总裁关于国际货币基金组织和气候变化独立评估办公室报告的声明

I welcome the IEO’s comprehensive evaluation, which finds that the Fund’s work on climate hashad high value for our members. The report provides a well-structured assessment of the Fund’sclimate-related engagement across surveillance, lending, and capacity development, highlightinghow this work has been anchored in members’ macroeconomic and financial frameworks. Tofollow up on the IEO’s three main recommendations—which I support, with somequalifications—a Management Implementation Plan (MIP) will be developed, consistent withresource constraints and closely aligned with existing workstreams, including the ongoing CSR,ROC, and FSAP reviews. Findings I welcome the IEO’s positive assessment of the Fund’s work on climate. The evaluationhighlights major innovations in IMF lending, important contributions to the global climatearchitecture, highly cited analytical work, and increasingly tailored policy advice to members. Asthe IEO notes, the initial phase of implementing the climate strategy and lending through theRST involved upfront investment costs and significant institutional learning. As the Fund entereda second phase, however, strengthened capabilities, improved organization, and bettercoordination helped contain pressures, enhance efficiency, and address many of the earlychallenges. As the report highlights, the Fund’s climate work is faced with some challenges that are alsocommon across many of our workstreams, including how to assess macro-criticality, as well ashow to improve the links between capacity development and surveillance. I would alsounderscore that the Fund’s climate work is still relatively young, and that important furtherprogress has been made since the end of the evaluation period in sharpening our focus anddeepening the quality of analysis and policy advice. As noted by the IEO, fully and efficientlymainstreaming new areas of work requires time, and this evaluation—along with discussions onthe Comprehensive Surveillance Review (CSR), Review of Program Design and Conditionality(ROC), and FSAP Review—helps inform a continuous process of improvement as we decidehow to move forward with, and mainstream, our climate work. Recommendations I broadly support the report's key recommendations, with some qualifications regarding specificsuggestions to internalize both implementation tradeoffs and the broad range of stakeholderviews. Importantly, though, I must respectfully disagree with the report’s assertion that itsrecommendations will be largely budget neutral. My assessment is that most recommendationscould have a significant budget cost, and prioritization will thus be important. Below is my proposed response to each of the IEO's three recommendations. Recommendation 1. Surveillance: Article IV staff reports should more explicitly assessmacrocriticality and enhance the tailoring of climate-related coverage. Recommendation 1: Specific Suggestions •Assessment of macro-criticality.In line with the 2022 Guidance Note, Article IV staff reportsshould provide a more explicit assessment—quantitative or qualitative, depending on dataavailability and/or sufficient input from external partners—of the macrocriticality of climate-related issues and justification of policy advice, adjusting its depth and frequency. This couldinclude an analysis of potential impacts and key risks, links to BOP or macroeconomicstability, and greater consistency among the main text, RAM, and DSA. The set ofstandardized climate panel charts developed by FAD, SPR, and STA could support this effortif they are more systematically incorporated in Article IV staff reports. •Tailoring coverage.To enhance the traction of climate-related bilateral and multilateralsurveillance, the Fund’s analysis and policy advice should be adapted further to country-specific circumstances. This could include calibrating the coverage of mitigation policies inline with countries’ emissions profiles, a greater focus on adaptation and transition issueswhere relevant, additional coverage of non-pricing mitigation policies, and a more explicitarticulation of the trade-offs and distributional impact of climate policies. As climate-relatedissues are better integrated, a reallocation of relevant expertise between functional and areadepartments, as called for by the latter, could help in this regard. •Analytical tools and models. The ongoing refinement of the Fund’s analytical tools andmodels should progressively address remaining gaps. This could include better incorporatingthe feedback effects of climate onto the economy, improving country-level macroeconomicimpact analysis, creating standardized metrics of climate-related financial risks,strengthening tools and models to assess adaptation policies, and enhancing the modeling offinancing needs. •Communications. To better manage expectations, the Fund should better align its internal andexternal communications with the climate-related work it undertakes, articulating moreclearly what the Fund is,