主席总结：独立评估办公室——国际货币基金组织与气候变化

Executive Directors welcomed the report of the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO)on the IMF and Climate Change and its well-structured assessment of the Fund’s engagementacross surveillance, lending, and capacity development. Most Directors concurred with thereport’s positive assessment that the Fund’s work on climate, anchored in members’macroeconomic and financial frameworks, has provided high value for the membership andthe Global Climate Architecture. They noted that the initial phase of implementationinvolved upfront investment costs and significant institutional learning, with efficiencyimproving over time as capabilities, organization, and coordination strengthened. MostDirectors agreed with the evaluation’s assessment that there is scope to further strengthen theapplication of the new climate approach, and supported the IEO’s key recommendations forimprovement with some qualifications regarding specific suggestions. Noting that some ofthe challenges are common to many workstreams, Directors stressed the need for closealignment with current and upcoming workstreams, including the ComprehensiveSurveillance Review (CSR), Review of Program Design and Conditionality, Financial SectorAssessment Program Review, and Review of the Resilience and Sustainability Trust (RST).Directors emphasized the need to take into consideration resource constraints and highlightedthe resulting need for prioritization. While a few Directors considered that the climatestrategy might have crowded out the Fund’s core work and the evaluation should haveassessed its consistency with the Fund’s mandate, most Directors stressed the need forsustained institutional support to preserve the progress achieved with the new approach. Directors, a few of them with some qualifications, supported Recommendation 1 tomore explicitly assess macrocriticality and enhance the tailoring of climate coverage inArticle IV staff reports. They agreed on the need to strengthen the assessment ofmacrocriticality in a transparent and evenhanded manner, and looked forward in that regardto additional guidance on operationalization from the CSR. Most Directors concurred withthe importance of tailoring policy advice, continuing to increase the focus on adaptation andtransition issues, while maintaining mitigation efforts according to country emission profilesand authorities’ priorities. They also looked forward to continued staff advice on a full rangeof policy instruments, with clear articulation of the trade-offs and distributional impact ofdifferent options. Most Directors encouraged continued refinements in the analytical toolsand models that have supported the Fund’s high-quality assessments of the macroeconomiceffects of climate change and related policies, while emphasizing the need to be selective,consistent with the Fund’s comparative advantage, and cognizant of the costs. Many Directors stressed in particular the importance of continued improvements to incorporate inmacroeconomic frameworks the financing needs and long-term macroeconomic impacts ofclimate risks. A few Directors cautioned against mechanical use of standardized templatesacross reports and stressed that macrocriticality should firmly anchor coverage to BOPstability and near‑to medium‑term macroeconomic risks. Many Directors encouraged greateruse of dedicated analytical chapters in flagship reports, given their strong traction. Directorsagreed on the importance of clear and consistent internal and external communications tomanage expectations, facilitate collaboration with external partners, and align staff incentiveswith institutional priorities. Most Directors supported Recommendation 2 to strengthen the Resilience andSustainability Facility (RSF) and more broadly clarify the integration of climateconsiderations in the overall lending framework, with some qualifications to specificsuggestions. A few Directors did not support Recommendation 2, considering that it wouldheighten inconsistencies with the Fund’s mandate to address temporary BOP needs as well asoverlap with other IFI mandates. While a number of Directors favored considering options toaddress the limitations posed by the length of RSF engagement on ambition and applicabilityof reform packages, including by possibly allowing RSF arrangements to remain activebeyond the expiration of associated Upper Credit Tranche (UCTs) arrangements, a number ofother Directors stressed that the requirement for the RSF to be underpinned by a UCTprogram is a key safeguard for donors to the Trust. Directors agreed on the importance ofstrong design of reform measures that adequately leverage country diagnostic tools, take intoaccount country implementation capacity, and link the measures to the mitigation ofprospective balance of payments (BOP) risks, as well as to access levels under the RSF. Anumber of Directors emphasized the importance of demonstrating the contribution of theRSF to reducing BOP risks. Most Directors concurred on the importan