European Parliament, also EP, published a paper that explores the growth, financial, and regulatory challenges associated with the European Green Deal. The paper reviews the key growth drivers of the Green Deal, the green investment gap, and the resulting implications for macro-prudential supervision. It critically examines the financing and regulatory aspects of potential economic growth opportunities deriving from the commitment of Europe to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 through a socially-fair transition in a cost-efficient manner, as exemplified by the European Green Deal of EC.
The paper argues that main challenge to the framework for achieving climate-neutrality is how to coordinate and harness individual member states’, producers’ or investors’ efforts in a Union-wide pathway that embodies the common but differentiated responsibilities of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The recommendation is to create and disseminate extended shared socio-economic pathways for EU, together with the associated shared climate policy assumptions, that can accommodate each climate action in a consistent perspective for consumers, producers, or investors.
Th paper then discusses the “green investment gap” implied by the Green Deal, which is in the order of EUR 250 billion to EUR 300 billion annually, in addition to a baseline investment need of EUR 1.0 trillion to 1.5 trillion. If the absolute size of the green investment gap does not pose an impossible task, and demand for green investments appears insatiable, the key to a successful European Green Deal Investment Plan will be the ability to match supply and demand. The mismatch between demand and supply can be remedied by appropriate segmentation (carving up projects into risk classes), securitization (bundling different but related portions into investable packages), and synchronization of the “environmentally sustainable” activities in the EU Taxonomy, facilitated by credit enhancement and guarantee programs.
The paper highlights that the pace of the pathways will largely determine the risks to macro-economic and financial stability. Too fast a transition to a climate-neutral Europe may shock the financial system while a too slow transition risks damages to exceed regions’ resilience—again calling on central banks as a “lender of last resort.” There is also debate on whether central banks have an active participatory role to play in these complex systems, through fiscal, monetary, and prudential policy, or that they need to stand back as a watchful observer and regulator. However, the drive to promote sustainable investment suggests an active system-wide reallocation toward "green" investments that will need to be carefully monitored by those same central banks.
Additionally, the introduction of climate-related disclosures and natural capital accounting comes with a non-trivial complication that tends to be underestimated. One cannot simply add or exchange natural and financial capital. That makes evaluating the trade-off between the two essentially incommensurable "worlds" a delicate exercise. Also, keeping separate tabs on the economy or the financial system versus the social and natural environment—as in the naive approach to Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) investing or sustainable development—decouples the links between the economic, environmental and social objectives of the Green Deal. The comprehensive pathways proposed earlier attempt to capture these links and trade-offs in a consistent dynamic framework.
Related Link: Paper (PDF)
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Insurance, Securities, Green Deal, Climate Change Risk, ESG, Sustainable Finance, Disclosures, Taxonomy, Securitization, European Parliament
Previous ArticleIFRS Publishes Statement on Its Work During the COVID-19 Crisis
US Agencies (FDIC, FED, and OCC) finalized two rules, which are either identical or substantially similar to the interim final rules in effect and issued earlier this year.
EIOPA is consulting on a supervisory statement on the use of risk mitigation techniques by insurance and reinsurance undertakings.
APRA announced that it is resuming consultation on the confidentiality of data submitted to APRA by the authorized deposit-taking institutions.
BoE and FCA are supporting and encouraging liquidity providers in the sterling swaps market to adopt new quoting conventions for inter-dealer trading based on SONIA, instead of LIBOR, from October 27, 2020.
Deutsche Bundesbank published special schema files for securities holdings statistics (SHS), along with a document on the XML format description.
EC adopted a decision determining, for a limited period of time, that the regulatory framework applicable to central counterparties, or CCPs, in the UK and Northern Ireland is equivalent to the requirements laid down in the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR or Regulation 648/2012).
ESMA announced that it will recognize three central counterparties (CCPs) established in the UK as third-country CCPs, from January 01, 2021.
PRA published Version 02.04 of the PRA110 liquidity metric monitoring tool (PRA110 LMM tool).
FSB confirmed the Regulatory Oversight Committee (ROC) of the Global Legal Entity Identifier System (GLEIS) as the International Governance Body for the globally harmonized identifiers used to track over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions, with effect from October 01, 2020.
FCA is consulting on its approach to the authorization and supervision of international firms operating in UK.