Fragile and conflict-affected states (FCS) already face higher temperatures than other countries and will be more exposed to extreme heat and weather events going forward. Using innovative approaches, the paper finds that in FCS, climate vulnerability and underlying fragilities—namely conflict, heavy dependence on rainfed agriculture, and weak capacity—exacerbate each other, amplifying the negative impact on people and economies. FCS suffer more severe and persistent GDP losses than other countries due to climate shocks because their underlying fragilities amplify the impact of shocks, in particular in agriculture. At the same time, climate shocks worsen underlying fragilities, namely conflict. Macro-critical adaptation policies are needed to facilitate the immediate response to climate shocks and to build climate resilience over time. Sizeable and sustained international support—especially grants, concessional financing and capacity development—is urgent to avoid worse outcomes, including forced displacement and migration. The IMF is stepping up support to FCS in dealing with climate challenges through carefully tailored policy advice, financing, and capacity development.
To contain global warming to between 2°C and 1.5°C, global greenhouse gas emissions must be cut 25 to 50 percent below 2019 levels by 2030. Even if fully achieved, current country pledges would cut global emissions by just 11 percent. This Note presents illustrative options for closing this ambition gap equitably and discusses their economic impacts across countries. Options exist to accelerate a global just transition in this decade, involving greater emission reductions by high-income countries and climate finance, but further delays in climate action would put 1.5°C beyond reach. Global abatement costs remain low under 2°C-consistent scenarios, with burdens rising with income levels. With efficient policies of carbon pricing with productive revenue use, welfare costs become negative when including domestic environmental co-benefits, before even counting climate benefits. GDP effects from global decarbonization remain uncertain, but modeling suggests they exceed abatement costs especially for carbon-intensive and fossil-fuel-exporting countries. Ratcheting up climate finance can help make global decarbonization efforts more progressive.
Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is the region in the world most vulnerable to climate change despite its cumulatively emitting the least amount of greenhouse gases. Substantial financing is urgently needed across the economy—for governments, businesses, and households—to support climate change adaptation and mitigation, which are critical for advancing resilient and green economic development as well as meeting commitments under the Paris Agreement. Given the immensity of SSA’s other development needs, this financing must be in addition to existing commitments on development finance. There are many potential ways to raise financing to meet adaptation and mitigation needs, spanning from domestic revenue mobilization to various forms of international private financing. Against this backdrop, S SA policymakers and stakeholders are exploring sources of financing for climate action that countries may not have used substantially in the past. This Staff Climate Note presents some basic information on opportunities and challenges associated with these financing instruments.