IMF has started to write off loans routinely since 2005, starting from the African countries to Pakistan. The British has advocated IMF to sell off some of its Gold reserves to finance such write off but IMF didn't use that. Apparently, G8 has been consulted not only because they are the main stake holders but rather, some requirements of them to exercise write off of loans to IMF were needed to execute that. That is why England suggested selling off the Gold reserves to finance that instead but failed.
If you observed, even Japan has written off debts to Burma under the blanket of IMF initiated loans. IMF may not come up with its own funds directly when they issue loans to countries but instead, make a concerted efforts to arrange loans contributed by various countries and their banks.
Goh Meng Seng
Routinely? I think not. The IMF collects repayment more often than it agrees to a writeoff. In fact, they are such high-handed assholes that getting a IMF loan is akin to inviting a loan shark to move into your house. Take a look at the Fund's loan portfolio if you don't believe me. I would also point out that a large portion of the debt you refer to (as written off) had already been repaid, on top of these poor nations having to put up with IMF conditionality (ie. that loanshark sitting in your living room all the time).
The UK suggestion of the gold sell off was meant for the IMF to write off ALL the debt owed from poor nations. They can afford it because the Fund has something like 40+ billion USD in gold at market value (which their own accountants value at 8.5 billion USD). The IMF doesn't actually need all that gold since it funds itself from member quota contributions (NOT pledges). As you gather, the IMF didn't like that idea. BTW, the UK made that suggestion for POLITICAL reasons, which I don't have the time to go into right now.
The G8 was consulted because they have veto powers over ALL IMF decisions. The IMF write offs didn't require anyone to simultaneously writeoff direct IMF loans because the IMF's quota contributions + retained earnings were MUCH more than enough to meet the purpose.
Japan wrote off it's own direct development aid to Burma. It wasn't a loan to the IMF which was then directed to Burma. The IMF may have been a mediator to arrange that loan but in the end, it was a direct loan from japan to burma. Naturally, direct development loans to Burma are MOST RISKY, while loans to the IMF are not.