Reading Time: 17 minutes

The Managing Director of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva took questions from the press at the multi-lateral’s Spring Meeting held at its headquarters in Washington.

This press briefing was moderated by Director of the IMF’s Communications Department, Julie Kozack.

 Below is the full transcript:

MS. KOZACK: All right. Good morning, everyone. A very warm welcome to you. My name is Julie Kozack. I am the Director of the Communications Department here at the IMF. Thank you very much for joining us today for the Managing Director’s press briefing on the Global Policy Agenda.

As usual, I will first turn to Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva for some opening remarks, and then we will open for your questions. Kristalina, the floor is yours.

MS. GEORGIEVA: Thank you very much, Julie. Good morning to all, those who are here in the room and those who are online. Like all of you, we have been watching closely the events in the Middle East, a war that causes significant pain on people and the economies in the region and around the world. My hopes, my prayers are for the current ceasefire to lead to a durable peace.

The impact on the global economy is already large. Even if the conflict is short‑lived, extensive infrastructure damage and supply‑chain disruptions are pushing prices up and slowing global growth down from 3.4 percent last year to 3.1 percent in 2026. But if the conflict persists and oil prices stay high for an extended period, we must brace for tough times ahead. Our World Economic Outlook outlines a range of scenarios. In the most adverse case, growth could fall to 2 percent, and the shock is global. All countries are affected by higher energy prices. But the negative impact is highly asymmetric with the biggest burdens falling on countries that import energy and have limited policy space. In many cases, these are low‑income or fragile economies. They need attention. And an important focus of our discussion this week is on how we can best support them.

In this world of frequent shocks and uncertainty, what is our policy advice to our members? In the short term, maintaining macroeconomic and financial stability is key. Understandably, governments would like to help businesses and people hit by the exogenous supply shock. My advice, look before you leap. On monetary policy, for countries where monetary policy was well‑calibrated before the shock and expectations remain anchored, wait and see is the right approach. In other countries, early policy action may be required.

On fiscal policy, we have been warning for some time that public debt is constraining fiscal space. I want to stress what is different this time in comparison to COVID is the cumulative impact of shock upon shock. It has pushed debt to dangerously high levels. Global public debt is on track to breach 100 percent of GDP in 2029, a level not seen since the aftermath of World War II.

So, to maintain their fiscal policy credibility, policymakers need to strike a careful balance between safeguarding fiscal sustainability and protecting those who are hit the hardest and have least capacity to respond. The good news is that many countries have so far avoided untargeted tax cuts, energy subsidies, and price controls. The not‑so‑good news is that we are seeing some countries putting in place untargeted measures, export controls, or broad‑based tax cuts. While the intention behind these measures may be good, it is to protect people from the shock, such untargeted actions will only prolong the pain of high prices.

Finally, even as policymakers respond to the short‑term effects of this shock, they must not lose sight of broader forces affecting the global economy from geopolitics and trade to technology, demographics, and climate. We must adapt our policy to these long‑term trends by accelerating growth‑oriented reforms because these reforms will protect us from the shocks to come.

Policymakers will need to carry out structural reforms to lift productivity and growth. A strong economy is the best buffer. And once this shock passes, they will need to rebuild policy space.

Now, let me turn to the role of the IMF. As our Global Policy Agenda makes clear, we serve as the firefighter for our member countries, and we are committed to helping them navigate this complex landscape. We anticipate near‑term demand for IMF financial support to range between 20 and $50 billion. This represents augmentations of some existing programs—currently we have 39 programs—and prospective demand for new programs from at least a dozen countries, a number of them in sub‑Saharan Africa.

We are coordinating closely with the World Bank, with the International Energy Agency, and with other partners, including at the regional level, to maximise our combined response. Even as we step up our support, we continue to adapt our toolkit. We are doing very important reviews, the Review of Program Design and Conditionality, the Comprehensive Surveillance Review, and the review of our FSAP, so we can further sharpen the policy advice we provide to our members. We continue to work on countries’ debt, including through the Global Sovereign Debt Roundtable. It will meet again this afternoon. And as our member countries navigate this moment of uncertainty, we are helping them think ahead so they can handle any form of turbulence. We love our members. Thank you. (Applause). 

MS. KOZACK: Thank you very much, Kristalina. We will now open the floor for questions. When called on, we will bring you a microphone. Please give your name and your affiliation. We will start, I am going to say, with this gentleman in the grey jacket right here.

Questioner: Thanks, Managing Director. Clearly there has been a market price impact from the events in the Straits of Hormuz. To what extent are you worried about any physical supply chain breakages as a result of what is sort of locked into the Gulf? And just to clarify the advice to central banks on this wave of inflation, are you saying just sort of pause? Do you not think you have to chase this inflation rate first and foremost, and do not think you have to raise interest rates kind of almost preemptively? 

MS. GEORGIEVA: Thank you very much for the question. Yes, we are concerned about the physical breakdown in supply chains. We are already seeing, especially in Asia, which is highly dependent on imports from the Gulf, that there are shortages in places, not only of oil and gas, but also of NAFTA, of helium, and that is creating already some disruptions. What we need to recognise is not going to evaporate overnight even if the war ends tomorrow. Why? Because a tanker is a slow‑moving vessel. It will take 40 days to get all the way to Fiji. So, we need to be prepared that the impact of these supply disruptions in the weeks ahead is going to deepen.

What do we tell countries? Use measures that can economise energy. I have seen some countries doing exactly that, putting in place incentives like making public transport free, and incentivising people to take it. Or work from home. We did it during COVID. I do not see a reason why not do more of it now. Or switch to less energy‑intensive activities over time. So that is where we are.

I will give you just one example. Jet fuel. Something that I learned yesterday is that Korea is a big producer of jet fuel. They are an importer but a jet fuel exporter. Fortunately for the world, they are one of the countries in Asia that has strong reserves of oil and gas, which allows the economy to function well, but they need new supplies. As I said, the tankers are slow to move. In fact, what we have is a 20th Century type of shock, slow‑moving shock in the 21st Century.

To your second question on advice to central banks, what we tell central banks is if you have high credibility, signal that your objective is to protect price stability but do not rush. Wait to see how conditions will evolve. If we are to move faster out of the war, it may not be necessary to take action. But for central banks that do not have that credibility, they may need to utilize stronger signals. So, it is going to be country‑specific.

MS. KOZACK: Let us go to the middle, the gentleman toward the back of the middle. Yes, you.

QUESTIONER: Thanks very much. I am with the Financial Times. Managing Director, I wanted to ask you a bit on the inflationary outlook. Obviously, we have already seen signs of inflationary pass‑through in agriculture, logistics, retail, et cetera. How concerned are you in the near term about the pervasiveness of the inflationary shock and its stickiness even after the war comes to an end?

MS. GEORGIEVA: We have upgraded our projections for inflation for 2026. We were on a very good trajectory of inflation going down. Now there is a somewhat reversal. What we see is that short‑term inflation expectations have moved up here in the United States. They have moved up in the Euro Area. But the good news for now is that long‑term inflation expectations remain well‑anchored, and that signals that we are still at a time when a faster resolution of hostilities is possible.

When we look at the risks of impact of inflation through interruptions of supply chains, the question that BBC asked, yes, we are concerned about risks for inflation moving into food prices should the delivery of fertilisers at a reasonable price not be restarted soon. Then in this case we might see pressure on food prices, and we all recognize how difficult this would be for people everywhere.

We were looking at, for example, urea sales in Africa, already from $400, they jumped to $800. The price has doubled. These are dangerous developments. This is why we are so much urging a resolution that would reduce the risk of inflation spillovers.

MS. KOZACK: We will go right here, woman in the second row in the dark blue, right at the end, yes.

QUESTIONER: Good morning. I am with Bloomberg. For now, the talk of peace means that even less oil is flowing from the Strait of Hormuz. We have not really seen as you say the supply chain effects, and shipments are arriving at the ports as you mentioned. Do you see that the effects will spread first slowly and then very quickly if the conflict stands, and this will hit even more economic growth? And if you can also say, do you think there is a mispricing from markets on the conflict? Thank you so much.

MS. GEORGIEVA: We look at the impact of interruptions of supply, of oil and gas with great concern because it has significance across‑the‑board in economies. We recognize how big the impact would be on growth, on inflation and on growth will depend on the longevity of this interruption of supplies and on the scale of damage on energy infrastructure in the Gulf. What we also recognize is that March was a tough month, but April is likely to be even tougher. Why? Because the tankers that left by February 28th have reached their destinations and there are no new deliveries coming. This is why we are urging countries to take measures to reduce energy intensity, take them now. Do not wait for weeks from now.

We see the shock energizing that kind of thinking about the appropriate measures to reduce demand. I want to remind us of all that in previous shocks, this is what has happened. It was not that long ago when Europe was freeing itself from dependency on Russian oil and gas. What I want to remind people is Europe did it successfully, and it did it with a very significant energy efficiency leap as part of this adjustment.

We also know that there will be new sources of energy coming. There will be new routes in place. The problem is that the latter, these new routes, new sources, it will take time, a year, year and a half. In the meanwhile, what countries have is good policies that will reduce the size of this disequilibrium. Again, I think it is a very good time to apply those good policies everywhere.

MS. KOZACK: Let us go to this side of the room. I am going to take the woman at the very end in the black blazer.

QUESTIONER: Thank you. I am from African News. We heard this week that sub‑Saharan Africa economies are likely to be the most affected by the war in the Middle East. We are already seeing the effects from fuel shortages spreading across the region. You just mentioned how the war has been driving demands for new IMF programs, including demands from sub‑Saharan Africa countries. My question is, how quickly can you help them? Thank you.

MS. GEORGIEVA: Let me first say that we have been very loud on the asymmetric impact of this war. I have in my office a map of countries where they fall in terms of dependency on imports and their fiscal space. It pains me that the majority of sub‑Saharan Africa countries are in this quadrant of vulnerability. Therefore, we are very determined to use this week to identify which are the countries that most urgently need support and then come out of the week with discussions around the way we would support them. But let me emphasize that the most important thing we do for our members is to help them help themselves, to have strong policies, during good times to build buffers so during bad times they can protect their people. I am impressed by how much countries have done, including countries in sub‑Saharan Africa. I was with the African consultative group yesterday, and I can tell you the Ministers, the Central Bank Governors did not ask for money. They asked for urgent policy advice. They asked for our support to develop further the local currency markets in Africa. But, of course, there will be a need for financial support. As I said, we are prepared, and we will move very swiftly to respond to requests from countries.

Actually, my message to the membership is, if you need help financially, do not hesitate. Move fast because the sooner we act, the more we will protect the economy and people.

MS. KOZACK: All right. I am going to stay on this side of the room. I’m going to go to the woman in the front row with the kind of tan blazer. Yes. Please, go ahead.

QUESTIONER: My question is, have any countries in the MENA region like Egypt and similarly affected ones formally approached the IMF for more financing support; and what are the updates regarding this request? Also, what did the IMF assess for the measures that are taken by oil‑importing countries to reduce the impact of the war? Thank you.

MS. GEORGIEVA: It is very rewarding to see how Egypt, having implemented difficult reforms, is now in a better position to face this shock. In fact, we are not at this point discussing augmentation of the Egypt program because the country, yes, it is affected. We have seen both in terms of some currency depreciation, in terms of the impact on energy prices domestically, but the government has acted very responsibly. This is a case when measures put in place are the right measures. They are a well‑targeted. We use the fact that we have built a well‑targeted social protection system in Egypt over the last years. And they are very well‑calibrated within the fiscal space Egypt has. Of course, should conditions worsen, we have a program and we can, of course, review it from a perspective of should we do some more. But at this point, we see Egypt as one of the good examples of a country that has gone through difficult reforms, has built responsible policies, and is acting in a way that helps people that most need this help.

When we look at the broader Middle East region, I can say with great sorrow that the impact on growth there is the most severe. We are actually downgrading growth projections for MENAP, at the most by 2.3 percent, down by 2.3 percent, which is—what did it bring MENA’s growth? When you look at the distribution of this downgrade, not surprisingly the oil exporters, oil and gas exporters see the biggest shrinkage of their economies. We go down to 1.4 percent for 2026 for MENA. Five out of the eight countries that are oil producers, their growth goes into negative territory because of this shock.

MS. KOZACK: Let us go back to the middle of the room. I am going to the gentleman, third row on the end here.

QUESTIONER: I am from Jamaica. Managing Director, I would like to also, when we are looking at the Middle East and the war is causing a lot of problem, but also I would like your insights on the climate change, which is a huge problem, especially after Hurricane Melissa where the western side of the island got flattened out. That is a recurring problem. The storms are becoming more severe. The weather patterns are becoming more severe too. How do, well, Jamaica specifically, Caribbean, how do we have those buffers in place to move forward? We cannot control the storms, but how can we protect ourselves? Thank you.

MS. GEORGIEVA: It is such a painful story, the one of Jamaica, because of the hit of the hurricane. Actually, you had two hurricanes following each other. We see that happening in many climate vulnerable countries on a repetitive basis, more frequently with a more severe impact. We have across the world this climate phenomenon becoming more of a threat to countries. In the case of Jamaica, we actually did provide emergency financing. We were part of a coordination group with the World Bank, the Inter‑American Development Bank, CAF. And of course, under the leadership of the Jamaican government, the Prime Minister personally took it upon himself to make sure that international support is well‑coordinated and as impactful as possible.

What can Jamaica do? What can countries do? First, it is important to recognize that we are not going to go back. We will go forward in a more climate‑sensitive place. For the economies like Jamaica, it is crucial to build resilience to these shocks, both in terms of how infrastructure is constructed, but also in terms of fiscal buffers and insurance products. Jamaica is one of the leaders of using insurance, and it helped tremendously. I believe that the Caribbean that has been doing quite a lot should work even more closely together. This is one good news that I see in the Caribbean and across the world, regional cooperation, regional integration. Small countries cannot easily access insurance products alone, but when they pull together, they can do it. Learning from each other, taking precautionary measures together but also finding opportunities to strengthen growth, work in a way that enhances the viability of their economies. This is a very positive development. We have been supporting it, and we will continue to support them. 

Just to say, for all of us here in this room, tough when you are in a big country. Imagine what it is to be on an island. Imagine what it is if you are on an island in the Caribbean or in the Pacific and you are on the end of a very long chain. The Pacific is in a tougher place, very long supply chain. So, as we think of our difficulties, spare a thought for those most at risk.

MS. KOZACK: Let us go over here, the woman at the very end here. Yes, thank you.

QUESTIONER: Hello. I am from the Philippines. Managing Director, you have touched on the looming oil shortages in Asia, but I wanted to zoom in a little bit. How is this conflict affecting the ASEAN countries? Given the shocks, what policy shifts should ASEAN governments prioritize to weather these shocks and boost their resilience, as well as possibly attract investments amid this? Thank you.

MS. GEORGIEVA: ASEAN countries have been very determined to put in place good policies and strong institutions. They have done it over the last years. Actually, ASEAN is a bright spot in terms of growth and in terms of economic dynamism. When we look at the impact of this shock, because of this strong buildup over the years, ASEAN is actually weathering the shock as a group of countries relatively well. But there is a big difference across ASEAN countries. Most ASEAN countries are energy importers. There are some that are exporters. They have an easier position. For the energy importers, those that had very little to none in terms of reserves of oil and gas, the situation is much more difficult. I very much sympathize with the people in the Philippines because I know that your country does face that difficulty.

ASEAN has chosen a path to regional integration and more regional trade and more cooperation on the big transformative trends in the world, on technology, on AI. On trade they have taken very important steps to strengthen their interconnectivity. The Philippines is now leading the ASEAN. I am going to be there when the meeting takes place. I do believe that this is very important for regions that have the potential to trade more within the countries of the region to build that integration. You will benefit from it in a more shock‑prone world.

MS. KOZACK: Let us go right here to the middle, second row, woman in the black blazer.

QUESTIONER: I am from Ukraine. How could the current war in the Gulf affect another major war—could affect another major war in the continent—such as the Ukrainian war—in both economic and security terms given that the aggressor, Russia, may stand to gain high oil and gas revenues. Thank you.

MS. GEORGIEVA: The people of Ukraine have gone through a very difficult time, and it is not yet over, five years in a war. Of course this being negative energy‑supply shock, given that the energy sector has been impacted quite severely. Russia bombarded big parts of the energy infrastructure. That makes the situation in Ukraine even more difficult. Wars are bad news for people. They are bad news for the economy. I think it would be the aspiration of all of us in this room, there is no better way to help the world to do, to help its own people, but for the wars to end.

I think that the negative impact from the Gulf war overall, even for countries that benefit from—that are exporters and benefit from higher prices, the negative impact is there. Nobody is spared.

I have a question for the audience. How many of you really want all of these wars to end? Raise your hand. I want to see where we are.

MS. KOZACK: We have time for just maybe a few more questions. Let me go to the very end here, the woman in the black blazer, the first row.

QUESTIONER: Thank you very much.  Managing Director, you spoke about the ASEAN economy. I want to just take a broader regional look for Asia‑Pacific, especially the fact that the economic outlook report did raise the fact that the regional outlook is weakening but high hopes on countries like China and India. I know you have been always optimistic about India, saying that it is a resilient economy. If the situation gets severe, do you think emerging economies like India and also advanced economies like China will be able to—will have the appetite to bear the brunt?

MS. GEORGIEVA: Most impressive development over the last decades has been the advancements in policies and institutions in emerging market economies. We did a review of monetary and fiscal policy in emerging market economies. In monetary policy, they are as good—many of them—of course, there are exceptions—but the majority are as good or better than advanced economies. In fiscal policy, there is still some space for further improvements, but countries are determined to move in that way. So we have a more resilient world because of the resilience of many emerging market economies that have put in place independent central banks, fiscal councils, built very strong reserves. And they benefit from it, but there are also positive spillovers for everybody else.  

In an adverse scenario, of course, everybody will face a more difficult time. If the impact of hostilities is to be prolonged, then we are going to see slowdown in global growth. As I said in my opening, it could go all the way to 2 percent. Yet we would see economies that have strong fundamentals, have the dynamism like India does, they will be performing better. Look at India today. India’s growth is more than two times higher than the average global growth. That comes because of the strength of fundamentals. So, we do not see a scenario under which there would be a dramatic development. Of course, there is one issue that we need to be very watchful, and it is financial stability. That for now seems to be holding relatively well. Let it be that way in the future. 

I can add to this. Asia is very severely impacted because of the dependency of imports, but we see Asia once again demonstrating that good performance historically is helping. That story of relentless pursuit of good policies and building strong institutions is what we see in Asia.

MS. KOZACK: All right. I am going to take one final question. I am going to go right here, front row, the woman in the mint green.

QUESTIONER: Thank you. My question is about China. With the global growth becoming more uncertain, can China help keep the world economy stable? And where do you see the biggest opportunity for international cooperation?

MS. GEORGIEVA: It is a continuation to the answer I gave to the previous question. What we see in China, while we are slightly downgrading projections for growth, from 4.5 to 4.4 percent. We do see resilience in the economy. China has great potential. As it moves to change its growth model from one that is mostly dependent on exports to one that is primarily oriented towards domestic consumption, moving from goods to services, that can give a big boost to China. Of course, China’s size means that when China does well, there are positive spillovers for the rest of the world, for the region, especially for Asia, but also for the rest of the world.