PAKISTAN’S engagement with the IMF enco-m--passes two complementary facilities. The Exte-n--ded Fund Facility provides support for macroeconomic stabilisation, while the Resilience and Sus--tainability Facility (RSF) targets climate ad--aptation and mitigation for resilience building.

For the IMF, resilience is the capacity of countries to withstand, adapt to and recover from external shocks that threaten macroeconomic and financial stability. Within the RSF framework, this concept emphasises structural reforms that reduce vulnerability to climate-related shocks while enabling sustainable economic growth. How effectively can the RSF address our climate vulnerabilities and adaptation needs?

The RSF’s following five reform areas define its approach: 1) climate-integrated public investment management to restructure project selection to prioritise climate-sensitive infrastructure development through enhanced screening and budget integration mechanisms; 2) water system resilience and disaster response coordination, to focus on irrigation modernisation and disaster preparedness through digital systems and financing frameworks; 3) climate information architecture and financial risk management to establish banking sector climate risk integration and corporate disclosure requirements; 4) transport decarbonisation and green mobility to implement carbon pricing and EV promotion schemes; 5) energy sector alignment with climate commitments to restructure subsidy systems and mandate efficiency standards for consumer appliances.

These reform areas encompass 13 specific measures expected to mainstream climate considerations across government planning and investment processes. While the RSF framework establishes important institutional foundations, there are several critical gaps.

How effectively can the Resilience and Sustainability Facility address our climate vulnerabilities?

Integrating local governance: The RSF’s federal-centric approach does not adequately engage local government roles mandated by the 18th Amendment. Climate resilience depends on local institutional capacity for early warning systems, emergency response coordination, and locally led adaptation measures. However, the current framework lacks strengthening mechanisms for municipal-level implementation of LG institutions. For instance, the RSF has created provincial irrigation tariff mechanisms and digital collection systems. But it does not address municipal water management, drainage systems, or flood management that directly affect community resilience. It assumes provincial-level reforms will automatically translate into local level improvements, without creating institutional linkages that connect policy to implementation.

This gap is an opportunity for enhancement. Provincial set-ups could use RSF-supported imp-rovements to strengthen local climate capacity by enhancing LG Acts that clearly define climate duties for district and municipal authorities. Sub-provincial resource allocation mechanisms could create climate-weighted fiscal transfer systems that encourage LG climate investments while co--ordinating with provincial and federal priorities.

Urban development gaps: The RSF framework does not explicitly recognise urban planning, land-use regulation, or pollution control that have critical importance for climate resilience. Pakistan’s cities are vulnerable to air pollution, plastic waste, inadequate drainage, heat-island effects, etc, yet none of the 13 reform measures directly target these challenges.

Without effective urban planning and zoning laws, cities experience haphazard expansion, inefficient land use, and inadequate infrastructure provision, leading to increased exposure to environmental hazards and higher disaster recovery costs, creating broader economic instability. As already seen, the absence of green infrastructure and pollution controls leads to environmental degradation, poor air quality and increased disaster vulnerability, raising healthcare costs. The RSF’s infrastructure screening requirements may indirectly influence urban development patterns but lack explicit frameworks for climate-sensitive urban planning. This represents a missed opportunity to leverage the facility’s institutional reforms and support provincial development of model legislation for climate-sensitive urban planning.

Differential vulnerability considerations: The framework lacks requirements for gender-disaggregated data collection, gender-sensitive impact assessment, or inclusive participation mechanisms despite climate impacts disproportionately affecting women, children, the elderly and marginalised. The lack of gender-segregated data results in policies that overlook differentiated impacts on marginalised groups. The exclusion undermines resilience-building effectiveness by assuming uniform impact distribution rather than addressing differential vulnerabilities that determine actual community resilience capacity. Not invoking the IMF’s Strategy Towards Main-stre-aming Gender inadvertently reinforces existing inequalities while failing to harness the full poten--tial of inclusive resilience strengthening approaches.

Cross-sectoral integration: The RSF’s sectoral approach reinforces institutional silos rather than promoting integrated strategies. The five reform areas operate through different agencies with separate timelines, lacking clear cross-sectoral coordination mechanisms. Climate resilience requires integrated approaches that address interconnections between water management, energy systems, transport infrastructure and urban planning. Yet, the RSF’s monitoring mechanisms rely primarily on federal-level performance indicators that may not capture local-level implementation effectiveness. This creates accountability gaps where reform implementation may achieve procedural compliance without building substantive resilience capacity.

Strategic opportunities: Effective climate resilience requires addressing these gaps through enhanced integration of local governance, urban planning and social inclusion within the RSF framework. Rather than fundamental restructuring, these enhancements could build upon the facility’s strong institutional foundation to create more comprehensive approaches to climate adaptation.The framework could include LG capacity-building mechanisms and community-level resilience indicators, aligning international support with constitutional requirements. This would strengthen institutions most critical for augmenting subnational resilience. The RSF’s emphasis on coordination mechanisms could be expanded to include enhanced integration with existing sectoral policy frameworks.

The RSF’s success will hinge on its ability to connect institutional reforms with multi-level go--vernance while integrating urban planning and social inclusion considerations. By addressing these critical gaps, the facility can fulfil its transformative potential for our climate vulnerability.

The writer is a climate change and sustainable development expert.

Published in Dawn, June 5th, 2025