## The Chair’s Summing Up — Independent Evaluation Office—The IMF and Climate Change ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [The Chair’s Summing Up — Independent Evaluation Office—The IMF and Climate Change](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/pp/2026/english/ppea2026020.pdf) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/pp/2026/english/ppea2026020.pdf.md) - [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/pp/2026/english/ppea2026020.pdf.json) --- ### Context and overall assessment - Document dates: June 1, 2026; Executive Board Meeting 26/48, May 27, 2026. - Executive Directors welcomed the IEO report and its assessment of the Fund’s engagement across surveillance, lending, and capacity development. - Most Directors agreed the Fund’s work on climate, anchored in members’ macroeconomic and financial frameworks, has provided high value for the membership and the Global Climate Architecture. - Directors noted: - The initial phase involved upfront investment costs and significant institutional learning, with efficiency improving over time as capabilities, organization, and coordination strengthened. - There is scope to further strengthen the application of the new climate approach. - Support for the IEO’s key recommendations for improvement, with some qualifications on specific suggestions. - The need for close alignment with current and upcoming workstreams, including the Comprehensive Surveillance Review (CSR), Review of Program Design and Conditionality, Financial Sector Assessment Program Review, and Review of the Resilience and Sustainability Trust (RST). - Consideration of resource constraints and the resulting need for prioritization. - While a few Directors considered the climate strategy might have crowded out the Fund’s core work and that the evaluation should have assessed consistency with the Fund’s mandate, most Directors stressed the need for sustained institutional support to preserve progress. ### Recommendation 1 — Assess macrocriticality and tailor Article IV coverage - Most Directors, some with qualifications, supported Recommendation 1 to more explicitly assess macrocriticality and enhance tailoring of climate coverage in Article IV staff reports. - Agreed actions and expectations: - Strengthen the assessment of macrocriticality in a transparent and evenhanded manner. - Look forward to additional guidance on operationalization from the CSR. - Increase focus on adaptation and transition issues while maintaining mitigation efforts according to country emission profiles and authorities’ priorities. - Continue staff advice on a full range of policy instruments, with clear articulation of trade-offs and distributional impact. - Continue refinements in analytical tools and models supporting assessments of macroeconomic effects of climate change and related policies, while being selective and cognizant of costs consistent with the Fund’s comparative advantage. - Many Directors stressed improving incorporation in macroeconomic frameworks of financing needs and long-term macroeconomic impacts of climate risks. - A few Directors cautioned against mechanical use of standardized templates and stressed anchoring macrocriticality to BOP stability and near- to medium‑term macroeconomic risks. - Many Directors encouraged greater use of dedicated analytical chapters in flagship reports. - Agreement on the importance of clear and consistent internal and external communications to manage expectations, facilitate collaboration with external partners, and align staff incentives with institutional priorities. ### Recommendation 2 — Strengthen the Resilience and Sustainability Facility (RSF) and lending framework integration - Most Directors supported Recommendation 2 to strengthen the RSF and clarify integration of climate considerations in the overall lending framework, with some qualifications to specific suggestions. - Divergent views: - A few Directors did not support Recommendation 2, citing potential inconsistencies with the Fund’s mandate to address temporary BOP needs and overlap with other IFI mandates. - Specific considerations and proposals discussed: - Some Directors favored options to address limitations posed by the length of RSF engagement on ambition and applicability of reform packages, including possibly allowing RSF arrangements to remain active beyond the expiration of associated Upper Credit Tranche (UCTs) arrangements. - Other Directors stressed that the requirement for the RSF to be underpinned by a UCT program is a key safeguard for donors to the Trust. - Importance of strong design of reform measures that: - Adequately leverage country diagnostic tools. - Take into account country implementation capacity. - Link measures to mitigation of prospective balance of payments (BOP) risks. - Link to access levels under the RSF. - A number of Directors emphasized demonstrating the contribution of the RSF to reducing BOP risks. - Continued enhancement of cooperation with other institutions and cost-effective post-program monitoring were endorsed by Directors. - Many Directors looked forward to further assessment in the next RST review of the facility’s effectiveness and catalytic effect, and possible improvements including better anchoring reforms in long-term climate strategies. - Continued refinements in guidance on inclusion of climate reforms in non-RSF lending arrangements were supported, with the caveat that such reforms should be incorporated only when clearly linked to BOP risks and central to program objectives. ### Recommendation 3 — Strengthen links between climate-related capacity development (CD), surveillance and lending - Most Directors supported Recommendation 3 to further strengthen links between climate-related CD, surveillance, and lending. - Key points endorsed: - Continue learning from positive experiences of strong integration of technical assistance (TA) in RSF lending. - Emphasize early engagement of TA departments and Regional CD Centers, and strong cooperation with external partners based on comparative advantage. - Need for focused, well-coordinated, and sequenced climate-related TA, particularly in multi-partner settings and in countries with capacity constraints. - A few Directors questioned whether climate CD had crowded out core Public Financial Management and financial sector CD, supporting a more appropriate balance between climate-related and non-climate CD. - Endorsement of recommendations to better integrate climate-related TA with general TA and surveillance to support identification of TA needs, monitoring and traction, and policy effectiveness. ### Implementation and next steps - Management and staff will give careful consideration to the Board discussion when formulating the Management Implementation Plan for Board-endorsed recommendations. - Management will ensure consistency with resource constraints and synergies with existing workstreams. *Source: The Chair’s Summing Up — Independent Evaluation Office—The IMF and Climate Change, Executive Board Meeting 26/48, May 27, 2026 (document dated June 1, 2026).* --- _Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/pp/2026/english/ppea2026020.pdf_