income country debt sustainabilityframework", August 2009, f f IDNSecM2009-0397 and SM/O9/2 16. l4First, an increasing number o f MDBs (AfDB, AsDB, I a D B and IFAD) incorporate elements o f the D S F into their own financing terms or take into account D S F risk ratings. Second, the new AfDB policy on non- concessional debt accumulation mirrors the IDA's N o n Concessional Borrowing Policy (NCBP). Third, the OECD Working Group o n Export Credits and Guarantees adopted a set o f sustainable lending guidelines in January 2008, which include an agreement to adhere to IDA and IMF concessionality requirements in low- income countries. Finally, Bank and IMF staff have also attended various meetings w i t h private creditors to share information o n the DSF. To l5 end-July 2009, eight countries that had contracted debt with a lower than required grant element were assessed under the IDA's NCBP. The results o f the assessments reflected the case-by-case approach adopted within the parameters set out in the framework. Thus far, there have been three exceptions to the N C B P (Mali, Rwanda and Senegal), two cases o f hardening o f the terms (Angola and Ghana) to reflect the countries' increased market access, and t w o preliminary exceptions (Mauritania and DRC). 6 HIPCs are unlikely to meet their MDGs (See Table 3 in Annex I).16 has been Progress slowest in fragile states, which present difficult political and governance challenges for effective delivery o f development finance and services. l7 Figure 2: Avera-bt Expenditures" Service and Poverty Reducing~~~~- - - - --~- " 1: ~ _ " - _ - - ^ 1 1 - 1 _ ~ ~ - _ - ~ I - ~ - - " &@ ~ 9 Poverty Reducing Expenditures 8 4I 5 -; Sources: HIPC documents; and IMF staff estimates. "Prior to 2008, figures represent debt-service paid, and thereafter, debt-service figures are projected. For detailed country data refer to Appendix Table 2. 1. 1 1 AN UPDATE ON THE COSTS OF THE HIPC INITIATIVE AND THE MDRI 8. T h e total cost o f HIPC Initiative debt relief to creditors i s estimated at US$74 billion in end-2008 NPV terms (Table 2). More than half o f the cost, or US$39 billion, represents irrevocable debt r e l i e f to the 26 post-completion-point countries. The cost for the 9 interim countries amounts to US$19billion, an increase o f around 9 percent from last year. This i s mainly on account o f CBte d'Ivoire, whose estimated cost o f HIPC Initiative relief amounted to US$3 billion in end-2008 N P V terms. The cost o f HIPC Initiative debt r e l i e f to the remaining five pre-decision-point HIPCs i s estimated at US$17 billion, most o f which i s accounted for by two countries-Sudan and Somalia. Topping-up l6Compared to results achieved in the five Latin American HIPCs, sub-Saharan Afiican (SSA) HIPCs lag behind particularly in reducing child mortality and ensuring gender equality. However, SSA HIPCs fare better in improving access to education and controlling the spread o f H I V i A I D S and other diseases. l7See "Global Monitoring Report 2009", The W o r l d Bank and the IMF. 7 assistance (provided so far to six HIPCs) represents less than 3 percent o f the total HIPC Initiative cost.'* Table 2. HIPC Initiative: Costs by Main Creditor and Country Group (In billions o f U.S. dollars, in end-2008 NPV terms, unless otherwise indicated) Post-Compe i o n - Interim T o t a l Post-De ason- Pre-Decision-Point Total PointHPCs BIFCs Point R I P 0 HP sc (26) (9) (35 ) (5) ( 40) (0 (1 9 (r) +(a) @I)= (1v) W)= + (IV) M u l t l a k r a l credkors 21.4 6.7 28.1 5.3 3 3.4 IDA 10 6 26 13 2 15 147 IMF 30 15 46 I 8 6.4 AfDB Group 2 9 19 4.8 05 5.3 IaDB 17 00 1.7 00 17 Other 31 07 3.8 15 5.3 B i h t e a l and mmmercialcreditors 17.4 11.8 29 2 11 3 4 0.4 Pais Club 12 2 4 87 20 9 5.6 2 6.5 Other Offkid Bilateral 42 07 49 47 9.6 Commercial 0 9 24 34 10 4.3 T o t a l Costs 38.8 18.5 57 3 16 .6 739 Memorandum Items T otal Costs from Previous Re poit l/ 37.1 17 0 54 1 21 .o 75.1 T o t a l C l a n g e i n Costs@ercent) 46 87 59 -2 10 -1.6 - d u e t o N w Qses2/ 48 90 61 -2 1 9 -1 8 - due to D S a Revisions * 0.2 -0 3 .02 09 0.2 ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ Sources: Countryautbrities, and World Bank md IMF s t d estimates. I/Totalcossasreporkd m Table2 o f ' H I P C Initiative a d M D R I S t S u s o f Implemntation, September2OOB",discounkd to md-2008 t e r m Costcalculationsexdude Nepal Z / S i n c e August 2008,Bumndi the Central AfncanRepubliq andHaib reached comp1aionpoint;Togo and Coted'Ivoirereached thedecisionpoint Nepalese authorities communicatdto I D A and tk M F IhatNep d haddecided not toavs'l i t s d f ofdebt relief under the HIPC Initia 6ve 9. Multilateral (45 percent) and Paris Club (36 percent) creditors bear the largest shares o f the total cost o f the HIPC Initiative (Table 2). Among multilateral creditors, the heaviest burdens are borne by IDA (20 percent), the IMF (9 percent) and the A D B Group (7 percent). The share o f total cost borne by multilateral creditors i s higher for post- completion-point countries (55 percent) than for interim countries (36 percent) or pre- decision-point countries (32 percent). Looking ahead, Paris Club creditors will be called upon to deliver a larger share o f relief to interim countries, estimated at 47 percent, compared to about one-third for post-completion-point and pre-decision-point countries. For non-Paris Club and commercial creditors, their share o f total costs i s estimated to be highest in pre- decision-point countries (34 percent) (Table 3). 10. With respect to MDRI, the total cost to the four participating creditors i s estimated at US$29 billion in end-2008 NPV terms. About 85 percent has already been l8These include Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Malawi, Niger, Rwanda, and S%oTome and Principe. 8 delivered to the 26 post-completion-point countries (Table 3), and two non-HIPCs (Cambodia and Tajikistan) by the IMF. Two thirds o f the total estimated MDRI cost will be borne by IDA, with the share o f the IMF, AfDF and IaDB amounting to 15,13, and 8 percent, respectively (Figure 3). Figure 3. Distribution o f Potential Costs under the HIPC Initiative and MDRI by Creditor (In end-2008 N P V terms, unless otherwise indicated) Under the HIPC Initiative Under the MDRI 100% 90% IDA 80% 18.2 bln 64% 70% 60% S Commercial 50% &¶ Other Bilateral Parisclub IaDB 40% 24bln ir Multilateral 8% 30% 20% 15% 10% 0% - ,. Post-Completion Point Interim Pre-DecisionPoint Sources: HIPCs decision and completion point documents. Note: * Excludes non-HIPCs 9 Table 3. MDRI Costs by Creditor and Country Group (In billions o f U.S. dollars and in end-2008 NPV terms) Assistance in end-2008 NPV Assistance in Nominal Terms 2/ Terms Foregone Principal and Foregone Principal Total Interest Interest Post-Completion-PointHIPCs I/ 40.4 4.6 45.0 24.4 IDA 21.6 2.1 30.3 15.3 IMF 3/ 51 3.2 ... 3.2 3.1 AfDF 6.3 0.8 1.2 3.1 IaDB 3.3 1.0 4.4 2.4 Interim and Pre-Decision-PointHIPCs 2/ 7.5 0.7 8.2 4.1 IDA 5.5 0.5 6.0 2.9 IMF 31 0.6 ... 0.6 0.6 AfDF 1.5 0.2 1.6 0.7 IaDB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~ ~ ~~~ All HIPCs 47.9 5.3 53.2 28.5 IDA 33 1 32 36 3 18.2 IMF 3/ 38 38 4.2 AfDF 18 10 88 3.8 IaDB 33 10 44 2.4 Non-HIPCs 4/ 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Sources: Country authorities, and World Bank, IMF, AtDB and IaDB staff estimates. 1/ These countries have qualified for MDRI relief. Figures are based on actual disbursements and commitments 2/ Estimates are preliminary and subject to various assumptions, including the timing o f HIPC decision and completion points, and, where applicable, o f arrears clearance. 3/ The estimated costs for IMF reflect the stock o f debt eligible for MDRI relief, which i s the debt outstanding (principal only) as o f end- 2004 and that has not been repaid by the member and i s not covered by HIPC assistance at the time o f the debt relief (EBS/05/158 Revision 1, 12/1) 41 IMF MDRI assistance to Cambodia and Tajikistan. 51 Includes IMF MDRI assistance to Burundi and Central African Republic. IV. REMAINING CHALLENGES 11. W h i l e recent progress under the Initiatives has been encouraging, three important challenges remain to be met to fulfill the objectives o f the Initiatives. A. Taking Remaining Countries through the HIPC Initiative Process 12. Many o f the pre-completion-point countries have suffered from common challenges related to preserving peace and stability, improving governance, and delivering basic services that have underminedtheir economic development. l9Addressing their debt-related l 9 All but one o f the remaining 14 pre-completion-point HIPCs are considered fiagile states according to the definition adopted by the World Bank. For the purposes o f this report, fragile states are IDA-eligible countries with an average Country Performance and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) rating o f 3.2 and below. However, (continued) 10 vulnerabilities through the HIPC Initiative and MDRI r e l i e f will be an important step to overcome their development challenges.20 13. A number o f countries are well placed to make significant progress under the Initiative during the next 12-18 months (Annex I). e Interim countries at an advanced stage; Afghanistan, Liberia, and the Republic o f Congo are well placed to reach their completion points-their Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) supported programs are on track, they have developed and implemented poverty reduction strategies for at least one year, and have made significant progress in implementing their floating completion-point triggers. Interim countries at a less advanced stage: Togo and CBte d'Ivoire are at earlier stages o f implementation o f their completion-point triggers, and are also making progress as their PRGF-supported programs are o n track. Pre-decision-point countries: Comoros' request for a PRGF-supported program i s expected to be considered by the Executive Board o f the Fund by end-September." Successful implementation o f the program should lay the basis for reaching the decision point in the first half o f 2010. 14. The remaining interim countries have been at that stage longer than any others (Figure 4). This i s in contrast to the relatively short interim periods in countries that reached the completion point within the past 12 months, and points to the challenges ahead in sustaining progress under the Initiatives. different organizations use different parameters to assess fragility, in general combining aspects o f the capacity and accountability o f institutions w i t h indicators related to risk o f conflict. See "IDA15: Operational Approaches and Financing in Fragile States", June 2007. 20 Additionally, building institutional capacity, including through the strengthening o f public financial management (PFM) systems w i l l be key to ensuring more effective and efficient use o f the resources freed-up by debt relief. '* July 23,2009, the Executive Board o f the IMF approved wide-ranging reforms o f Low-Income Country On (LIC) lending facilities that w i l l become effective once contributors to the PRGF-ESF Trust consent to the changes. Once effective, the PRGF will be automatically converted into the Extended Credit Facility (ECF). This paper, however, continues to refer to prospective long-term arrangements as PRGFs. 11 F i g u r e 4. D u r a t i o n o f the I n t e r i m Period u n d e r the HIPC Initiative (in years) and Pnncipe Gnnbw, l h c Honduras I 20 00 2001 2002 2003 20 04 2005 2006 20 07 20 os 2009 Sources: HIPCs decision and completion point documents. 15. Nonetheless, in some o f these countries, the prospects f o r progress u n d e r the Initiatives have recently improved. e Guinea-Bissau experienced many years o f conflict, but has since implemented a program with the IMF supported by EPCA purchases that could pave the way for a PRGF arrangement in the future. The PRSP's annual progress report i s expected by end-2009. e The Democratic Republic o f Congo (DRC), which underwent years o f internal conflict, i s at an advanced stage in i t s discussions with the IMF o n a PRGF- supported program. A final agreement may be reached in the coming months once pending issues related to large nonconcessional borrowing are resolved. e In Chad, years o f conflict and political instability, together with external financing from o i l revenues, contributed to slow progress towards the completion point. However, following the decline in o i l prices and emerging budgetary pressures, agreement was reached on a IMF staff-monitored program (SMP) covering April- 12 October 2009 which, with suitable implementation o f the SMP, may be followed by a PRGF arrangement. 16. The main obstacles to the remaining countries' progress under the H I P C Initiative continue to be primarily o f a political and/or security nature. e Guinea, which had implemented most o f i t s completion-point triggers, suffered a setback after a military coup in December 2008. The new regime does not currently enjoy broad international recognition. This has led to the suspension o f discussions for the finalization o f the second review o f the PRGF-supported program and o f the HIPC completion point, and several key financial assistance programs from other major development partners have been suspended.22 e Somalia and Sudan, afflicted by internal division and conflict, have protracted arrears to multilateral institutions. They will need to mobilize resources to clear their arrears prior to reaching their decision point.23Mobilizing such resources will be challenging, given the size o f arrears. e Eritrea' s authorities indicated in 2008 discussions that they would consider seeking HIPC Initiative assistance once the security situation improves. 17. The Kyrgyz Republic has not expressed a willingness to avail itself o f debt relief under the H I P C Initiative. Based o n the latest available data, however, debt indicators were estimated to be below the applicable HIPC Initiative thresholds. B. Ensuring the Full Participation o f All Creditors 18. I t i s critical that all creditors deliver their share o f debt relief to significantly alleviate the debt burdens o f the remaining HIPCs. This i s consistent with the objective o f the Initiative to share equitably the burden o f r e l i e f among all creditors. Large multilateral and Paris Club creditors have provided their full share o f debt relief. Accordingly, the discussion below focuses on other creditors. Small Multilateral Creditors 19. Nearly all multilateral creditors have committed to delivering H I P C Initiative debt relief at completion point. In addition to the largest four creditors24(Table 3), another ~~ 22 The authorities issued the second PRSP in August 2007, and a Joint Staff Assessment Note (JSAN) was prepared and presented to the Board in December 2007. The first Annual Performance Review o f the PRSP-I1 was issued in October 2008. As of end-December 2008, Somalia's arrears to IDA and the IMF amount to US$192 million and U S 3 7 3 23 million. Sudan's arrears to IDA and the IMF total US$508 million and US$1,532 million. 24 IDA, IMF, AfDB and IaDB. 13 20 multilateral creditors, accounting for 14 percent o f total HIPC assistance costs, have committed to deliver debt r e l i e f to all HIPCs at completion point.25Six o f these creditors also provide debt r e l i e f in the interim period through debt service reduction or rescheduling of arrears and maturities falling due.26 However, another eight multilateral creditors, representing less than 0.5 percent o f estimated HIPCs costs, have not yet indicated their intention to provide r e l i e f under the HIPC Initiative. *' 20. Efforts at monitoring debt relief provided by smaller multilateral creditors are ongoing. A survey carried out in 2009 by the World Bank, to which seven o f the smaller multilateral creditors28responded, indicates that such creditors have delivered half or more o f their committed debt r e l i e f to completion-point countries. Staffs are working with their counterparts in the remaining multilateral development banks (MDBs), representing HIPC costs amounting to about 5 percent o f the total committed to post-completion-point HIPCs, to increase responses and institutionalize the tracking mechanism. Non-Paris Club Official Bilateral Creditors 21. Progress in the delivery o f debt relief by non-Paris Club bilateral creditors has been limited since last year's report. 29 The share o f HIPC Initiative debt relief delivered by these creditors, which represents about 13 percent o f the total cost, remains low, at around 35-40 percent (Appendix Table 15). Major developments include the cancellation o f claims by Algeria on the Central African Republic and the provision o f i t s full share o f debt r e l i e f to 25 See Table 5 in the Appendix for a complete l i s t o f multilateralcreditors. 26 These creditors are the European Union, the European Investment Bank, the Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa, Central American Bank for Economic Integration (to Honduras only), Islamic Development Bank and OPECFund for International Development. 27 These creditors are: Bank o f Central Afiican States (BEAC), Central African States Development Bank (BDEAC), the Economic Community o f West Afiican States (ECOWAS), Eastern and Southern African Trade and Development Bank (PTA Bank), Development Bank o f Great Lake States (BDEGL), Fund o f Aid and o f Loans Guarantee o f the Agreement Council (FEGECE), Fondo Centroamericano de Estabilizacion Monetaria (FOCEM), and the Islamic Fund for Solidarity and Economic Development (FSID). 28 These creditors are the Northern Development Fund (NDF), Nordic Investment Bank (NIB), European Union (EU), European Investment Bank (EIB), Islamic Development Bank (IsDB), Central American Bank for Economic Integration (CABEI), and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). For details o f the amounts o f committed and delivered relief under the HIPC Initiative to post-completionpoint countries by each MDB, see Table 5 in the Appendix. 29Includes Argentina, Brazil, the Republic o f Korea, Kuwait, Mexico, Morocco, Portugal, South Africa, and Trinidad and Tobago, which are associated members o f the Paris Club. As such, these countries participate in negotiation sessions o f the Paris Club on a case-by-casebasis. 14 and Nicaragua; China's delivery o f debt relief to Burundi and the Central African R e p ~ b l i c ; ~ ' the full provision o f debt relief by Oman to Senegal, and by Portugal to Siio Tom6 and Principe. Commercial Creditors 22. Commercial creditors account for 6 percent o f the total cost o f debt relief to be provided to the 35 post-decision-pointHIPCs. Commercial creditors' share o f the cost estimates o f debt relief to be provided to post-decision-point-HIPCs has been increasing primarily because those creditors account for over 30 percent o f total HIPC debt r e l i e f to Gate d'Ivoire. 23. Commercial creditors have improved their overall provision o f debt relief through significant debt relief provided to CGte d'Ivoire and Liberia. London Club creditors, accounting for nearly one-third o f total HIPC assistance to Cate d'Ivoire, have already provided their expected debt r e l i e f through a rescheduling agreement signed in 1998.31 April 2009, commercial creditors provided full debt relief to Liberia under a debt In buyback operation supported by the Debt Reduction Facility (DRF) o f IDA and contributions from bilateral donors, which helped extinguish US$1.2 billion o f commercial debt at a deep discount (97 percent o f face value). 24. Litigation by commercial creditors, which had been an impediment to the delivery o f full debt relief to HIPCs, appears to be less o f a problem now, according to information provided by HIPCs' a u t h o r i t i e ~Early engagement with commercial creditors, .~~ including through DRF operations, helped reduce the number o f outstanding litigation cases against HIPCs from 33 to 14 cases over the past year.33 This large reduction in litigations mostly reflects the impact o f recent DRF operations in Nicaragua and Liberia, as well as out- 30 China'sdelivery o f debt relief occurred in 2007 for both Burundi and the Central African Republic (before they reached their completion point). 31 Debt relief by commercial creditors to CBte d'Ivoire was not previously accounted for until CBte d'Ivoire reached i t s decision point under the HIPC Initiative in March 2009. 32 Surveys were sent to country authorities requesting data o n litigations. More than h a l f o f those surveyed responded (25 H I P C countries out o f 40), which i s broadly similar to last year's response rate. The results o f the survey are broadly comparable to those ftom a survey undertaken by the Institute o f International Finance (see IIFEMTA Study o n Creditor Litigation against Sovereigns). 33 The 2008 Status o Implementation Report indicated that 54 court cases had been filed by commercial f creditors against 12 HIPCs over the past decade. Of these 54 cases, 33 were s t i l l active (Le. not settled) at the time o f the publication o f the report. Since then, the number o f active litigation cases has declined to 14. 15 of-court settlements by Cameroon, the Republic o f Congo, Sierra Leone and Zambia. 34 Furthermore, a joint litigation by five creditors against Nicaragua was dropped. 25. While recent developments are encouraging, the threat of new litigation remains. New lawsuits have been initiated last year against the DRC, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Zambia. DRF operations under preparation, including those for the D R C and Sierra Leone, may help reach a settlement agreement to the extent that the litigating creditors participate to the buyback operations. Additional support for HIPCs facing litigation will be available from the African Legal Support which was formally launched by the African Development Bank on June 29,2009. 26. Initiatives are underway in some donor countries to introduce legislation curtailing the scope of litigation against HIPCs. In both the United States and the United Kingdom, options are being considered to introduce legislation to limit non-participating creditors' ability to seek awards from HIPCs via the courts in the U.S. and U.K. To this end, the U.K. Government has launched a consultation on legislation that would limit the proportion o f debts previously contracted by a HIPC that a creditor could reclaim under U.K. law.36 The U.S. Congress i s considering similar proposals.37In M a y 2008, a law to this effect was also introduced in Belgium.38 C. Ensuring Financing of the HIPC Initiative and M D N 27. At the World Bank, the Debt Relief Trust Fund (DRTF) and IDA are sufficiently resourced to cover debt relief costs under the HIPC Initiative over the IDA15 commitment period (FY09-11). Based on current commitments, it i s expected that future IDA replenishments would include sufficient resources to finance IDA'Scost o f debt r e l i e f under the Initiatives. e The DRTF, in addition to supporting the regional and multilateral creditors in providing HIPC debt r e l i e f to eligible HIPCs, may utilize received donor contributions for arrears clearance operations o f IDA, as well as possible contributions from IBRD net income to meet any remaining structural gap in the 34 For Nicaragua, these are litigations settled in September and December 2008 as part o f the DRF supported operation o f October 2007. 35 On December 15,2008,29 countries and one international organization ratified the Agreement creating the Facility hosted by the AfDB, thereby enabling it to come into force. See African Legal Support Facilitv. 36 See Ensuring;effective debt relief for poor countries: a consultation on legislation. 37 See the "Stop VULTURE Funds" Bill introduced in June 2009 as H.R. 2932. 38 See http://reflex.raadvst-consetat.be/reflex/pdf/Mbbs/2008/05/16/109374.pdf. 16 To mid MDRI financing fiamew~rk.~~ July 2009, donors have pledged close to US$4 billion to the DRTF to support the eligible regional and sub-regional creditors, and have contributed more than US$3.8 billion in the form o f cash and promissory notes (See Appendix table The Trust Fund has disbursed more than US$2.8 billion to these creditors to support their provision o f debt r e l i e f to eligible H I P C S . ~ ~ IDA resources to finance debt r e l i e f under the Initiatives for the IDA 15 commitment period (FY09-11) include donor contributions amounting to SDR 1.1 billion for HIPC r e l i e f and SDR 4.1 billion for debt forgiveness under the MDRI. In IDA 15, donors also committed SDR 0.9 billion to finance the full cost o f arrears clearance by eligible countries to IDA and the IBRD through the DRTF.42 28. F o r the IMF, available resources are estimated to be sufficient to cover the projected cost o f debt relief to all the remaining HIPCs, except the protracted arrears cases o f Somalia and Sudan. Because there was no provision for debt relief to Somalia and Sudan under the original HIPC/MDRI financing fiamework, additional resources would be needed when these countries are ready to embark on the HIPC Initiative (see paragraph 8 above). Additional resources would also need to be mobilized to finance debt relief to any new countries that may be found eligible for the HIPC Initiative and the MDRI. V. DEBT SUSTAINABILITY 29. Debt relief provided under the Initiatives has considerably reduced debt vulnerabilities in post-completion-point countries. Debt vulnerabilities in post- completion-point HIPCs-as measured by the distribution o f Debt Sustainability Framework (DSF, Box 1) risk ratings-are on average much lower than in pre-completion-point HIPCs. The comparison with non-HIPCs i s also favorable (Table 4). However, a few post- completion-point countries remain vulnerable to debt-related problems. Five are s t i l l Box 1: Debt Sustainability Framework The objective o f the j o i n t Fund-Bank debt sustainability framework (DSF), which was introduced in 2005, i s to support low-income countries (LICs) in their efforts to achieve their development goals without creating future debt problems. The debt sustainability analysis (DSA) under the DSF focuses o n five debt burden indicators in order to assess present value (PV) o f debt-to-GDP; (ii) V o f debt-to- the risk o f external public debt distress, namely: (i) P exports; (iii) o f debt-to-revenues; (iv) debt service-to-revenues; and (v) debt service-to-exports. PV A risk o f debt distress rating i s derived by reviewing the evolution o f debt burden indicators compared to their indicative policy-dependant debt-burden thresholds under a baseline scenario, alternative scenarios and stress tests. Countries can be classified as: (i)o w risk; (ii) l moderate risk; (iii) high risk; or (iv) in debt distress. The thresholds depend o n a country's quality o f policies and institutions as measured by the three-year average o f the Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) index, compiled annually by the World Bank. See "Staff Guidance Note on the Application o f the Joint Fund-Bank Debt Sustainability Framework for Low-Income Countries", IMF, 2008 , and SecM2008-0441 October 2008, The World Bank. The indicative policy-dependant thresholds correspondto probabilities o f debt distress ranging between 18 and 22 percent for CPIA ratings o f 3.25, 3.5 and 3.75 (the benchmarks set for weak, moderate and strong performers, respectively). 17 characterized as being at a high risk o f debt I t should be noted that these risk ratings are based on the most recent DSAs endorsed by the Boards which have generally been undertaken during the last year. For many such DSAs, the underlying macroeconomic framework may not fully reflect the adverse impacts o f the ongoing global financial crisis. Table 4. Distribution o f risk o f debt distress by country groupings' Risk o f debt distress (in percent of applicable country group) Low Moderate High I n debt distress Number of Country Groupings Countries Non-ltlPCsand completion point fi1PCs 57 36.8 38.6 21.1 3.5 Non-HIPCs 31 35 5 35 5 22 6 65 Completion point HIPCs 26 38 5 42 3 19 2 00 Interim countries 9 0.0 11.1 33.3 55.6 Be-decision point countries 4 0.0 25.0 25.0 50.0 11Based on debt sustainability analyses available as o f end-July 2009. 21 Excludes 8 PRGF-eligible countries (Azerbaijan, India, Kiribati, Maldives, Pakistan, Somalia, Timor Leste and Uzbekistan), for which L I C DSAs are unavailable or were not produced because countries had significant market access. 31 Excludes Somalia, as no DSA i s available. 30. Recent global developments pose additional challenges for all HIPCs, including post-completion-point countries. In particular, the global economic downturn i s expected to have a strong negative effect on low-income countries through exports, FDI, remittances and (possibly) aid flows. The adverse impact o n economic activity and government revenues i s expected to lead to increased budgetary and external financing gaps in many countries.44As a result, it i s anticipated that debt burden indicators in all LICs will deteriorate, although the magnitude o f the deterioration will depend on the persistence o f the downturn and the degree o f macroeconomic adjustment. 3 1. Staffs have analyzed the impact o f the crisis on debt vulnerabilities in HIPCs using a two-pronged approach. 43 This compares to four countries last year - Burkina Faso, Gambia, Silo Tom6 and Principe and Rwanda. W h i l e Rwanda's rating was upgraded to moderate in the past year, the l i s t n o w also includes Burundi and Haiti, two HIPCs that reached their completion point in 2009. 44 See The Implications o f the Global Financial Crisis for L o w Income Countries, IMF, February 2009, SWO9/57; and Global Development Finance, The W o r l d Bank, 2009. 18 Where a member's DSA was issued to the Boards recently (Le., after end-May 2009), the analysis i s based on the DSA.45 In all other cases, the impact o f the crisis on debt vulnerabilities i s simulated by updating the most recent DSA using the macroeconomic projections contained in the August WE0 submission (see B o x 2).46 32. The criteria used in the simulations to define the impact o f the crisis on countries' debt vulnerabilities depend on their initial risk ratings. 0 Countries presently rated to be at l o w or moderate risk o f external debt distress are judged to be vulnerable to adverse debt developments if the analysis indicates the possibility o f a rating downgrade. However, such developments signal a deterioration in the long-term debt outlook o f these countries, rather than an impending debt crisis. For high-risk countries, a different yardstick needs to be used to identify countries most vulnerable to the crisis from a debt sustainability perspective. Specifically, such countries are deemed to be more vulnerable if at least two debt burden indicators experience a large and sustained breach o f their DSF thresholds. Such developments in high-risk countries may point to more severe and pressing debt- related problems. 33. Overall, the crisis i s expected to have a significant impact on key macroeconomic aggregates in HIPCs. A comparison o f the macroeconomic projections in recent DSAs and in the August WE0 submission with the projections in older DSAs indicates, on average, a downward revision o f nominal GDP by about 7 percent, exports by about 9 percent, and government revenue by 12 percent. 34. The staffs' analysis o f the impact o f the crisis does not suggest a risk o f a major debt crisis in HIPCs, but points to an increase in debt vulnerabilities for a number o f co~ntries.~" 48 45 I t i s assumed that such DSAs are based on macroeconomic frameworks that capture the impact o f the crisis more filly than projections underlying older DSAs. Recent DSAs were done for Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Central Afiican Republic, the Republic o f Congo, Ghana, Haiti, Madagascar, Mozambique, Rwanda, and Senegal. While the last published WE0 was issued in April 2009, Fund staff have submitted internal updates to those 46 WE0 country forecasts. 47The increase for countries for which the analysis i s based o n simulations i s in relation to the latest available DSAs, and for those where the analysis i s based o n a recently available DSA, the comparison i s w i t h the previous DSA. 19 e High-risk countries: Afghanistan, an interim HIPC, i s likely to experience a large increase in its debt burden indicators. e Moderate-risk countries: Five post-completion-point HIPCs could face increased debt vulnerabilities: Ethiopia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nicaragua, and Sierra Leone. For Ethiopia, Mauritania, and Nicaragua the breach o f D S A thresholds under the updated scenarios are temporary and/or limited. e Low-risk countries: Mali, a post-completion-point country, could also face increased debt vulnerabilities. Nonetheless, while more vulnerable now, Mali's debt-related problems do not appear to be serious. 35. High debt vulnerabilities in post-completion-pointcountries pose more serious problems than in pre-decision-point and interim countries. For pre-decision-point countries, HIPC debt r e l i e f can be tailored to their specific circumstances, while HIPC debt r e l i e f committed at the decision-point to interim countries may be topped-up if the deterioration in debt indicators results from shocks beyond the country's control. In contrast, these mechanisms are no longer available to address a deterioration in the debt outlook for post-completion-point countries. 36. These results have a number o f important policy implications. e Close monitoring o f debt developments in high-risk post-completion countries will be needed to safeguard debt sustainability, and countries at higher risk will need to adopt particularly prudent fiscal and borrowing policies to reduce debt-related vulnerabilities. e Donors and official creditors will need to provide HIPCs with highly concessional resources in order to maintain debt sustainability and avoid excessive adjustment in the more vulnerable countries. At the same time, tighter fiscal constraints in donor and creditor countries raise concerns over the availability o f additional highly concessional resources.49 The lack o f adequate concessional resources combined with a longer recession, could worsen further debt indicators and lead to the re- 48 While the more recent DSAs typically show increased debt vulnerabilities, no country has experienced a deterioration o f i t s risk rating. In the recent DSAs, only the Central Afiican Republic has experienced a change in i t s risk o f debt distress (improvement from high risk t o moderate) after it received HIPC and MDRI debt relief. 49 The 2009 D A C Report o n A i d Predictability: Survey o f Donors' Forward Spending Plans 2009-201 1 surveyed donors' participation in initiatives to mitigate the adverse impact o f the crisis. The report indicates a number o f bilateral and multilateral initiatives and highlights the importance o f sustained and scaled-up resources t o fill the public expenditure gap o f low-income countries. At the same time, a survey of donors intentions indicated a fiontloading o f budget support expenditures in 2008, followed by declines in 2009-201 1. The anticipated reductions in 2009-201 1 could reflect short-term programming uncertainties or the impact of the crisis o n donors' aid budgets. 20 emergence o f debt related problems in post-completion-point HIPCs who have exhausted all o f the standard avenues o f debt relief. 0 It i s imperative that efforts to improve debt management capacity be sustained (for both external and domestic public debt). 37. The Bank and the Fund are taking a number of steps to help countries that have been affected by the crisis. 0 IDA has made highly concessional financing available for vulnerable countries. At the Fund, as part o f the reform o f i t s L I C financing facilities, the IMF's Board increased significantly the volume o f concessional resources available for lending to LICs, approved temporary forgiveness o f interest on all concessional loans through end-20 11, as well as on all outstanding E N D N E P C A credit through end-January 20 12,50and adopted a more concessional interest rate structure for the medium term." The Bank and the Fund have also continued to advocate to donors the importance o f providing concessional financing for vulnerable countries and, more generally, o f honoring prior commitments on aid to LICs. The staffs are providing L I C members policy and technical advice as regards the appropriate response to the crisis. The staffs also continue to provide technical assistance to improve debt management capacity and training in the use o f the DSF, as mentioned above. VI. CONCLUSIONS 38. Very significant progress has been achieved in implementing the HIPC Initiative and the MDRI. With 35 o f 40 eligible countries reaching the decision point by end June- 2 0 0 9 4 f which 26 have reached the completion point-the HIPC Initiative has provided much needed debt relief to most HIPCs. A number o f the remaining interim HIPCs are also well placed to progress towards completion point in the period ahead, and benefit from irrevocable debt r e l i e f under the Initiatives. 39. Nonetheless, some important challenges remain in order to fully implement the Initiatives. Some pre-decision point countries continue to be affected by severe political problems, while in a number o f long-standing interim countries, the progress that has been achieved o f late i s s t i l l at a nascent stage. To reach the completion point, they will need to 50 This becomes effective upon receipt o f all contributors' consent. 51 See A New Architecture o Facilities for Low-Income Countries (SM/09/160); f 21 further strengthen their policies and institutions, and require continued support from the international community. In this regard, it i s important for all creditors to provide their full share o f HIPC debt relief, and for donors to ensure that the Bank and the Fund have adequate resources to provide their share o f debt relief under the Initiatives to all eligible countries. 40. Notwithstandingdebt relief, maintaining debt sustainability beyond the completion-point remains an issue for many HIPCs. The analysis conducted by the staff reveals that the current global crisis has exacerbated debt sustainability concerns for a number o f countries, but the analysis does not indicate a risk o f a major debt crisis in HIPCs. Nonetheless, HIPCs need to implement sound borrowing policies and strengthen their capacity to manage their public debt-two areas where the Bank and the Fund have already been assisting their low-income members. 22 Box 2. Simulation Methodology The assessment o f debt vulnerabilities i s undertaken within a framework consistent with the DSF (Box l).' every For country, the assessment rests upon the evolution o f the five DSF debt-burden indicators under baseline scenarios and stress tests, and the use o f country-specific policy dependent debt-burden thresholds. For every country, the starting point for the simulations i s the most recent L I C DSA. This provides information on the evolution o f (i) measures o f capacity to repay (GDP, exports and government revenues); (ii) variables used to the the assess the external financing needs (exports, imports, net FDI, and net current transfers) and the fiscal financing needs i ithe (government revenues, grants and primary non-interest expenditures); and ( i ) measures o f indebtedness (PV o f public and publicly guaranteed (PPG) external debt and debt service). T w o updated "baseline" scenarios are produced. These scenarios differ in terms o f the source o f the financing needs (external or fiscal) governing the evolution o f the measures o f indebtedness. In the f i r s t scenario (WE0 fiscal scenario), the financing needs are defined as: government revenues + grants - expenditures. In the second scenario (WE0 external scenario), the financing needs are defined as: exports + current transfers + net FDI - imports. A deterioration in financing needs compared to the initial L I C D S A i s assumed to translate into additional external borrowing only if the country i s running a deficit under the WE0 scenarios2 Additional financing needs are assumed to be met exclusively through external borrowing in order to gauge the maximum impact on the vulnerability assessment (DSF thresholds relate to external debt).3 Over the 2008-20 14 period, the WE0 country forecasts are used t o update the evolution o f the measures o f capacity to repay and the variables affecting the financing needs (external and fiscal). M o r e specifically, the WE0 growth rates are used t o update the level o f the relevant L I C D S A variables. This methodology broadly preserves the internal consistency o f the country-specific macroeconomic forecasts. Over the 20 15-20 19 period, financing needs in the WE0 scenarios return smoothly to their respective L I C D S A level (inpercentage o f GDP). Starting in 2015, under both scenarios, the measures o f capacity to repay, net FDI, net transfers and grants grow at the same rate envisaged under the initial L I C DSA. Consistent with the methodology used in L I C DSAs, transitory shocks to growth are not reversed in later years, resulting in a permanent shock to the level o f variables. Accordingly, compared to the initial L I C DSAs, the capacity to repay i s likely to be lower in the simulations. The spending variables (government expenditures and imports) adjust to achieve the targeted financing needs. Stress tests are not directly conducted in WE0 scenarios. Instead, the response o f debt burden indicators to standard DSF stress tests i s assumed t o be similar to the initial L I C D S A . fisk ratings are not determined in this exercise. However, countries are deemed to be more vulnerable based o n the following criteria: e Countries initially classified as moderate risk o f debt distress are deemed more vulnerable if they experience a breach o f threshold under the "baseline" WE0 scenarios. e Countries initially classified as l o w risk o f debt distress are deemed more vulnerable if they experience a breach o f threshold under the stress tests or the baseline WE0 scenarios. e Countries initially classified as high risk o f debt distress are deemed more vulnerable if at least two debt burden indicators are o n average 15 percent higher than their threshold^.^ See "Staff Guidance Note on the Application o f the Joint Fund-Bank Debt Sustainability Framework for Low-Income Countries", IMF, 2008. See also "The Debt Sustainability framework for Low-Income Countries", Occasional Paper 266, IMF, 2008. I This rule prevents borrowing by countries running surpluses in the LIC DSA and smaller surpluses in the WE0 scenario. In the case where a country i s running a surplus in the LIC DSA and a deficit in the WE0 scenario, the country i s assumed to borrow only the amount o f the deficit. Unlimited additional external financing i s assumed to be available at a grant element of 45 percent. If external financing was obtained on less concessional terms, it would result in a greater deterioration o f debt burden indicators. Conversely, if part of the fiscal financing needs are met,with domestic borrowing, it would result in lower external debt burden indicators. A 15 percent increase in debt burden indicators above their thresholds i s consistent with an increase in the probability o f debt distress o f about 10 percent. 23 24 I 25 n 3 a 2 3 N E 3 4- 2 s N 3 3 E 5 .I 26 3 3 N u 5 27 od 0 0 a, 9 0 Y d d i t t z d L ru 0 W 2 M a, E z: 3 E g 0 i-' d Q t t s a, 0 Y m & a, V 0 i-' 8 m v1 & i a, 75 U ru 0 ? 3 z - m ki !i e a ru U 0 8 3 29 c C 30 Annex 11. Country Coverage, Data Sources, and Assumptions for the HIPC Initiative and MDRI Costing Exercise Country Coverage The costing analysis for the 35 post-decision-point countries includes: Afghanistan, Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, CBte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic o f the Congo, Republic o f Congo, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, S5o Tom6 and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, and Zambia. 0 The costing analysis for the pre-decision-point countries i s based on 4 HIPCs: Comoros, Eritrea, Somalia, and SudanSs4 Data Sources 0 Staff estimates are based on HIPC Initiative decision and completion-point documents for all 3 5 post-decision-point countries, and preliminary documents or estimates presented in "Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC Initiative) - List o f Ring-Fenced Countries that Meet the Income and Indebtedness Criteria at end-2004"55 for the 4 pre-decision-point HIPCs. Data was updated through end-July 2009. Assumptions for the HIPC Initiative and MDRI Costing Exercise 0 Calculations o f total costs include costs under the original and enhanced HIPC Initiative frameworks and the MDRI. 0 Cost estimates for the HIPC Initiative are based on debt data after full use o f traditional debt-reliefmechanisms. 0 The following exchange rates have been used for the MDRI calculations: o IDA and AfDF. The initial MDRI Trust Fund replenishment rate o f 1.477380 U S dollars per SDR was applied for the period FY07-08. Cost estimates for FY09 onward are based on the IDA15 foreign exchange reference rate o f 1.524480 U dollars per S SDR. o IMF. The exchange rate o f the date that debt relief was delivered, and, in cases where debt was not yet delivered, the rate as o f end-December 2008 was used. o IaDB. Currency units in U S dollars at end-2006. 54 Kyrgyz Republic i s not included in cost estimates, as i t s indebtedness ratio at end-2007 i s estimated at below the HIPC Initiative threshold. 55 See IDMR2006-0041/2 and EBS/06/35. 31 Update o f Cost Estimates in Net Present Value Terms The cost o f HIPC Initiative assistance calculated in N P V terms at the time o f the decision- point i s discounted to end-2008 using the average interest rate applicable to the debt relief. This rate was estimated at 5.0 percent and corresponds to the implicit long-term interest rate o f currencies that comprise the SDR basket over the period 2006-2008, calculated as a 6- month average o f the Commercial Interest Reference Rate (CIRR) over this period, weighted by the participation o f the currencies in the SDR basket. The same rate was used to calculate MDRI debt relief in end-2008 N P V terms. 32 - m N 0 c! 0 N - N 0 P 0 c-2 u 0 . N 0 0 00 - s i P- 0 N 0 W 0 N 0 2 P4 0 d 8 N m 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 - 0 N 0 3 2 .- e h - 33 - Table 2. Debt Service o f 35 Post-Decision-Point HIPCs, 2001-2013 (In millions o f U.S. dollars; unless otherwise indicated) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 A. Poit-Compktion-Point HIpCi Bdm Paid 422 47.5)- 285 29.1 78.9 10 5 294 Due after enhanced HIPC lrutiative rslief I/ .. 1424 1435 143.7 1380 1359 Due after MDRl 637 63.7 820 945 103.8 I" percent of export 11.9 12.5 103 4.9 51 14.7 12' 2.7 73 69 8.0 85 8.6 In percent o f GDP I 7 1.7 I 4 0.7 07 1.7 02 04 1.0 09 I 1 12 12 BoUvli Psld 3293 3434 3408 4032 3778 3406 3503 Due after enhanced HIPC Iruustivs relief I/ 311.1 3338 3388 3465 3533 Due after MDRI 245.3 273 9 289.7 293.5 2960 In psrced of export 19 1 21 I 17.5 133 118 7.8 61 47 54 55 53 51 48 In wr~6nl GDP of 3.6 42 42 39 42 33 26 21 14 I S 15 14 13 Burha Puo Paid 35.1- 48.9 45.7 445 41.3 459 464 Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative relief I/ 771 789 881 974 1063 Due after MDRI 474 51 1 61 I 72.2 830 " I perceento f export 135 114 134 83 8.3 62 64 62 63 49 55 61 65 In percent o f GDP 12 1.0 I 1 09 0.8 07 07 06 06 06 07 08 08 Burundi Paid 142 285 236 68- 41 .1 107 5.6 30 Due after enhanced HlPC lrutiatwe relief I/ 526 30 54 116 139 Due after MDRl 17 30 5.4 116 139 in psrF6nt o f export 31 4 73 6 47.2 101.9 34.3 I15 67 28 I 7 2.7 45 90 100 In p c m o 1 o f GDP 2 I 4.5 40 9.8 40 I 2 0.6 03 01 02 04 0.7 08 C.mWOOD Paid 260.9 240.4 2848 259.1 4062- 562 585 Due after cnhanced HIPC Inmal.tlverelief I/ 116.4 103.9 1186 1192 1236 Due after MDRl 649 524 67 I 677 72 I In percent o f export 9.6 88 8.7 72 100 51 I O 07 14 1.1 1.2 I 1 1 1 In percent o f GDP 28 22 21 I.6 24 14 03 0.3 03 0.2 03 03 03 Central A M o m R c p v h l k Paid 217 2.4 .0.2 86 00 1161- 456 1- Due after enhanced HIPC lrutiativc relief I/ 22.8 18 2 18.5 32 3 32.3 Due &r MDRl 8.5 70 73 199 198 I" psrcsnt o f export 13.5 1.5 01 49 00 555 161 21.1 4.9 37 34 79 69 In wrcent o f GDP 2.3 02 0.0 07 00 7.9 23 23 04 04 03 09 0.8 Ethiopia 61 Paid 1013 86.5- 398 415 860 366 Due after enhanced HlPC Initiative relief I/ Due after MDRl 528 374 635 1325 202.0 In psicent o f export 200 10.3 76 54 2.1 20 3.5 1.2 16 I O 15 2.7 34 In percent o f GDP 25 13 I O 08 0.3 03 04 0.1 02 01 02 0.4 05 The Gambia Paid 182 269 12.4 22 6 232 256- 136 Due d e r enhanced HIPC lruuative relief I/ 249 25 8 28.9 30.8 33 8 Due after MDRI 12.8 14.6 166 189 207 I" percent o f export 16.8 239 11.1 I77 177 165 17.4 91 89 9.5 100 103 103 In percat of GDP 4.3 73 3.5 56 5.0 51 41 17 1.5 1.6 17 18 I 8 Ghana Paid 452.61- 415.l- 5293 601.6 1924 2565 Due after enhanced HlPC Initintivo relief I/ .. 1321 3818 4705 4734 5185 Due after MDRI 573 1625 2244 2827 3340 " I percent o f export 189 17 I 134 14 5 135 118 32 36 0.8 2 I 22 25 28 In percent o f GDP 8.5 73 5.4 57 49 47 13 16 0.4 I O 12 I.4 15 Guyall. Paid 57 I 42i 5- 45.3 353 276 190 309 Due afkr enhanud HIPC Initlalive relief I/ 30.1 406 475 531 597 Due after MDRI 106 205 283 336 297 I" percent o f export 8.6 6.8 76 6.2 5.1 38 2.3 32 13 23 28 30 25 In percent o f GDP 8.2 6.3 69 5.8 4.3 30 1.8 27 09 16 2.1 23 19 Haiti 61 Paid 366 407 67.0 484 1042- 430 46.5 1-1 Due after enhanced HlPC Irutiatws relief I/ 505 53 6 725 82 5 93 9 Due after MDRI 377 170 249 353 474 In percent o f export 82 97 14.3 93 172 84 5.5 5.6 47 20 2.7 35 45 In percent o f GDP I O I 2 23 14 24 12 0.7 07 05 02 03 04 06 HoDduru Paid 1896 2246 232.6 197.7- 1604 1742 1939 Due dkrenhanced HIPC Iniuative relief I/ 180.1 1889 195.0 2084 1861 Due after MDRl 96.5 967 950 992 94 I In percent o f export 4.8 52 5.4 3.8 30 27 27 28 16 I S 14 13 1.2 In percent of GDP 2.5 29 2.9 23 18 1.5 14 14 06 05 05 05 04 Madagurar Paid 467 54.6 6 9 . 0 n 689 81 8 223 28.5 Due after enhanced HIPC lrutiative relief I/ 1002 1075 1182 1231 1255 Due after MDRI 577 617 680 722 689 In percent of export 2.9 63 4.8 47 48 46 10 I 2 2.5 27 21 19 I 7 In percent o f GDP 08 I O 0.2 1.5 1.3 14 03 03 06 06 07 07 06 MalaWl Paid 937 787 94.8 1027 l 0 3 1 ~ 1 6 5~ 116 Due after enhanced HlPC Initiative relief I/ Due afkr MDRI 19.8 193 373 388 339 In percent o f export 195 17.0 200 19.0 18.5 17.9 2 I I 2 21 I 18 34 34 28 In percent of GDP 5.5 3.0 39 39 3.8 34 05 03 04 03 06 06 05 - 34 - Table 2 (continued). Debt Service o f 35 Post-Decision-Point HIPCs, 2001-2013 (In millions o f U.S. dollars, unless otherwise indicated) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Prel Projections Mdi Paid 790 67.3- 782 575 46.9 109.0 1087 Due after enhanced H P C Iniuauve relicf I/ 1172 1244 I505 1543 1673 Due aRer MDRl 675 73 6 92.1 983 1129 Inpcrcent of cxwrt 90 63 5.8 64 42 2.6 53 50 3.2 33 42 43 48 ~n Wmentof GDP 26 20 1.5 I5 II 0.8 16 12 0.8 0.8 09 09 1.0 Mnuritnnnain Paid .- 10 20.9 250 305 10.6 128 747 Due & enhanced HIPC Initiative relief I/ I ... .. 107.1 1001 908 99.8 1223 Due aRer MDPJ .. 56.7 62.2 52 3 61 3 83 8 Inpcrcent of exwrt 0.2 2.6 5.8 51 4.3 0.7 08 35 25 28 23 1.8 2.2 In&en1 o f GDP 01 0.9 1.6 17 16 0.4 05 21 1.4 14 II 10 I2 Mommbiqve Pod 620 71.8 58 I 66.6 233 35 1 49.9 Due aRer enhanced HIPC Imuauve relief I/ 986 1064 1143 1218 1445 Due &r MDm 343 579 771 974 1040 In percent of export 26 5.3 53 33 31 0.8 1.2 1.5 I4 1.9 2.3 27 28 In pcrcent o f GDP 07 15 15 IO I O 03 0.4 0.5 04 06 07 09 09 Nicaragua Paid I53 3 158.0 3. 97 86 -1 1 872 983 93.1 I59 I h e aAcr enhanced HIPC Initiative relief I/ 162.1 183 I 1803 211 5 236.7 Due after MDRl 1009 1172 117.4 1431 1705 I percent of expan n 137 139 75 46 44 41 34 52 36 40 37 40 45 n I percent of GDP 37 39 24 17 I8 19 16 25 16 I8 17 20 23 Niger Paid 326 488 45.3- 31 6 13.8 20.5 26.7 Due after enhanced HIPC Imtiative relief I/ ... ... 53 5 590 626 664 642 Due after MDRl .. 260 297 34 5 41 I 434 In percentofexport 9.9 I4I 109 8. I 56 23 2.7 27 30 28 30 26 25 In percent o f GDP 1.8 24 17 1.5 09 04 0.5 0.5 05 0.5 0.6 06 0.6 RwMdn Paid 22.2 159 155 19.9- 103 10.1 7.4 Due &r enhanced HIPC Initiative relief I/ 22.8 20.9 282 287 302 Due after MDRl . . 120 12.8 175 205 220 n I percent of export 112 86 82 72 44 29 24 II 27 23 28 28 27 n I percent of GDP 13 IO 09 IO 06 04 03 02 02 02 03 03 03 SLo Tame mil PrincipeSi Paid 07 17 32 24 101 7- 41 20 Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative relief I/ 20 23 26 26 35 Due after MDRI ll I 4 17 I8 27 In percent o f export 63 112 182 I57 636 275 245 101 55 61 70 69 92 In percent of GDP 09 I8 32 22 88 38 23 II 06 07 08 08 II Smegnl Paid 1303 145.6 1 5 9 6 7 1 1688 999 986 972 Due after enhanced H P C llutiative relief I/ 191.0 1964 2646 2689 2697 Due after M N D 100.5 1109 1798 188.4 190.3 In percent of export 9.3 95 8.7 7.5 72 42 34 29 37 38 5.6 55 53 Inpsrocnt of GDP 2.7 17 2.3 2.0 19 II 09 07 08 08 13 13 12 Sierra Leone Paid 9 4 . 2 1 1 14.3 245 282- 150 72 h e after enhanced HIPC Initiative relief I/ 41.8 570 63.7 54.6 474 Due after MDRl 8.7 179 24.3 285 294 n I percent of export 73.0 87 6.2 99 97 52 43 23 3.7 6.5 7.7 79 74 Inpercent of GDP 117 I5 1.4 22 23 13 09 0.4 04 08 I O II II Tmmh Z/ 61 Paid 903 832 241.7 121 7 579 377 846 Due aRer enhanced HIPC lmtlatlve relief I/ 2299 2204 233 I 2373 241 I Due after MDRl 517 563 605 666 732 In percent o f export 52 48 38 9.2 41 I8 10 17 IO I O I O 09 09 In percento f GDP 09 0.9 07 20 09 04 03 05 0.2 02 02 02 02 Uganda 31 6/ Paid 426 59.8 61.7 97.8 1190 1115 242 439 Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative relief I/ 137.1 142.0 1210 115.0 1164 Due aRer MDRl 587 51 8 389 42 I 37.7 Inpercent of export 63 8.6 82 99 98 72 1.2 14 1.8 1.6 II II 09 Inpercent of GDP 08 I O 0.9 12 13 II 02 03 0.4 0.3 02 0.2 02 -35- Table 2 (concluded). D e b t Service o f 35 Post-Decision-Point HIPCs, 2001-2013 (In millions o f US. dollars, unless otherwise indicated) 2001 2002 2W3 201% 2W5 2w6 2007 2008 2W9 2010 2011 2012 2013 Prel. Proiections ZPmbir Pud 1385 1227 1915 3732- 660 616 642 Due after enhanced HlPC lutiauve relief I1 Due after MDRI 777 811 886 796 777 In percentof export 131 108 152 179 65 16 13 12 26 24 24 20 18 In percent of GDP 38 33 44 69 23 06 05 04 07 06 06 05 04 B. InterimHIPCa Afghaniatan 61 Pud 1.1 7.5 77 92 I I . O L 7 30 Due after enhanced HIPC Iutiative relief I1 115 273 351 399 425 Due after MDRI Ill 265 344 391 416 Inpercent of expon 38 36 33 06 II 24 28 29 27 Inpercent of GDP 00 02 01 01 01 01 00 01 02 02 02 02 Chad Paid 364 52.4 45 5 572 698 74 I 174 9 Due after enhanced HlPC Irutiauverelief I1 .. . 99.1 444 275 274 25 9 Due after MDRI ... 99.1 370 00 14 23 In percent of expon 7.9 14 4 7.8 2.0 18 20 1.9 38 4.1 I2 00 00 01 In percent of GDP 1.2 18 19 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 21 16 05 00 00 Democratic Republlc of the Congo Pud 34.2- 163.2 I54 I 138.0 144.5 157.2 Due after enhancedHIPC Initiative relief 11 .. 3428 3288 3292 2670 2005 Due afler MDRI .. 3428 157 I 157 I 157 I 157 I In percent of export 2.9 112 82 6.4 4.2 2.2 22 87 36 31 27 21 In percent of GDP 06 29 2.5 2.1 16 1.4 14 32 13 I2 II I O Republic of the Congo Paid 517.9 614.9 4727 5292 60841- 6728 4144 Due after enhanced HIPC Initiauverelief I1 .. 410.4 270 I 273 I 2983 2976 Due after MDRI .. 410.4 270 I 273 I 2983 2976 In percent of expori 244 23.9 16.7 I41 11.9 133 100 4.6 6.8 30 31 36 39 In percent of GDP 185 204 135 114 100 I12 88 38 53 26 26 28 28 CBta d'lvoire Pud 1.9 274.5 189.5 118.0 72.0 2408 3 1 8 6 1 7 Due after enhanced HIPC Initiative relief I/ ... 432 I 3784 4393 986 I 9970 Due after MDRl 432 I 3784 4393 986 I 9970 In percent of expon 00 44 25 14 08 25 29 44 36 41 88 81 In percent of GDP 00 20 12 07 04 12 14 I9 15 17 35 32 Guinea 41 Pad 749 884 83 8 827 I23 7 124 I 121 6 1262 Due after enhanced HIPC Iutiauve relief I1 1452 550 570 693 731 Due after MDRI 1452 267 284 381 415 In percent of export 93 I13 97 96 125 109 97 86 I12 19 17 21 21 In percent of GDP 25 28 24 23 42 43 29 28 32 06 06 07 07 Gumea-Biasau41 Pad 14 26 57 62 42 51 56 41 Due after enhanced HlPC lutiatlve relief I1 34 176 153 160 I51 Due after MDRI 34 160 120 126 II 7 In percent of export 25 45 101 IO7 75 95 67 45 34 167 I23 125 112 In percent of GDP 07 12 23 22 14 16 15 09 08 35 25 25 21 Liberia Pud 06 00 00 00 00 00 l lm Due after enhanced HIPC Iutiauve relief I1 309 323 353 411 1289 Due after MDRI 59 72 104 137 439 In percent of export 04 00 00 00 00 00 02 02 09 I O I2 II 28 In percent of GDP 01 00 00 02 01 07 08 I O I1 31 Togo Pud 178 14 27 23 25 35 8 7 m Due after enhanced HlPC lruuauve relief 11 555 547 393 435 480 Due after MDRI 555 547 67 I10 150 In percent of export 47 03 05 03 03 06 13 96 98 75 08 13 16 In percent of GDP 13 01 02 01 01 02 03 22 21 20 02 03 04 Sources HIPC country documents, and World Bank and hlF staffestmates Note Data corresponding tn yeas of decision and wmpleuon points under the enhanced HIPC luuauve are in thin and hick boxes, respectively I1 Debt service due afler the full use of tradmonal debt relief and assistance under h e enhanced HIPC l ~ t i a u v e For completion.point HIPCs, figures are after additional bilateral assistance beyond the HIPC Initiative 21Debt service reflects =me payments tn cnmmercialcreditors and payments on moratorium interest not reflected u the campleuon pout documents 31 Reached wmpletlon pomt in Zoo0 41 Reached decisionpoint in 2Mx) 51 Post completionp i n < the authonties do not momtor the mount due afler enhanced HlPC Therefore this data i s enmated by staff 61Data reportedon a fiscal year basis - 36 - Table 3. Poverty-Reducing Expenditure o f 35 Post-Decision-Point HIPCs 2001-2013 1/ (In millions o f US. dollars, unless otherwise indicated) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 A. Post-Completion-Point AIpCs Benin In millions of U S. dollars 161.0 l 6 2 . 2 m 165.8 199.0 186.2 264.2 372.2 357.5 381.0 411.2 444.3 479.9 In percent of government revenue 31 42.1 32.8 23.3 23.1 28.7 22.2 217 30.8 28.8 289 274 26.2 25.4 In percent of GDP 6.4 5.8 4.3 4.1 4.5 3.9 4.8 5.5 5.6 5.6 56 5.5 5.5 Bolivia In millions of U.S dollars -1,0189 941.6 1,041.3 1,183.8 1,528.9 1.846.8 2,286.6 2,515 1 2,655.5 2,778.5 2,841 8 2,9590 In percent o f government revenue 31 55.1 60.4 56.1 49.5 42.7 40.7 41.3 34.7 477 46.3 44.8 432 420 In percent o f GDP 12.1 12.9 11.6 11.8 12.4 13.3 13.9 13.8 149 14.3 14.0 134 130 Burkina Faso In millions of U S. dollars 1 0 9 , 8 m 201.1 274.8 307.2 320.0 381.6 445.3 4606 528 5 612.1 663 8 7178 I n percent of government revenue 31 35.4 39.0 35.6 39.0 46.5 40.5 39.0 44.3 454 471 48.6 45.6 43.8 I n percent of GDP 3.9 4.8 4.6 55 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.5 60 6.5 70 7.0 70 Burundi 21 I n millions o f U.S.dollars 28.5 30.3 42.0 48.81- 82.4 97.5 121.3 - 1 175.0 196.0 222.0 2420 I n percent o f government revenue 31 22.4 23.9 28.3 29.9 340 46.0 44.1 43.4 553 661 68.9 72.1 738 In percent o f GDP 4.3 48 7.1 7.3 73 90 10.0 10.6 10.6 12 1 12.9 13.8 14.1 Cameroon 21 In millions o f U.S dollars 335.6 365.0 258.2 824.1 974911,15481 1,442.0 1,704.6 1,8792 2,079.4 2,307.4 2,564.4 2,851.6 In percent o f government revenue 31 20.5 20.0 12.0 35.6 35.5 34.4 368 35.9 523 588 57.3 57.7 60.5 In percent of GDP 3.6 34 1.9 5.2 5.9 6.4 7.0 7.3 9.2 9.7 10.2 106 110 Central African Republic In millions o f U S. dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I T4 4 . 2 m ... In percent of government revenue 31 . . . . . . ... 17.9 23.0 21.2 .. In percent of GDP . . . . . . ... 2.0 22 22 ... Ethiopia 21 71 In millions o f U.S.dollars 733.4 884.0 1 , 0 0 1 . 4 ~ 1,615.9 2,1035 2,476.9 3,127.0 4,0266 4,0588 4,187.0 4,538.0 4,862.4 In percent of government revenue 31 61.0 72.9 77.2 73 1 89.9 93.6 102.6 100.9 110 8 107.5 105 6 1042 103.2 I n percent o f GDP . 9.3 113 11.7 11.7 13.1 13.9 12.7 11.9 119 12.2 124 128 12.8 The Gambia 21 I n millions o f U.S.dollars 19.6 18.4 16.3 21.5 19.7 24.2- 46.5 572 62.9 676 729 78 9 I n percent o f government revenue 3/ 31.1 30.5 29.5 25.6 21.7 22.5 28.5 31.4 349 35.0 34.3 334 326 In percent o f GDP 4.7 5.0 46 5.4 4.3 4.8 5.9 5.8 67 6.9 70 7.0 7.0 Ghana 21 In millions of U.S.dollars 241.3 294.0 4 9 3 . 0 m 910.0 1,349.0 1,406.0 1,535.0 1,320.0 1,308.0 1,400.0 1,485.0 1,591.0 In percent o f government revenue 31 25.6 29.1 326 34.5 39.1 48.7 42.7 48.6 397 36.8 31.0 30.1 30.1 In percent o f GDP 4.5 4.8 6.5 7.7 8.5 10.6 94 9.5 8.6 8.3 7.4 73 74 Guyana 2/ In millions o f U.S.dollars 144.3 1 5 1 . O m 1572 173 8 192.3 In Dercent of novernment revenue 31 62.5 65.0 61.6 53 7 57.2 56.8 In percent o f GDP 20.7 20.9 214 20.0 21.1 21.1 H a i t i 71 In millions o f U.S.dollars . . . . . . ,.I-] 237.1 343.3 ... In percent of government revenue 31 ... , . . . . . . . ... 372 51.1 499 ... In percent of GDP . . . . . . ,., 3.9 49 53 .. Honduras 21 I n millions of US. dollars 564.9 493.5 520.8 616,87744.01 758.1 954.0 974.7 1,141.1 1,237.7 1,340.6 1,448.6 1,5860 In percent o f government revenue 31 48.4 40.9 40.5 42.8 46.7 30.3 33.8 29.5 30.9 29.9 29.7 29.7 29.7 In percent o f GDP 7.5 6.3 64 7.0 7.7 7.0 7.7 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.8 68 Madagascar 21 In millions o f U.S.dollars 190.9 190.9 2 0 2 . 9 m 528.8 604.1 772.6 1,146.8 1,327.0 1,525.2 1,709.7 1,8841 2,078.8 In percent o f government revenue 31 415 52.4 36.0 256 96.2 97.8 90.0 96.7 95.9 93.5 91.0 904 90.5 In percent of GDP 3.4 3.5 0.7 2.9 98 10.2 10.2 121 144 159 16.8 172 17.6 Malawi 21 In millions o f U.S.dollars 161.9 189.7 182.5 164.9 8 26 1l) ... In percent of government revenue 31 56.0 57.7 47.9 37.3 42 0 49.3 In percent o f GDP 9.4 71 7.6 6.3 8.0 8.6 M a l i 21 I n millions of US. dollars 1554 9O ,) 10I 367.4 398.4 428.5 5607 624.8 7300 8186 909.8 1,009.9 1,119.6 I n percent o f government revenue 31 39.5 33.5 42.0 42.7 41.3 42.0 44.1 45.9 507 51.8 51.6 519 53.4 I n percent o f GDP 5.1 5.7 7.3 70 7.4 7.2 81 7.1 8.5 8.8 9.1 9.4 9.7 Mauritania 21 I n millions o f U S. dollars 7 9 . l m 2140 179.5 129.1 185.7 243.2 326.8 370.7 391.2 418.9 550.2 624.7 In percent of government revenue 31 35.2 297 54.7 39.0 28.7 32.5 35.1 35.0 389 38.0 39.1 39.0 38.8 In percent o f GDP 70 9.1 16.6 12.0 7.0 6.9 8.6 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.2 9.2 -37- Table 3 (continued). Poverty-Reducing Expenditure o f 35 Post-Decision-Point HIPCs 2001-2013 11 (In millions o f U.S. dollars, unless otherwise indicated) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Prel. Projections Mozambique I n millions of U.S. dollars 647.5 699.3 875.8 943.4 1,183.8 1,331.7 1,958.8 2,097.6 2,119.5 2,617.3 2,856.9 3,118.5 I n percent of governmentrevenue 31 145.5 128.1 113.7 98.3 106.5 113.9 96.0 130.5 148.5 139.7 155.9 155.3 152.6 I n percent of GDP 14.5 15.4 15.0 15.4 14.3 16.4 16.4 19.8 22.5 22.1 25.3 25.6 25.8 Nicaragua 21 I n millions of U.S. dollars 361.5 410.7 4 6 7 , S m 620.7 632.2 752.8 848.8 871.6 929.4 956.7 994.9 1,045.1 I n percent of governmentrevenue31 47.4 54.4 56.0 54.0 55.4 53.7 58.1 62.3 65.8 67.7 67.7 67.7 67.7 In percent of GDP 8.8 10.2 11.4 12.0 12.7 12.0 13.2 13.3 13.5 14.0 14.0 14.0 140 Niger 21 I n millions of U.S.dollars ,.. 169.8 2 2 l . 5 m 291.5 339.0 376.0 436.8 452.6 447.6 474.3 522.9 577.4 In percent of governmentrevenue 31 ... 67.9 75.4 79.0 85.3 68.1 54.7 47.6 12.7 66.5 65.1 56.3 57.0 I n percent of GDP ... 8.2 8.4 9.7 8.6 9.3 8.8 8.1 8.8 8.2 8.1 7.8 8.1 Rwanda 1 1 I n millions of U.S.dollars 90.6 107.8 115.4 I 3 7 , O m 274.5 391.5 572.8 651.5 662.4 724.5 793.8 873.1 I n percent of government revenue 31 48.1 548 53.9 52.8 66.5 72.3 84.2 84.0 102.1 96.2 94.3 91.4 91.7 I n percent of GDP 5.4 6,'6 6.5 6.9 9.0 9.7 11.5 12.8 13.0 12.5 12.7 12.9 13.1 SBo Tome and Principe 21 I n millions of U.S. dollars ,.. 9.4 10.8 11.7 6 1 3 l) . 15.6 16.8 18.0 19.2 20.4 21.6 I n percent of government revenue 31 ,.. 62.5 60.2 66.4 54.4 54.6 52.5 50.9 55.1 54.0 52.7 51.6 I n percent of GDP ... 9.6 10.0 10.2 10.8 9.9 8.9 8.9 9.2 9.3 9.2 9.1 Senegal I n millions of U.S. dollars 291.6 324.5 4 7 4 . 9 m 592.5 668.0 881.8 878.6 961.9 1,075.7 1,172.5 1,266.3 1,367.6 I n percent of government revenue 31 35.6 31.5 35.2 36.8 37.2 34.5 34.8 36.7 40.1 42.2 42.2 41.8 41.6 I n percent of GDP 6.0 6.1 6.9 7.3 6.8 7.1 7.8 6.6 7.7 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 Sierra Leone I n millions of U.S.dollars 3 6 . 7 m 59.7 49.9 5 3 S m 48.7 110.8 107.1 119.4 132.2 145.7 159.6 I n percent of government revenue 31 38.2 52.7 53.2 40.0 37.7 38.0 27.0 50.9 48.8 46.7 46.3 46.5 46.5 I n percent of GDP 4.6 6.1 6.0 4.5 4.3 4.5 2.9 5.7 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.8 Tanzania 3/ 71 I n millions of U.S.dollars 780.3 915.5 1,067.6 1,275.9 1,713.0 1,789.0 1,829.0 2,2950 2,767.0 2,861.0 3,250.4 3,692.9 I n percent of government revenue 31 48.9 66.8 71.2 72.0 75.1 88.7 69.8 56.6 68.4 72.0 65.4 65.4 65.7 I n percent of GDP 5.3 7.4 8.1 8.8 9.3 12.0 12.1 10.0 10.9 11.8 10.9 11.1 11.4 Uganda 61 I/ I n millions of U.S. dollars 235.3 335.7 343.1 377.7 448.5 475.4 614.4 559.9 677.4 318.1 I n percent of governmentrevenue31 36.0 48.1 47.9 40.5 40.1 39.0 36.6 28.3 37.3 16.7 I n percent of GDP 4.0 5.4 5.2 4.8 4.9 4.8 5.2 3.9 4.2 2.0 .-2/ Zamhia -. In millions of U.S. dollars 45.7 35.3 46.8 1 l l . l ~ 906.4 1,109.0. 1,494.0 1,554.0 1,434.0 1,480.0 1,526.0 1,609.0 I n percent of governmentrevenue 31 7.0 5.3 5.9 11.2 74.6 60.4 50.0 58.1 79.0 644 59.4 54.6 53.0 I n percent of GDP 13 09 11 20 165 83 97 IO4 134 111 104 97 93 B. Interim HIPCs Afghanistan 71 I n millions of U.S.dollars . .,. ,.. 244.1 307.81-1 492.1 6062 660.0 705.4 793.7 891.7 I n percent of governmentrevenue 31 ... ... 58.7 53.4 55.9 60.9 58.8 54.9 50.1 47.9 46.0 I n percent of GDP ... ... 3.8 4.0 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.3 -38- Table 3 (concluded). Poverty-ReducingExpenditure o f 35 Post-Decision-PointHIPCs 2001-2013 11 (In millions o f U.S. dollars, unless otherwise indicated) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Chad In millions of U.S. dollars 84.8 113.0 132.4 326.0 558.0 806.4 869.1 In percent of government revenue 31 51.6 48.6 48.4 32.7 62.3 49.6 47.4 42.4 In percent of GDP 3.8 4.3 .4.1 3.0 5.5 8.8 11.5 10.3 DemocraticRepublic of the Congo 21 In millions of U.S.dollars ... 26.2185.2130.2 142.6 279.5 426.3 690.8 751.5 982.6 1,210.4 ... In percent of governmentrevenue 31 ... 6.6 18.0 23.3 15.8 26.6 28.2 36.6 42.2 46.7 49.4 ... In percent of GDP ... 0.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 3.2 4.3 6.0 7.0 7.9 8.9 ... Republic of the Congo 21 In millions of US dollars ... 142.9 194.8 293.4- 619.5 766.4 794.7 856.7 938.9 978.2 ... In percent of government revenue 31 ... 12.4 12.8 13.0 10.6 17.7 139 26.1 17.2 16.2 16.1 ... In percent of GDP ... 4.1 4.2 4.8 4.9 8.1 7.1 9.6 7.6 7.5 7.7 ... CBte d'Ivoire In millions of U.S.dollars 134.5 156.1 199.6 251.1 890.1 976.8 1,178.0 1,629.4 1,925.8 2,166.2 2,470.5 2,855.2 In percent of governmentrevenue 31 7.4 7.0 7.9 8.6 33.5 29.0 29.2 40.1 39.7 40.1 42.2 44.0 45.6 In percent of GDP 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 5.4 5.6 5.9 6.9 7.6 7.8 83 8.8 9.3 Guinea 51 In millions of U.S. dollars 102.9 131.5 121.9 116.3 1144 112.7 177.2 227.2 237.6 294.7 333.3 372.7 419.2 In percent of governmentrevenue 31 30.3 34.0 32.3 31.7 33.1 29.3 29.8 36.1 38.3 43.3 42.8 42.8 43.8 In percent of GDP 3.4 4.1 3.5 3.2 3.9 3.9 4.3 5.0 5.3 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.3 Guinea-Bissau 2/ 51 In millions of U.S. dollars 10.0 8.6 10.7 14.2 15.8 15.7 16.7 16.8 16.4 15.5 15.2 16.3 ... In percent of governmentrevenue 31 28.3 25.6 27.4 28.3 31.2 24.8 28.3 23.6 27.7 23.2 20.6 20.2 ... In percent of GDP 4.7 4.0 43 5.0 5.2 5.0 4.4 3.6 3.9 3.4 3.2 3.2 ... Liberia 41 In millions of U.S. dollars ... ... ,... ,,I In percent of governmentrevenue31 ... .,. Togo In millions of U S dollars 692 640 754 93 5 1067 1376 161 4 m 2489 3387 3639 4004 462 5 In percent of governmentrevenue 3/ 354 325 243 266 338 349 354 443 559 699 677 695 757 In percent of GDP 52 43 45 48 51 62 64 70 94 124 124 127 138 Sources: HIPC country documents, and World Bank and IMF staff estimates. Note: Data correspondingto years of decision and completion points under the enhanced HIPC Initiative are in thin and thick boxes, respectively. I1 The coverage of poverty-reducingexpenditures varies across countries, but is generally consistent with the definition in the PRSP and the budget of each HIPC. In some countries, the definition of poverty-reducingexpenditureshas evolved over time to include more sectors; therefore, some of the increase in such spending over the 2001-2003 period may reflect changes in the definition. In the majority of countries expenditureson health and education are included but beyond that there are wide variations in the sectoral spending included. 21 Data refer to health and education spending. 31 Governmentrefers to central government. 41 Currently fiscal data reported by authorities does not allow monitoring of poverty reductionexpenditures. 51 Reached decision point in 2000. 61 Reached completionpoint in 2000. 71 Data reported on a fiscal year basis. - 39 - Table 4. HIPC Initiative and MDFU: Committed Debt Relief and Outlook 1/ Status as o f end-July 2009 (In millions o f U.S. dollars) Decision Completion Assistance under the HIPC Initiative Assistance Delivered Total H I P C and Point Date Point Date under MDRI 21 MDRI Assistance I NF'v Terms as Of n In Nominal Terms In Nominal Terms In Nominal Terms Decision Point 31 41 26 Post-Completion-Point HIPCs ... 47,777 44,998 92,775 Benin Jul-00 Mar-03 262 460 1,145 1,605 Bolivia 51 Feb-00 Jw-01 1,330 2,060 2,850 4,910 Burkina Faso 51 6/ Jul-00 Apr-02 553 930 1,226 2,156 Burundi Aug-05 Jan-09 833 1,366 108 1,474 Cameroon Oct-00 Apr-06 1,267 4,917 1,304 6,221 Central African Republic Sep-07 Juri-09 578 804 288 1,092 Ethiopia 6/ NOV-01 Apr-04 1,935 3,275 3,346 6,621 Gambia, The Dec-00 Dec-07 67 112 374 486 Ghana Feb-02 Jd-04 2,187 3,500 3,947 7,447 Guyana 5/ Nov-00 Dec-03 610 1,354 712 2,066 Haiti NOV-06 Jun-09 140 213 970 1,183 Honduras Juri-00 Apr-05 556 1,000 2,739 3,739 Madagascar Dec-00 Oct-04 836 1,900 2,427 4,327 Malawi 61 Dec-00 Aug-06 939 1,628 1,610 3,238 Mali 51 Sep-00 Mar-03 539 895 2,006 2,901 Mauritania Feb-00 JW-02 622 1,100 888 1,988 Mozambique 5/ Apr-00 Sep-01 2,143 4,300 2,058 6,358 Nicaragua Dec-00 Jan-04 3,308 4,500 1,928 6,428 Niger 61 Dec-00 Apr-04 644 1,190 1,078 2,268 Rwanda 61 Dec-00 Apr-05 65 1 1,316 529 1,845 SXo Tom6 and Principe 61 Dec-00 Mar-07 117 263 66 330 Senegal Jun-00 Apr-04 488 850 2,498 3,348 Sierra Leone MU-02 Dec-06 675 994 673 1,667 Tanzania Apr-00 Nov-01 2,026 3,000 3,877 6,877 Uganda 51 Feb-00 May-00 1,027 1,950 3,552 5,502 Zambia Dec-00 Apr-05 2,499 3,900 2,797 6,697 9 I n t e r i m HIPCs ... 24,175 ... 24,175 Afghanistan Jd-07 ... 57 1 1,272 ... 1,272 Chad May-0 1 ... 170 260 ... 260 Congo, Dem. Rep. o f the Jd-03 ... 6,3 11 10,389 ... 10,389 Cote dIvoire Mar-09 ... 3,005 3,415 .I. 3,415 Congo, Rep. o f Mar-06 ... 1,679 2,881 ... 2,881 Guinea Dec-00 ... 545 800 ... 800 Guinea-Bissau Dec-00 ... 416 790 ... 790 Liberia MU-08 ... 2,845 4,008 ... 4,008 Togo Nov-08 ... 270 360 ... 360 2 Non-HIPCs 7/ 182 182 Cambodia ... 82 82 Tajikistan 100 100 Total Debt Relief Committed ... 71,952 45,180 117,132 Sources: HIPC documents, and World Bank and IMF staff estimates. 11 Committed debt relief under the assumption o f full participation o f creditors. 21 Nominal MDRI costs include principal and interest foregone for all multilaterals participating in the Initiative, except IMF, which only include principal. The estimated costs for IMF reflect the stock o f debt eligible for MDRI relief, which is the debt outstanding (principal only) as o f end-2004 and that has not been repaid by the member and is not covered by HIPC assistance (EBS/O5/158 Revision 1, 12/15/2005). 3/ Topping-up assistance and assistance provided under the original HIPC Initiative are expressed in NPV-terms as o f the time o f the decision point. 41 N o totals are shown because the amounts are in different NPV terms (according to the date o f the decision point). 51 Also reached completion point under the original HIPC Initiative. The assistance includes original debt relief. 61 Assistance includes topping up at completion point. 71 IMF MDRI debt relief to Cambodia and Tajikistan. - 40 - Table 5. HIPC Initiative: Cost Estimates to Multilateral Creditors and Status o f their Commitments to Post-Completion-PointHIPCs Status as o f end-July 2009 (In millions o f US. dollars, in end-2008 NPV terms) Creditors - . Number of Comnletion Point Debtors HIPC Assistance Costs HIPC Assistance delievered I/ Total Relief In millions o i l ' S Percent of In millions o f U S dollars, Percent Commited dollars, in end-2008 Total Cost in end.2008 NPV Terms of Cost NPV Terms Delivering o r Committed to Deliver Debt Relief 2/ 21,349 99.8 11,704 55 World Bank Group 26 26 10,641 49 7 5,045 47 African Development Bank (AtDB) Group 21 21 2,889 13 5 1,422 49 InternahonalMonetary Fund (IMF) 26 26 3,046 I42 3,056 100 InterAmerican Development Bank (IaDB) 5 5 1,727 81 735 43 European UniodEuropean Investment Bank (EUIEIB) 22 22 74 1 35 686 93 CentralAmerican Bank for Economic Integration(CABEI) 2 2 757 35 380 50 International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) 26 26 397 19 216 54 Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa (BADEA) 20 20 257 I2 OPEC Fund for InternationalDevelopment (OFID) 25 25 225 II Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) IO IO 140 07 140 IO0 Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (AFESD) 1 I 94 04 CorporacibnAndina de Fomento (CAF) 1 I 138 06 Cancorn Multilateral Clearing Facility (CMCF) I I 89 04 West African Development Bank (BOAD) 5 5 66 03 Asian Development Bank (AsDB) 0 0 0 00 Nordic Development Fund (NDF) 9 9 41 02 20 48 Fund for the Financial Development ofthe River Plate Basin (FONPLATA) I I 37 02 Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) 1 I 26 01 Arab Monetary Fund (AMF) I I I8 01 Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO) 3 I 9 00 Nordic inveshnent Bank (NIB) I I 5 00 5 86 East Afncan Development Bank (EADB) 2 2 5 00 Shelter Afrique 1 I 1 00 Banco Interamericano de Ahorro y Prestamo (BIAPE) I 1 0 00 Have not Indicated Intention to Provide Relief under the HIPC Initiative 48.9 0.2 0 0 Banque des Etats de I'Afrique Centrale (BEAC) 0 0 0.0 00 0 0 Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) 6 0 14.5 01 0 0 Banque de Dbveloppement des Etats de I'Afrique Centrale (BDEAC) 2 0 12.2 01 0 0 Eastern and Southern African Trade and Development Bank (PTA Bank) 2 0 13.1 01 0 0 Banque de Wvelopment des Eta& des Grands Lacs (BDEGL) 1 0 1.5 00 0 0 Conseil de L'Entente (FEGECE) 2 0 4.0 00 0 0 Fondo Centroamericano de EstabilizacionMonetaria(FOCEM) 1 0 2.6 00 0 0 Fund for Solidarity and Economc Development (FSID) I 0 1.1 00 0 0 Total 21,398 100.0 11,704.2 54.8 Sources HIPC documents, counhy authontles, and World Bank and IMF stfleshmates I/ Total deliveredassistance to end-2008 2/ Esttmates based on end-December 2008 data in NPV terms -41 - Table 6A. Status o f Delivery o f HIPC Initiative and MDRI Assistance by the World Bank Status as o f end-July 2009 (In millions o f U.S. dollars) Total Total Assistance under the MDRI WorldBauk Assistance under the HIPC Jnitiatiw Committed Deliwred . 4 0 only) Assistance Assistance underthe underthe Cod~ed Codtted Coded &livered Delivered Delivered HIPC HIPC Assistance in Assistance m Assistance Assistance in Assistance in Jaitiatiw and Initiatiw and Assistance in NPVTems as o f end-2008 NPV in end-2008 Nominal end-2008 NF'V MDRI in end- MDRIin end- Nominal Tems Decision Point Term Temsu Term 2008 NPV 2008 NPV 1/ Term Term 0 01) QI1) (Iv) 0 (W O+O N+O 26 Post-Cornpetion-Point HIPCs TOTAL 31 13,268.7 ... 10,640.6 5,045.4 30907.3 15,319.4 25959.9 20,364.7 Benm 124.3 84.4 124.9 78.1 712.7 395.3 520.2 473.4 Bolivia 41 287.2 197.4 292.0 199.8 1,576.1 854.6 1,1465 1,054.3 B u r h a Faso 4/ 5/ 419.5 231.7 342.8 224.9 767.9 387.7 730.5 612.6 Burundi 774.8 425.2 492.4 78.2 73.6 36.9 529.4 115.1 h r o o n 297.0 176.1 260.5 129.7 850.3 432.0 692.6 561.7 Central African Republic 291.8 206.9 228.2 81.1 192.5 102.9 331.1 184.0 Ethiopia 51 1,288.4 807.2 1,137.1 373.5 2,441.7 1,063.6 2,200.7 1,437. I Gurbia,The 35.9 22.3 33.0 14.3 204.6 108.0 140.9 122.3 Ghana 1,445.7 781.6 1,101.0 396.3 3,119.1 1,584.2 2,685.2 1,980.5 a y a n a 4/ 132.8 70.2 103.8 64 1 197.0 103.6 207.4 167.7 Haiti 54.5 52.8 58.2 47.4 477.5 267.0 325.2 314.4 Honduras 171.6 97.8 144.6 137.4 1,230.4 643.5 788.1 780.9 Madagascar 444.4 256.2 379.1 171.8 1,840.4 957.1 1,336.2 1,128.9 Malawi 5/ 993.5 538.7 797.0 249.1 1,286.0 591.4 1,388.4 840.5 Mali4/ 291.8 184.1 272.4 188.8 1,3 11.4 705.2 977.6 894.0 Mauritania 172.8 99.9 147.8 71.7 571.9 291.6 439.4 363.4 M o d i q u e 4/ 1,055.1 438.6 648.8 666.3 1,3603 722.6 1,371.4 1,388.9 Nicaragua 382.6 190.9 282.4 93.8 805.6 362.3 644.6 456.1 Niger 51 4 10.1 231.0 341.7 128.8 778.4 357.1 698.8 485.9 Rwanda 5/ 709.4 353.2 522.5 159.6 378.8 149.6 672.1 309.2 SBo Tom6 and Principe 5/ 61.1 29.8 44.0 13.9 27.4 12.5 56.5 26.3 Senegal 163.9 123.6 182.9 158.3 1,921.6 1,07 1.7 1,254.5 1,230.0 Sierra Leone 234.5 123.4 165.6 63.6 402.7 179.8 345.3 243.4 Tan7allia 1,157.1 694.5 1,027.4 484.4 2,926.8 1,504.5 2,531.9 1,988.9 Uganda 4/ 983.6 527.8 780.8 491.2 2,891.0 1,508.4 2,289.2 1,599.6 Zambia 885.2 493.2 729.6 279.1 1,961.5 926.5 1,656.1 1,205.6 9 JnterimHIPCs TOTAL 11 2,954.7 ... 2,580.7 1,491.7 2,580.7 1,491.7 Afghanistan 124.6 75.2 79.0 5.4 79.0 5.4 Cdte d'Ivoire 412.7 402.3 402.3 267.3 402.3 267.3 Chad 6/ 106.7 68.1 96.0 41.4 %.O 41.4 Congo, Dem Rep. ofthe 1,253.9 855.5 1,092.7 516.5 1,092.7 516.5 Congo, Rep. o f 70.7 48.9 56.7 10.4 56.7 10.4 Liberia 469.5 375.2 394.0 391.9 3940 391.9 Ouinea 6 ' 238.9 151.4 224.0 108.1 224.0 108.1 Ouinea-Bis s au 179.6 93.3 138.0 52.2 138.0 52.2 Togo 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.5 98.0 98.5 Total Debt Relief Committed 11 16,223.4 ... 13,221.3 6,537.1 30907.3 15,319.4 28,540.7 2 1,856.4 Sources: HIPC documents, and World Bank staff estimates. I/ Total delivered HIPC assistance to end-2008. 2l Nominal MDRl costs include principal and interest foregone. 3/ The totalamounts shown are only indicative, as they representthe sumofindividual comrdments expressed in different N P V t e m , corresponding to the time ofthe decision point o f each HIPC. 41 Also reached conpletion point under the original HIPC Initiative. The assistance includes original debt relief 51 The assistance includes topping-up at completion point. 6/ Countries that reached the interimperiod HIPC debt mlieflirrdt. For these countries , the corrmitted assistance m nominal tems will be xmdified at conpletion poin - 42 - Table 6B. World Bank Group Debt Service after HIPC Initiative and MDRI Debt Relief, 2000-2013 (In millions o f U.S. dollars) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Actual l / Projected I/ D e b t Service before HIPC Initiative D e b t Relief Afghanistan - 3 1 4 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 Benm I5 14 14 16 19 21 22 24 25 27 28 29 32 32 Bohvia 31 21 23 27 33 35 37 40 45 52 55 59 63 69 Burkma Faso 14 10 14 16 20 23 24 26 27 29 29 34 40 42 Burundi 13 14 16 19 20 25 22 23 27 28 29 31 32 34 - Camemon 92 115 88 74 59 57 71 39 34 37 37 38 38 39 Central Afncan Repubhc 21 9 9 0 - 66 15 16 16 18 19 20 20 Chad 9 I5 11 12 15 22 28 22 68 25 26 28 29 31 Congo,Repubhc of 1 2 8 2 1 2 1 1 9 9 6 8 8 8 7 8 1 9 0 Congo, Den Rep o f the 21 - 331 43 47 60 37 53 62 60 60 60 70 81 a t e d'Ivoue 21 - . - - 307 138 75 68 66 66 Ethiopia 34 38 43 55 67 73 76 80 96 103 104 117 124 132 W i n , The 4 4 4 5 6 6 6 7 7 9 9 1 0 1 0 1 0 Chana 57 63 70 77 91 102 IC4 117 128 I37 145 157 168 174 Cumea 19 22 22 26 28 32 33 36 41 44 48 49 53 53 Cumea-Bissau 6 5 5 6 7 7 8 9 10 10 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 Cuyana 7 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 9 9 9 Hati 10 4 - . 1 52 18 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 Honduras 63 65 58 45 41 110 45 43 44 34 35 40 43 46 Lbena 21 - . - 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 Madagascar 28 32 32 38 45 48 52 58 66 71 76 83 86 88 Malaw 36 38 37 43 48 51 54 57 61 69 72 76 79 83 Mall 23 21 21 25 31 34 36 40 43 46 49 55 58 59 Mauntania 12 9 10 11 13 I5 16 17 20 21 24 25 28 28 Mozambique 15 I1 12 16 25 28 30 33 36 41 48 52 58 63 Nicaragua 12 12 10 12 16 18 19 21 23 27 29 32 37 38 Niger 16 17 I5 18 20 22 26 29 32 31 37 36 38 39 Rwanda 12 15 16 19 21 23 25 26 28 30 32 35 37 40 SHo T o m and Pnncipe 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 Senegal 36 34 29 36 44 46 49 55 62 67 74 80 83 84 Sierra Leone 4 5 7 9 12 13 14 14 14 15 15 16 I8 21 Tanrania 68 60 69 79 93 94 97 108 115 121 136 146 155 161 Togo 21 . . - 98 26 26 26 28 28 28 Uganda 35 34 42 55 69 75 75 80 90 96 105 115 129 136 Zambia 27 34 35 39 50 51 55 60 64 69 73 83 86 91 TOTAL 719 809 1054 869 964 1167 1164 1692 1665 1525 1553 1662 1772 1855 D e b t Service a f t e r H I F C Initiative D e b t Relief Afghanistan - 3 1 4 5 5 4 2 2 2 2 2 3 Benm 12 7 7 9 11 12 14 15 16 17 19 19 21 21 Bohvia 31 21 14 14 20 21 22 23 27 33 35 38 41 46 Burkma Fwo 11 3 7 8 11 13 13 16 17 18 18 22 26 27 Burundi 13 14 16 19 20 17 2 2 4 3 3 4 4 5 Camemon 92 86 69 58 59 57 60 22 17 20 20 21 22 23 Central Afncan Repubhc 9 9 0 - - 13 7 16 18 19 20 20 Chad 9 11 6 7 9 16 21 18 68 25 19 19 20 21 Congo, Repubhc o f 1 2 8 2 1 2 1 1 9 9 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 Congo,Dem Rep ofthe 28 15 26 0 12 19 17 17 17 23 31 - . - - . ~ a t e d'Ivoae 50 103 64 68 32 32 Ethiopia 34 36 18 26 36 16 15 17 25 27 28 33 36 39 Gambia, The 4 2 2 3 3 5 6 7 4 6 6 6 7 7 Chana 57 63 37 32 42 49 47 56 63 69 73 82 89 92 Cumea 19 11 11 14 16 19 I8 22 37 44 38 29 33 33 Cumea-Bissau 5 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 Cuyana 7 4 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 Halt1 10 4 - . 1 - 16 12 19 15 14 21 21 21 Honduras 57 46 45 45 41 92 16 18 19 22 23 30 43 46 Lbena - . - 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 Madagascar 28 17 17 21 27 29 32 36 42 41 51 57 60 62 Malaw 36 21 18 22 26 27 29 11 12 IS 16 17 18 19 Mali 21 11 11 13 18 20 22 25 27 30 32 36 40 40 Mauntania 7 3 4 5 7 8 8 9 11 12 1 4 1 6 1 8 18 Moiambique 8 5 6 9 16 18 20 22 25 38 48 52 58 63 Nicaragua 12 7 2 3 6 7 7 8 9 11 1 4 1 6 1 9 2 0 Niger 16 8 6 8 8 7 8 10 11 10 16 13 14 15 Rwanda 12 3 2 4 6 6 3 4 5 5 6 8 8 1 0 Sa0 T o m and Rincipe 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Senegal 31 20 14 25 33 28 30 34 40 44 68 80 83 84 Sierrahone 4 5 3 2 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 7 8 Tanzania 40 22 26 33 45 46 47 55 61 65 74 82 89 93 Togo . . . ~ . 26 26 26 28 28 28 Uganda 26 23 28 35 42 46 46 50 58 63 69 78 89 95 Zambia 27 15 13 14 21 17 17 20 24 27 32 37 38 40 TOTAL 651 560 399 502 562 626 538 609 766 850 883 973 1025 1081 - 43 - T a b l e 6 B (concluded). W o r l d Bank G r o u p D e b t Service after HIPC Initiative and MDRI D e b t Relief, 2000-2013 (In millions o f U.S. dollars) 1000 2001 1002 2003 1004 1005 2006 2007 2008 1009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Actual I/ Projected I/ D e b t Service after HIPC Initiative Debt Relief and MDRI Afghanistan - 31 4 5 5 4 2 2 I 1 I 2 Benin ' 12 7 7 9 11 12 7 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 Bolivia 31 21 14 14 20 21 12 2 3 4 4 5 6 7 Burkna Faso 11 3 7 8 11 13 8 4 5 5 5 8 9 9 Burundi 13 14 16 19 20 17 2 2 4 1 I 1 2 2 Cameroon 92 86 69 58 59 57 53 9 2 3 3 4 5 6 Central African Republic 9 9 0 - 13 7 3 0 0 0 0' Chad 9 11 6 7 9 16 21 ' 18 68 25 8 3 4 4 Congo, Republic o f 12 82 12 11 9 9 3 4 4 4 I 1 I 1 Congo, Dem. Rep. ofthe - 28 15 26 0 12 19 17 8 6 I1 16 a t e d'Ivoire ~ 50 103 64 68 2 2 Ethiopia 34 36 18 26 36 16 10 6 IO IO IO 14 16 18 Gambia, The 4 2 2 3 3 5 6 7 1 1 I 1 2 2 Ghana 57 63 37 32 42 49 24 9 11 11 13 16 18 19 Guinea 19 11 11 14 16 19 18 22 37 44 25 2 4 4 Guinea-Bissau 5 1 0 I 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 Guyana 7 4 5 4 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Haiti IO 4 I ~ 16 12 19 IO 0 0 0 0 Honduras 57 46 45 45 41 92 9 3 3 3 4 5 6 7 Liberia - 55 4 4 2 0 0 0 Madagascar 28 17 17 21 27 29 18 6 8 9 9 12 14 15 Malawi 36 21 18 22 26 27 19 I I 2 2 3 3 4 Mali 21 11 11 13 18 20 12 3 4 5 6 8 9 9 Mauritania 7 3 4 5 7 8 5 2 2 2 2 3 5 5 Mozambique 8 5 6 9 16 18 12 7 8 IO 13 16 19 19 Nicaragua 12 7 2 3 6 7 4 2 3 3 3 4 6 6 Niger 16 8 6 8 8 7 4 2 2 0 6 2 2 3 Rwanda 12 3 2 4 6 6 2 2 2 2 2 4 5 6 SEo Tame and Principe I 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Senegal 31 20 14 25 33 28 16 5 6 8 IO 13 15 I5 Sierra Leone 4 5 3 2 3 4 4 I 1 1 1 1 1 2 Tanzania 40 22 26 33 45 46 26 ll 14 15 17 19 21 23 Togo - 26 26 26 0 0 0 Uganda 26 23 28 35 42 46 25 5 8 9 IO 13 17 19 Zambia 27 15 13 14 21 17 9 2 4 4 5 6 6 7 TOTAL 651 560 399 501 561 626 351 136 344 352 268 144 213 235 Sources: HIPC cmntry documents, and World Bank staff estimates. I/ From2001 to 2008, information corresponds to debt service actually paid to the World Bank Debt service projections from2009 onwards are based on stocks as ofend-December2008. 21 Debt Service before HIPC Initiative Debt Reliefincludes accumulated arrears for Central African Republic. USD 65.9 mil,Democratic Republic of Congo -USD 33 1.3 mi., - - C6te d'Ivoire -USD 256.9 mil.,Haiti-USD 52 3 mil, Liberia USD 366.9 mi., and Togo USD 98 0 mi. - 44 - Table 7A. Implementation o f the HIPC Initiative and MDRI by the I M F Status as o f end-July 2009 (In millions o f SDRs) HIPC Initiative Assistance MDRI Debt Relief 21 Total HIPC and Amount Disbursed MDRI Debt Relief Decision Completion Member point Amount Committed into HIPC Umbrella Delivery date MDRITrusts Delivered Point Account I1 26 Completion-PointHIPCs 1,597 1,714 2,187 3,902 Benin Jul. 2000 Mar. 2003 18 20 Jan. 2006 34 54 Bolivia Feb. 2000 Jun. 2001 62 31 65 Jan. 2006 155 220 Burkina Faso Jul. 2000 Apr. 2002 44 31 46 Jan. 2006 57 103 Burundi Aug. 2005 Jan. 2009 19 22 Jan. 2009 9 31 Cameroon Oct. 2000 Apr. 2006 29 34 Apr. 2006 149 183 Central African Republic Sep. 2007 Jun. 2009 17 18 Jul. 2009 2 20 Ethiopia Nov. 2001 Apr. 2004 45 47 Jan. 2006 80 126 Gambia, The Dec. 2000 Dec. 2007 2 2 Dec. 2007 7 IO Ghana Feb. 2002 Jul. 2004 90 94 Jan. 2006 220 314 Guyana Nov. 2000 Dec. 2003 57 31 60 Jan. 2006 32 91 Haiti Nov. 2006 Jun. 2009 2 2 Jul. 2009 2 Honduras Jun. 2000 Apr. 2005 23 26 Jan. 2006 98 125 Madagascar Dec. 2000 Oct. 2004 15 16 Jan. 2006 128 145 Malawi Dec. 2000 Aug. 2006 33 37 Sep. 2006 15 52 Mali Sep. 2000 Mar, 2003 46 31 49 Jan. 2006 62 112 Mauritania Feb. 2000 Jun. 2002 35 38 Jun. 2006 30 69 Mozambique Apr. 2000 Sep. 2001 107 31 108 Jan. 2006 83 191 Nicaragua Dec. 2000 Jan. 2004 64 71 Jan 2006 92 163 Niger Dec. 2000 Apr. 2004 31 34 Jan 2006 60 94 Rwanda Dec. 2000 Apr. 2005 47 51 Jan. 2006 20 71 Sao Tome and Principe Dec. 2000 Mar. 2007 1 1 Mar. 2007 1 2 Senegal Jun. 2000 Apr. 2004 34 38 Jan. 2006 95 133 Sierra Leone Mar 2002 Dec. 2006 100 107 Dec. 2006 77 183 Tanzania Apr. 2000 Nov. 2001 89 96 Jan. 2006 207 303 Uganda Feb. 2000 May. 2000 120 31 122 Jan. 2006 76 198 Zambia Dec. 2000 Apr. 2005 469 508 Jan. 2006 398 907 9 Decision point HIPCs 735 58 58 Afghanistan Jul. 2007 Floating Cdte d'Ivoire Mar. 2009 Floating 25 5 5 Chad May. 2001 Floating 14 86 9 Congo, Dem. Rep. of Jul. 2003 Floating 228 34 3 Congo, Rep. of Mar 2006 Floating 6 Guinea Dec. 2000 Floating 24 IO0 10 Guinea-Bissau Dec. 2000 Floating 9 05 1 Liberia Mar. 2008 Floating 428 30 I 30 Togo Nov. 2008 Floating 0 0 0 1 interim HIPC under the Original HIPC Initiative CBte dIvoire Mar 1998 17 3141 2 Non-HIPCs 126 126 Cambodia - Jan 2006 57 57 Tajikistan Jan. 2006 69 69 Total 2,349 1,772 2,313 4,086 Source: InternationalMonetaly Fund. I/Includes interest on mounts committedunder the enhanced HIPC Initiative. 21 Excludes remaining HIPC lnitiauve Bssistance delivered 31 Includes commitment under the original HlPC Initiative. 41 Cdte d'lvoire reached its decision point under the original HIPC Initiative in 1998: but did not reach its completion point under the original HlPC Initiative, nor har it reached the decision point under the enhanced HIPC Iniuative. -45 - Table 7B. IMF HIPC Initiative and MDRI Debt Relief, 1998-2009 (In millions o f U.S. dollars; as o f end - July 2009) 1/ 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Jan-Jut HIPC Initiative debt relief Afghanistan Benin 2.4 4.7 4.8 6.0 5.1 2.3 2.9 28.2 Bolivia 5.5 10.8 9.7 8.6 10.4 9.7 18.8 14.4 9.0 96.7 Burkina Faso 2.9 6.0 6.0 14.3 17.1 14.6 7.5 68.3 Burundi 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 32.9 33.3 Cameroon 1.2 1.2 0.4 0.0 5.1 1.3 39 8 49.0 Central African Republic 5.5 21.8 27.3 Chad 1.8 2.8 4.0 1.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 Congo, Dem. Rep. o f 0.8 1.7 1.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 50 Congo, Rep. o f 0.1 01 0.1 Cote d7voire 3.8 38 Ethiopia 0.7 5.3 5.6 3.9 6.0 47.7 69.2 Gambia, The 0.0 00 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.6 Ghana 9.5 18.9 20 3 24.4 66.8 139.9 Guinea 3.1 1.2 2.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 6.5 0.1 14.7 Guinca Bissau 07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 00 00 0.0 0.7 Guyana 7.7 8.5 10.4 7.2 9.3 13.8 11.3 19 8 88.0 Haiti 0.0 01 02 3.1 3.5 Honduras 1.3 4.6 0.0 5.7 13.4 13 6 38.5 Liberia 17.6 5.6 23.2 Madagascar 0.9 19 4.1 1.7 2.6 12.9 24.1 Malawi 2.9 0.0 2.5 4.2 3.8 41.3 54.8 Mali 0.7 6.7 8.9 11.3 14.0 12.4 18.6 72.6 Mauritania 5.0 7.9 10.4 11.0 8.4 49 6.6 54.2 Mozambique 14.0 29 8 26.5 17.2 12.1 13.6 15.7 34.6 163.4 Nicaragua 0.9 2.6 9.0 24.0 71.7 108.1 Niger 0.5 1.4 4.2 76 10.7 26.1 50.7 Rwanda 8.6 4.3 0.0 47 8.1 47.9 73.7 SHo Tome and Principe 1.4 1.4 Senegal 1.9 4.3 4.4 7.2 14.8 14.9 8.2 55.7 Sierra Leone 30.6 33.3 22.0 60 61 0 152 9 Tanzania 15.4 19.4 20.9 17.1 16.2 10.9 39 8 139.8 Togo 0.03 0.0 0.06 Uganda 8.2 15.5 27.6 26.6 22. I 23 I 25.0 17.2 17.5 182 8 Zambia 170 5 155.2 165.5 2.4 229.1 61 728.6 TOTAL 13.7 47.9 105.0 313.2 330.5 365.0 236.8 451.8 600.3 6.2 30.0 67.5 2,567.8 MDRI debt relief T o HUTS Afghanistan Benin 49.3 49.3 Bolivia 223.7 223.7 Burkina Fasa 82.4 82.4 Burundi 13.4 13.4 Cameroon 219.4 219.4 Ccntral African Republio 2.8 2.8 Chad Congo, D e m Rep. of Congo, Rep. o f Cotc d'Ivoire Ethiopia 115.1 115.1 Gambia, The 11.6 11 6 Ghana 3 17.9 317 9 Guinea Guinea Bissau Guyana 45.6 45.6 Haiti Honduras 141.9 141.9 Liberia Madagascar 185.6 185.6 Malawi 21.6 21.6 Mali 90.2 90.2 Mauritania 44.5 44.5 Mozambique 120.0 120.0 Nicaragua 132.6 132.6 Niger 86.4 86 4 RW"& 29.1 29.1 Sa0 Tome and Principc 16 16 Senegal I36 9 136 9 Sierra Leone 1152 1152 Tanzania 299.0 299.0 Uganda 109 6 109 6 Zambia 575.7 575 7 T o non-HIPCs Cambodia 82.1 82.1 Tajikistan 100.1 100.1 TOTAL 3524.0 13.2 16.3 3,353.5 Source: International Monetary Fund. I I Thc figures i n this table were canvcrted from SDR amounts using relwant USWSDR exchange rates. - 46 - Table SA. Status o f Delivery o f HIPC Initiative and MDRI Assistance by the African Development Bank (AfDB) Group Status as o f end-July 2009 (In millions o f US. dollars) Total Total AfDB Group Assistance under the HIPC Initiative Assistance under the MDRI Committed Delivered (AfDF only) Assistance Assistance under the under the Committed Delivered Delivered Delivered HIPC HIPC Assistance in NPV A S ? ~ ~ ~ ~ Assistance . end- Assistance in ~ e n d in Assistance in Initiative and Initiative and Terms BS of 2008 NPV Terms Nominal Terms end-2008 NPV MDRI in end- MDFU in end- 2008 NPV Terms Decision Point 11 21 Terns 2008 NPV 2008 NPV Terms Terms (1) (11) (111) (IV) (V) (11) + (V) (111) + (V) 21 Post-Completion-PointHIPCs 3/ TOTAL 2,033.5 2,889.4 1,422.2 7,150.3 3,084.2 5,973.7 4,506.4, Benin 37.6 55.6 51.8 383.2 180.6 236.1 232.4 Burkina Faso 81.9 121.1 65.3 375.8 155.0 276.1 220.2 Burundi 150.2 173.9 23.8 20.6 4.9 178.8 28.7 Cameroon 78.8 116.6 93.1 234.5 95.6 212.2 188.7 Central A6ican Republic 84.7 93.4 3.9 92.6 40.7 134.1 44.6 Ethiopia 33 1.2 466.6 233.9 789.6 314.7 781.3 548.6 Gambia, The 15.8 23.4 11.4 157.9 71.0 94.4 82.4 Ghana 131.2 184.8 143.5 510.4 228.8 413.6 372.3 Madagascar 60.1 88.9 57.5 400.9 179.4 268.2 236.8 Malawi 119.5 176.7 56.8 302.8 117.2 294.0 174.0 Mali 69.1 102.2 82.5 604.2 287.1 389.3 369.7 Mauritania 72.8 107.7 87.0 272.0 123.3 230.9 210.3 Mozambique 149.5 221.2 26.5 577.8 245.6 466.8 272.1 Niger 47.9 70.9 24.4 213.3 85.2 156.1 109.6 Rwanda 108.5 160.5 51.5 121.4 50.9 211.4 102.4 SHo Tome and Principe 40.8 60.4 15.1 37.1 13.1 73.4 28.2 Senegal 56.9 84.1 80.8 439.3 205.4 289.5 286.2 Sierra Leone 43.4 58.3 19.7 155.2 61.4 119.6 81.0 Tanzania 124.9 184.8 96.3 651.1 273.2 457.9 369.5 Uganda 82.6 122.2 64.3 551.2 243.5 365.7 307.8 Zambia 146.1 216.2 133.1 259.3 108.0 324.1 241.0 7 Interim HIPCs 3/ TOTAL 1,583.6 1,933.3 1,008.1 1,933.3 1,008.1 Chad 37.0 52.1 20.2 52.1 20.2 Congo, Dem. Rep. ofthe 905.1 1,156.1 587.5 1,156.1 587.5 Congo, Rep. o f 41 41.9 48.5 48.5 48.5 48.5 CBte d'Ivoire 41 208.5 208.5 0.0 208.5 0.0 Guinea 75.3 111.5 53.3 111.5 53.3 Guinea-Bissau 60.4 89.3 31.4 89.3 31.4 Liberia 41 238.1 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 Togo 41 17.3 17.3 17.2 17.3 17.2 Total Debt Relief Committed 3,617.0 4,822.8 2,430.3 7,150.3 3,084.2 7,907.0 5,514.5 Sources: Afiican Development Bank Group, World Bank and IMF staff estimates. 11 Total delivered enhanced HIPC assistance to end 2008. 21 Nominal MDRI costs include principal and interest foregone. 31 Includes only HIPCs that owe debt to AfDB Group. 4/ The total amount o f HIPC Initiative debt relief has been provided through an arrears clearance operation in Congo, Rep. o f in 2004; CBte d'Ivoire in 2009; Liberia i 2007; Togo in 2008, n - 47 - T a b l e 8B. AfDB G r o u p D e b t Service after HIPC Initiative and MDRI D e b t Relief, 2000-2013 (In millions o f U.S. dollars) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Actuals Projected D e b t Service before HIPC Initiative D e b t Relief Bmln 5 4 8 7 9 9 12 5 6 9 13 14 14 15 Burkma Faso 8 4 1 0 9 9 8 1 2 6 6 6 7 7 8 9 Burundi 0 - - 3 2 9 1 8 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 9 Central A h c a n Republic - 0 - - 49 5 5 6 7 8 8 Cameroon 47 25 63 41 40 38 38 28 28 28 15 11 9 9 Chad 3 1 7 6 3 10 7 9 9 11 15 16 17 18 Congo, Dem Rep o f the - 65 73 42 118 121 128 142 157 161 164 169 170 Rep o f Congo 11 7 - 0 33 188 55 27 19 13 13 13 12 12 11 C6te dIvoue 0 46 197 0 1 - - 58 102 273 55 47 41 17 Etluopia 45 34 46 46 49 49 50 33 33 20 19 19 19 17 Gambia, The 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 4 2 3 3 3 5 Ghana 31 16 37 29 30 32 40 23 23 12 10 11 11 19 Gumea 24 18 26 22 53 18 18 18 17 17 17 17 15 15 Gumea-Bissau - 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 6 6 6 Madagascar 13 10 14 12 10 9 13 6 7 8 8 8 8 1 3 Malaw 10 7 10 11 12 12 12 6 6 6 7 7 5 6 Mall 7 6 14 9 13 14 20 8 9 9 14 21 22 24 Mauntania 12 8 12 12 12 13 18 14 13 14 14 14 13 13 Mozambique 3 6 7 7 8 7 13 8 9 9 11 16 17 18 Niger 1 2 3 3 5 5 10 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 Libena - 0 0 386 98 3 3 4 4 3 Rwanda 6 4 8 7 8 9 11 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 S l o Tome and Pnncipe 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 Senegal 25 14 31 24 26 26 29 25 26 27 27 27 15 15 Sierra Leone 2 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 2 2 2 3 3 3 Tanzma 11 8 12 15 16 16 21 11 13 12 13 13 14 14 Togo 0 1 - - 39 4 4 8 8 9 Uganda 7 5 9 10 12 12 19 8 9 9 8 9 16 20 Zambia 31 24 24 26 27 26 28 17 12 1 1 9 7 7 7 TOTAL 302 251 616 418 618 521 540 897 653 688 474 488 481 480 D e b t service after HIPC Initiative debt relief 2/ Benm 3 - 3 2 3 4 6 0 0 6 13 14 14 15 Burkma Faso 4 - 3 2 3 3 6 - 0 0 1 2 2 2 Burundi 0 - - 3 2 9 1 5 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Central A h c a n Republic - 0 - - 49 1 1 2 3 3 3 Cameroon 44 13 52 35 40 38 27 10 13 1 3 9 9 9 9 Chad 3 - 3 2 - 7 7 9 9 11 10 10 10 11 Congo, Dem Rep of the - 65 72 - 19 10 13 24 37 39 41 169 170 Rep o f Congo 1/ 7 - 0 33 148 55 27 19 13 13 13 12 12 11 C6te dIvoue 0 46 197 0 1 - - 58 102 74 55 47 41 17 Ethmpia 45 34 15 16 19 20 21 5 6 0 - Gambia, The 3 0 1 1 4 4 4 5 1 - 0 3 Ghana 31 16 19 8 10 13 22 8 8 0 3 4 4 1 7 Gulnea 24 7 15 12 53 18 18 18 6 1 7 7 1 4 6 Gumea-Bissau - 0 1 1 1 3 1 - - Madagascar 13 1 5 5 10 4 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Malawi 10 - 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 - . . Mali 5 - 5 1 5 6 11 - 1 - 7 21 22 24 Mauntania 5 - 3 3 4 5 10 6 5 6 6 11 13 13 Mozambique 2 4 5 5 5 4 11 5 6 6 8 16 17 18 Niger 1 - 1 1 2 2 7 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Libena - 0 0 148 98 3 3 4 4 3 Rwanda 6 - 2 2 3 5 4 - S l o Tome and Prlncipe 1 - 1 0 1 1 1 1 - Senegal 20 6 23 20 11 8 21 25 26 27 27 27 15 15 Sierra Leone 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 - Tanzma 6 - 4 5 6 7 11 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 Togo 0 1 - - 22 4 4 8 8 9 Uganda 3 - 3 4 5 5 12 1 2 1 1 3 13 20 Zambia 31 2 5 7 27 17 10 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 271 130 437 243 398 273 268 389 353 224 211 237 365 379 - 48 - Table 8B (concluded). AfDB Group Debt Service after HIPC Initiative and MDRI Debt Relief, 2000-2013 (In millions o f U.S. dollars) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Actuals Projected Debt service after HIPC Initiative debt relief and MDRI Benm 3 - 3 2 3 4 4 - - 3 3 3 3 Burha Faso 4 - 3 2 3 3 4 - BWQ 0 - - 3 2 9 1 5 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Central Afncan Republic - 0 - - 49 1 1 1 1 2 2 Cameroon 44 13 52 35 40 38 26 8 11 1 1 7 5 4 4 Chad 3 - 3 2 - 7 7 9 9 1 1 6 6 6 6 Congo, Dem Rep ofthe - 65 72 - 19 IO 13 24 37 39 41 166 167 Rep ofCongo l i 7 - 0 33 148 55 27 19 13 13 12 12 11 10 CBte dIvolre 0 46 197 0 1 - - 58 102 74 53 42 36 12 Ehopia 45 34 15 16 19 20 15 - Gambia, The 3 0 1 1 4 4 4 5 - Ghana 31 16 19 8 10 13 16 1 1 - 2 Guma 24 7 15 12 53 18 18 18 6 1 7 7 1 2 4 Gumea-Bissau - 0 1 1 1 3 1 Madagascar 13 1 5 5 1 0 4 4 - - 0 Malaw 10 - 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 - Mali 5 - 5 1 5 6 7 - - 3 4 4 Mauntania 5 - 3 3 4 5 9 4 3 3 3 5 5 5 Mozambique 2 4 5 5 5 4 7 0 1 0 1 5 5 6 Niger 1 - 1 1 2 2 5 - Libena - 0 0 148 98 3 3 3 3 3 Rwanda 6 - 2 2 3 5 2 - Sao Tom6 and Prlncipe 1 - 1 0 1 1 1 1 - Senegal 20 6 23 20 11 8 16 17 17 18 17 17 4 3 Sierra Leone 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 - Tanzma 6 - 4 5 6 7 7 - Togo 0 1 - - 22 4 4 4 4 5 Uganda 3 - 3 4 5 5 8 - - 1 4 Zambia 31 2 5 7 2 7 1 7 8 0 - TOTAL 271 130 431 243 398 273 220 354 311 193 157 148 256 240 Sources: Aliican Development Bank Group 11The total amount o f HIPC Initiative debt reliefhas been providedthrough arrears clearance operation 21 Debt service after HIPC for interim HIPC countries assumes that interimdebt reliefi s providedaccording to the schedule determined at decision point. - 49 - Table 9. Status o f Delivery o f HIPC and IaDB-07 Initiatives Assistance by the Inter- American Development Bank (IaDB) Status as o f end-July 2009 (In millions o f US. dollars) IaDB 2007 Debt Initiative IaDB Assistance under the HIPC Initiative Total Committed Total Delivered ( M D R I equivalent) Assistance Assistance Committed under the HIPC under the HIPC Committed Delivered Delivered Delivered Assistance in Initiative and Initiative and Assistance in Assistance in Assistance in Assistance in NPV Terms as 2007 Initiative in 2007 Initiative in end-2008 end-2008 N P V Nominal o f Decision end-2008NPV end-2008 NPV end-2008 NPV N P V Terms Terms 1/ Terms 21 Terms Point Terms Terms 5 Post-Completion-Point HIPCs 3/ TOTAL 1,183.0 1,727.4 735.1 4,369.0 2,352.1 4,079.5 3,087.2 Bolivia 477.1 705.8 210.0 1,050.2 541.2 1,247.0 75 1.2 Haiti 60.4 66.6 20.7 492.3 290.2 356.8 311.0 Honduras 133.8 197.9 175.2 1,367.1 791.1 989.1 966.4 Guyana 120.5 178.3 61.3 469.9 259.8 438.1 321.2 Nicaragua 391.2 578.8 267.8 989.5 469.7 1,048.5 737.5 Total Debt Relief Committed 1,183.0 1,727.4 735.1 4,369.0 2,352.1 ' 4,079.5 3,087.2 Sources: Inter-American Development Bank, World Bank and I M F staff estimates 11Total delivered enhanced HIPC assistance to end 2008. 21 Nominal IaDB-07 Initiative costs include principal and interest foregone 31 Includes only HIPCs that owe debt to IaDB. - 50 - Table 10. Status o f Bilateral Donor Pledges to the Debt Relief Trust Fund Status as o f July 15,2009 (In millions o f U.S. dollars) Inception thmugh September 2002 October 2002 to October 2004 to October onwnrdrfincl new pledges) Total Coltrlbutionr since inceptbn Contributions Pledged and Paid-In Contributions Pledged a l ~ i l ~ t ~ ~BilateralContributions e/ contributions I n c l d h c Er, Total Pledged and Pledged ACP Donor EC-ACP Bilateral Contrlbutlons EC-ACP a' Bilateral b/ d Pud-ln Paid-in e/ Pmd-m Conebution Australia 13 13 13 Auha 18 26 44 6 50 Belgium 26 20 46 10 9 9 64 Canada 116 116 51 51 28 195 Denmark I5 43 58 5 21 21 8 8 93 Finland 10 25 35 3 13 13 13 20 20 84 Fiance 166 21 187 60 11 11 26 22 d/ 285 GerIWly 160 72 232 58 60 60 52 35 d/ 402 Greece 9 3 12 3 2 2 11 Iceland 2 2 1 1 0.2 0.2 3 lrd and 4 20 23 1 7 7 32 Italy 86 70 156 31 h/ 29 d/W 9 215 Japan 20 0 200 58 58 258 Korea 10 10 10 Luxembourg 2 1 2 1 4 Nethedmds 36 136 I72 13 56 d 49 8 13 8 d/ 254 NewZealand 2 2 2 Nomy 79 79 47 47 20 20 20 165 Portugal 7 15 22 2 24 Rwsian Federation 10 10 15 25 Spain 40 85 125 15 25 25 15 15 180 Sueden 19 58 77 6 26 26 20 20 129 Switzerland 60 60 35 35 4 4 99 United Kingdom 88 22 1 310 32 95 95 65 65 501 United States 600 600 150 75 750 Total Bilateral Contnbuhons 1,889 709 6 08 76 251 217 2,924 Tofal EC-ACP Contnbuhons 685 246 d 246 93 I Total gl 685 1,889 2,514 246 lo9 854 16 251 211 3,855 On May 16,2003, the EGACP Council, bringkg t o s t h a Ministers h m %can, Caribbean, w d Pacific munaies I d Eu Member States, approved a mnrlbution of EUR 200 million This cornbution was h d e d f r o m remurm already allocatedto EGACP coopaatbn thmugh the 8th md 9th replmishnents ofthe Eumpew Dewbpment Fund. hbrt EU Member States pledges made ip the October 2002 HIPC technicalmeeting included their s h r e o f w npccted E C - A B wnuibution. Whm the EC-ACP wntnbuton w a finalized in May 2003, bilataal pkdgmofEU membem w a e adjusted, attributing h e EC-ACP mnmbution basd on each domr's sharc in E D R In edditbn, a number of donors madep kdgm &K the Odober 2002 meding or increased the m o w i o f heir pledges, h c l d i n g Caned4 Finland, Grcsc, Korea, Noway, Russia a d the United kngdom. M w y donorslinkedhe levelofheir2002pledge taspecifichdinggsp cstimaesortootherconditionssuchar edditionalfundingforlFAD. Thesepledge wonditons arcnoted on pa$e 4 ofthe Chstmw'a summaryofHIPCtshricdmosthg on &mber24,2002. Contibition agreements have been signed mvering the full mount o f t k donor's ountmding plcdge, Germany has signed apemen& for XDR 35.06 mln. Of h i s amount, XDR 21 91 mln have been paid Frwce has signed %reements for EUR 26 20 mln. O f t h i mounf EUR 22 27 mln has been paid. Italy has signed @reemeats for USD 28.72 mln. Of thL anounf USD 9.10 mln has been paid. Netherlwds has signedagreemmtsfor USD 69.80. Ofthis mount, USD 49.80mh hla been pad. The remahig momt for reSpeCtive donors i s p ayable in 2009 w d 2010 on w agreed khedulc Excludm conhibuhon earmarked for IDA proviied in h e conbxt o f IDA14 w d IDA15. Many donors have alsoprovideddebt relief through other inhiativcs andmshmiarm inchding: he Debt Reduction Facihty for IDA-only Counrbs (pmvidhg finwcing for wmmeffiial debt redunioncffons), specific munhy-held multaabral debt relief faalfics, bilateral debt relief rust funds, md h e Central Amencw Emergency Trust Fund. This total inchdes (I)contibdons of USD 80 mdlion that were eamarked m IDA from Aumalia, Auskik Icelmd, Italy, h e Netkdmds and N w Zealand; md e (2) contibutions o f USD 52 millon that were earnaked to IFAD. Based on afinding gapofSl binioncontingent onmlle&%e effom OD move to S I billhn as reededandproidedIFAD isincluded inthe fundhg gap Many donors linked theleval o f thar pledge (from 2006 onwards) to their shareof IDA14, ADF-X or h e i share h IFAD. DetaiL ofpkdge conditions are n k c t e d on page 3 o f the Chaimank slmmaw ofHIPC technicalmeding on Novsnber 19,2006 w d shsequmt pledging meethg in Maputo d v i s June 2007. 51 \ rl h P .Y a B - 52 - Table 12. Debt Relief Committed and Delivered by the Paris Club Official Bilateral Creditors (In millions o f U.S. dollars, in end-2008 NPV terms) HIPC HIPC DeMRelief Debt-Relief- Initiative Initiative BeyondHIF'C Total Debt Proddedto Debt- Debtor Country Assistance Assistance Initiative Relief Prodded Relief- Committed Provided Provided Committed 26 Post-Completion-PointHIPCs TOTAL 12,243.7 12,243.7 7,912.0 20,155.7 165 Benm 94.3 94.3 ... 94.3 100 Bolivia 606.7 . 606.7 ... 606.7 100 B u r h a Faso 34.0 34.0 25.8 59.8 176 Burundi 102.2 102.2 4.7 106.9 105 Cameroon 1,280.7 1,280.7 3,513.8 4,794.5 374 Central Afncan Republic 36.0 36.0 ... 36.0 100 Ethiopla 712.4 712.4 230.0 942.4 132 Gambla, The 7.1 7.1 ... 7.1 100 Ghana 1,165.8 1,165.8 788.4 1,954.1 168 Guyana 271.9 271.9 42.1 314.0 115 Halti 16.5 16.5 68.4 849 516 Honduras 249.5 249.5 1,000.7 1,250.2 501 Madagascar 579.7 579.7 722.6 1,302.3 225 Malaw 208.9 208.9 241.7 450.6 216 Mali 168.4 168.4 I.. 168.4 100 Mauritania 203.0 203.0 26.1 229.1 113 Mozambique 1/ 1,563.9 1,563.9 ... 1,563.9 100 Nicaragua 1,286.7 1,286.7 179.6 1,4663 114 Niger 158.6 158.6 60.2 218.8 138 Rwanda 51.1 51.1 8.4 59.5 116 SBo Tomi and Principe 21.4 21.4 0.7 22.0 103 Senegal 186.6 186.6 450.7 637.3 342 Sierra Leone 272.0 272.0 32.5 304.5 112 Tanzanla 1,178.1 1,178.1 ... 1,178.1 100 Uganda 175.5 175.5 I.. 175.5 100 Zambla 1,612.7 1,612.7 515.6 2,128.3 132 9 Interim HIF'Cs TOTAL 2/ 8,670.5 ... ... 9.. ... Afghanistan 440.7 ... ... Chad 20.6 ... Congo, D e n Rep. ofthe the 4,423.7 ... Congo, Rep. o f 1,058.0 ... CBte d'Ivoire 1,280.6 ... Guinea 225.9 ... ... ... Guinea-Blssau 222.6 ... Liberia 900.4 ... Togo 98.0 ... ... ... TOTAL 20,914.2 I.. I., ... ... Sources: HIPC country documents, HIPC country authorities; and IMF staffestimates. 1/ Agreemnts with Portugal and Japan are s t i l l pending. 2/ N o information is available regarding the provision ofinterimdebt reliefto these countries by the Paris Club creditors. - 53 - Table 13. Paris Club Official Bilateral Creditors' Delivery o f Debt Relief under Bilateral Initiatives beyond the HIPC Initiative 1/ C o u n t r i a Covered ODA (In p u e m t ) Non-ODA (In p a c m t ) Pmvision of Rdid RbcutoffDate Post-c:ltoff Pre-cutoff Date Post-cutoff Debt Date Debt Debt Date Debt Decison Point Completion Point (n DerWIlt) I Aumalia HIPC s 100 100 100 100 21 21 21 Aumia HIPC s 100 100 - Casebysass, flow Stock Belgium HIPC s 100 100 100 100 flow Stock Canada HIPC s 100 100 100 100 100 flow Stock Denmark HIPC s 100 100 31 100 100 31 100 flow Stock France HIPC s 100 100 100 100 flow 41 Stock Finland HIPC s 100 - 51 100 - 51 Germany HIPC S 100 100 100 100 100 flow Stock Ireland Italy HIPC s 100 100 61 100 100 61 100 flow Stock Japan HIPC s 100 100 100 Stock Nethedands, the HIPCs 100 71 100 100 90-100 flow 71 Stock Noway HIPCs 8/ 81 91 91 Russia HIPCS - IO/ - 101 100 100 Stock Spain HIPCs 100 100 111 100 100 111 Stock Sweden HIPCs - 121 100 Stock Switzerland HIPCs - 131 - 131 90-100 141 90-1OOflow Stock United Kingdom HIPCs 100 100 100 100 151 100 flow 151 Stock United States 161 HIPCs 100 100 100 100 100 flow Stock Source: Paris C l d Secretariat. 11Columns (I) (7) describe h e additional debt relief provided f o l l o k g a specific methodology unier bilateral initiatives and need to be read as a whole for each ueditor. to I n column( I), I K "HIPCs"stands for eliglble corntries effectively qralifling for h e H process A"l00percent"mention i n the table indicates h a t thedebt relief provided underthe enhanced HIPC Initiative f r a m w r k will be topped up to 100 percent though a bilateral initiahve 21 Australia: post-cutoff date non-ODA relief to apply to deb6 inurred beforea date m be f i n a l i d , timing d-ls forboth flow ard stock relief are to be finalized. 31Denmrk provides 100 percent cancellation of ODA loam and non-ODA credits contracted and disbursed before September 27, 1999. 41Fmce: cancellation of loopercent of debt sewice on precutoff date commercial clams on h e government as they fall due starting at dgision point. Once countries haw reached completion point, debt relief on ODA claims on h e govemmnt will go to a special account and will be used for specific developmentprojeds 51Fmland: noportCaoff date claims 61 Italy: cancellation o f 100 percent of all debts @reand post-cutoff date, ODA ard non-ODA) incurred before June 20,1999 (the Cologne Sumnut) cancellation o f h e related amounti fallingdue inthe interim pmod. At completion point, cancellation ofthe stockof rmaining debt. 7/TheNetherlanb: IWpercentODA(pre a r d post-cutoff datedebtwill becancelled atdecision point); fornon-ODA: insome particular cases(Beniq Bolivk, ButkinaFaso, Ethiopia, Ghna, Mal. Mozambique,Nicaragua, Rwanda, Tanzania, UgandaandZambia), theNetherlands win write o f f 100 percent of h e consolidated amounts on tte flow at decision point; all other HIPCs will receive interim relief up to 90 percent redudion o f h e consolidatedamounts. A t completion point, all HlPCs mill receive 100 PR cent cancelktbn of h e remaining stock o f tte precutoff date debt 81Norw.y has cancelledall ODAclaims. 91 Due to the current World BaMMF methodology forrecalculating debt reduction needs at HIPC wmpletion point, Norway has postponedthe decisions on wkther or not to grart 100% debt reduction until after HIpCs'completion point. 101 Rusia has no ODA claims 1 11 Spain provides 100 percent cancellation o f ODA and mn-ODA claims contracted before January 1,2004 121 Sweden has m ODA claims 131Switzerland har cancelled all ODA claims. 141h some particular case (Central AfricanRepublic, Liberia, Republic o f Congo, S i m a Leone, Togo), Swtrerland will M i t e off 100 percent ofthe reminingdebtstock at completion point; a l l oher HIpCs will receive debt reliefacwrding m Paris Club terms. 151 United Kingdom: "beyond 100 percent" full writeoffof all debts o f HIPCs as oftheu decision pointi, ard reimbursemen a i decision point o f any debt service paid before the dechion point. 161United Stater cancellationof 100percent o f all debts @reand post-cutoff date, ODAand non-ODA) incurred before June 20, 1999 (the Cologne Sumnut). A t deckion point, cancellation of accrued mars and maturities falling due in the interim period. At completion pornt, cancellation of the stock of remainng eligible debt 54 bEJI UEII ph u B f 55 , x 3 m o m 0 mI - 56 - Table 15. Delivery of HIPC Initiative Debt Relief by Non-Paris Club Official Bilateral Creditors 1/ 2/ (in millions o f U.S. dollars, 2008 NPV terms unless otherwise indicated) Number of Completion Point H I P C Initiative Assistance Debtors Costs HIPC Initiative Assistance Delivered Total Relief Provided NPV Terms Percent o f NPV Terms Percent of Total Total Cost Assistance Creditor Country (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)= (5)/(3) . IFull delivery o f H I P C Relief (10 creditors): Egmt 7 2 05 00 05 100 0 Hungary 7 4 21.3 05 21 3 IO0 0 Jamaica 21 16 0.2 00 02 100 0 Morocco 0 0 3.1 01 31 100 0 Oman 1 0 1.8 00 18 100 0 Portugal 2 2 8.4 02 84 100 0 Republic o f Korea 3 1 7.8 02 78 100 0 Rwanda 16 IO 0.8 00 08 100 0 South Africa IO 0 6.9 02 69 100 0 Trinidad and Tobago IO 1 0.6 00 06 100 0 Total 51.5 1.2 51.5 100.0 I. IPartial delivery o f H I P C Relief(22 creditors): Algeria 12 3 273.7 66 41 0 15 0 Argentina 3 I 30.6 07 33 IO8 Brazil 2 I 9.7 02 74 76 6 Bulgaria 6 3 121 6 29 99-110 81 - 9 0 Burundi 31 1 I 0.2 00 China 41 23 17 342.2 82 I 6 2 - 209 47.61 Cuba 2 1 2.3 01 02 82 Czech Republic 4 3 36.9 09 29 4 79 6 Former Yugoslavia 51 7 2 112.8 27 6-47 5-41 Guatemala 6/ 2 I 530.9 12 7 523 7 98 6 India 71 7 4 42.3 10 5-29 11 - 6 9 Kuwait 8/ 21 16 369.4 89 255 9 69 3 Libya 16 3 326.2 78 31. 53 9 - 16 Mexico 2 1 75.0 18 61 1 81 5 People's Democratic Republic of Korea 7 1 32.9 08 24 73 Poland 4 2 23.5 06 I40 59 8 Romania 3 1 43 6 10 38 5 88 3 Saudi Arabia 16 10 206.6 50 - 86 141 42 - 68 Slovak Republic 4 3 18.4 04 I47 79 6 Tanzania 3/ I 1 4.7 01 United Arab Emirates IO I 33.9 08 0-3 0-9 Venezuela 5 2 81.2 19 35 3 43 5 Total 2718.6 65.1 1,414- 1,623 52.60 l. I lNo delivery o f H I P C Relief (18 Creditors): Angola 4 0 28.6 07 0 0 Cape Verde 1 0 03 00 0 0 Colombia 1 0 5.4 01 0 0 Costa Rica 2 0 558 7 I34 0 0 Cote d'Ivoire 3 0 15.3 04 0 0 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1 0 0.4 0 0 0 Ecuador 1 0 0.5 0 0 0 Honduras 1 0 143.6 34 0 0 Iran 2 0 79.9 19 0 0 Iraq 10 0 126.2 30 0 0 Niger 2 0 0.5 0 0 0 Nigeria 1 0 2.3 01 0 0 Pakistan 1 0 1.4 0 0 0 Peru I 0 11.1 03 0 0 Taiwan, China 10 0 427.1 IO2 0 0 UWuaY 1 0 0.8 0 0 0 Zambia 1 0 0.2 0 0 0 Zimbabwe 2 0 04 0 0 0 Total 1,402.8 33.6 0 0.0 Grand Total ( + l I I I l+ I ) 4,172.9 100.0 - 1,466 1,675 35.40 Sources, HIPC documents; country authorities; and Fund and Bank staffestimates. 11 Based on information received as o f June 2009. The information wvers only creditors that have claims on post-completion-point. 21 Argentina, Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Mexico, Morocco, Portugal, South Africa, and Trinidad and Tobago are associated members of the Paris Club. As such, these countlies participate in negotiation sessions of the Paris Club on a case-by-case basis, provided that c e w i n conditiones are met. Generally, Creditors participating in a negotlation session for a particular country are considered Paris Club members for the purpose of HIPC calculations. 3/ I n these cases, there is only one debtor. Debtors have indicated that some relief has been provided but the information received is insufficient to quantify it. 41 The debt relief estimates for China are based on debt cancellations data provided by debtors. 51 Partition o f HIPC loans outstanding at decision point and the associated debt relief among members o f the Former Yugoslavia is being determined with the help of the authorities. 61 Guatemala's claims on Nicaragua were taken over by Spain i n a debt swap. Spain has agreed to provide HIPC debt relief to Nicaragua on those claims. 7/ In June 2003, India announced ib intention to w i t e o f f all non-expon credit claims on HIPCs. However, several agreements remain unsigned 81Debt relief estimates for Kuwait are based on detailed loan by loan information provided by the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development (KFAED). 57 Table 16. Commercial Creditor Lawsuits against HIPCs 1/ OriginalClaim Amount Clalmed Judgment for HIPC Debtor Creditor 21 Domicile of Creditor Courl Loeation Stahti of Legal Action I / 41 51 by the Creditor Credltor 71 (I~MUION of U S dollars) 6/ L Comuletloa-PointHIPCs (I)Kinlex-Bulgaria Bulgaria Russia Ongoing 8.7 8.7 Eoadurw 81 1.5 1.5 (I)Bag0 Laboratories Argentina Honduras Ongoing 1.5 1.5 Slerrr Leone 9.0 9.0 (I)Indushie BiaMti Italy ongoing 9.0 9.0 UgMdn 6.0 6.4 (1) Iraq Fund for International Development Iraq Uganda Ongoing 6.0 6.4 Zambia 95.0 95.0 ABSA Limited of South Africa (I) south Africa Zambia Ongoing 95 0 95.0 L I htelim HIPCi Congo, Dem. Rep. of the 56.5 161.5 43.5 FG (I) Hemisphere USA France Ongoing 44.0 118.0 (2) F m Edward Rinr R o o m Israel south Africa Judgement awarded 12.5 43.5 43.5 congo, Rep. O f 91 211.7 831.4 IGmupe Antoine Tatet (GAT) ( ) Lebanon Sulturland and France ongoing I26 0 91.9 (2) Berrebi France France Ongoing 21 6.0 (3) commisimpex Rep of Congo France Ongoing 83.6 733.5 IIL Poteatidly Elidble HIPCs Sudan 133.2 107.4 146.0 (1) Pomgrad Split Serb18 Sudan Judgement awarded 04 0.4 44.1 (2) Habib Bank Linuted PaloStan UK Judgement awarded 1019 101.9 101 9 (3) Namw Anslalt Sulturland Sudan Ongoing 46 5.0 (4) Amca Alfa Fund Dubo Dubo ongoing 26.2 0.0 0.0 Source 2009 Survey on Commerslal Creditor Pankipationind Crdtor LawNiu againn HIpCs I Commercial d t o n lawsuits agamsl HIPCs are r p n d without asrssing the menu ofther disputes. The informationreponed in Uus table reflMs responses l o the survey only, end it should not be ! eoe considereda wmplele sumnary of all wmmercid creditor proceedings against HIPCs. The survey was rerpanded by the authorities o f 2 5 wunnies out of 40 surveyed in June 2W9. U Either original crdtor or holder of current claim. 3/ "Judgment awarded" refen to cases in which the creditor hac obtained a judgment againn the HIPC but har not yet resoveredthe full paymenton iu claim 41 when possible,exchange rates a1 decision-point were ured for repolting claims in U.S.dollars Othmtim, average exchange rates were ursd. 51 Excludssaccumulated interesl,charges, and penalties. 61 Amount wuld include intacR charges. and penalties. 71 Setdement mounts are not reported,as wmidentiality agsements might be in place. 81 Rerpanws to prnious m e y s are sarried to the following year unless there is new mformnlion indicatingthat a rnlcment has ken reached. 91 Claims against the Republic of Conge-which were alrrady included in last year's report-have been revised upwards due to tetter data .