ISDA and the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME or Associations) issued a response to EC consultations on three draft delegated acts that specify requirements of EU Climate Transition Benchmarks and EU Paris-aligned benchmarks. From a standard-setting perspective, the Associations welcome the proposed Carbon Benchmark requirements, as the proposals include vital elements necessary for creating standard templates while allowing some degree of flexibility to benchmark administrators. An EU standardized climate benchmarks framework would undoubtedly result in a less fragmented landscape on the data provision front for all market participants. In addition to specific comments on the three draft delegated acts, the Associations also emphasize a few general concerns of their members in relation to the approach of EC to specifying requirements in the relevant Level 2 legislation.
The EC consultations being referred to are the draft delegated acts on:
- Establishing minimum standards for EU Climate Transition Benchmarks and Paris-aligned Benchmarks (Delegated Act on EU Climate Transition Benchmarks).
- Minimum content of the explanation on how environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors are reflected in the benchmark methodology (Delegated Act on Benchmark Methodology)
- The explanation in the benchmark statement of how ESG factors are reflected in each benchmark provided and published (Delegated Act on Benchmark Statement).
The Associations stressed that the requirements suggested in the draft delegated act in relation to ESG disclosures in the benchmark statement and the related Annexes do not fully take into account market practices in relation to maintenance of benchmark statements. In the event that benchmark administrators would not have flexibility to deviate from the suggested template for the benchmark statement, they will have to endure disproportionate costs to apply the suggested template for all benchmarks and families of benchmarks. The Associations are of the view that the suggested approach would strongly discourage benchmark administrators from providing ESG benchmarks and would, therefore, run contrary to the objective of the Regulation, which is to mainstream the provisions of ESG benchmarks. In this context, it is important to note that significant channeling of financial resources into sustainable economic activities will only occur if a wide variety of benchmark administrators are incentivized to market EU Climate Transition and EU Paris-aligned Benchmarks.
The Associations encourage EC to set out a clear definition of “ESG objectives” to ensure that all ESG-labeled benchmarks meet a minimum standard of what is considered ESG, in addition to the underlying factor disclosures. The Associations note that the draft Delegated Act on Benchmark Methodology lists "Commodity benchmarks" in its Article 1(3)(f). However, Title II of the Benchmarks Regulation, with the exception of Article 10, does not apply to commodity benchmarks as specified in Article 19(1) of the Benchmarks Regulation. Therefore, the Associations requested EC to remove Article 1(3)(f) from the final Delegated Act on Benchmark Methodology. The Associations support the efforts of EC to close the gap between required data resulting from all relevant sustainable finance legislation but would also urge EC to allow more flexibility for benchmark administrators, until relevant data points become comparable and accessible under affordable cost structures. The Associations also specified that proportionality is needed in relation to ESG disclosures and requested further clarification in relation to asset class differentiation.
Related Link: Response to EC (PDF)
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Insurance, Securities, ESG, Climate Benchmarks, Climate Change Risk, Sustainable Finance, Benchmarks Regulation, Delegated Act, Climate Transition Benchmarks, Paris Agreement, AFME, EC, ISDA
Previous ArticleAPRA FAQs Clarify Regulatory Capital Approach for Loan Deferrals
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) published an update on the discussion paper that intended to engage federally regulated financial institutions and other interested stakeholders in a dialog with OSFI, to proactively enhance and align assurance expectations over key regulatory returns.
The European Commission (EC) published a report summarizing responses to the targeted consultation on the supervisory convergence and the single rulebook in the European Union (EU).
The European Central Bank (ECB) published its opinion on a proposal for a regulation on European green bonds, following a request from the European Parliament.
The Advisory Scientific Committee (ASC) of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) published a report that explores the expected impact of digitalization on provision of financial and banking services, and proposes policy measures to address the risks stemming from digitalization.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) is consulting on the draft Financial Institutions (Resolution) Ordinance (Cap. 628), or FIRO, Code of Practice chapter on liquidity and funding in resolution, until March 14, 2022.
The Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (FI) announced that the capital adequacy reporting as at December 31, 2021 must be done by February 11, 2022.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) announced that the guidelines on the reporting and disclosure of exposures subject to measures COVID-relief measures shall continue to apply until further notice.
The Central Bank of the Philippines (BSP) issued communications covering developments related to online lending platforms, open finance framework and roadmap, and on the expected regulations in the area sustainable finance.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FED) published the final rule that amends Regulation I to reduce the quarterly reporting burden for member banks by automating the application process for adjusting their subscriptions to the Federal Reserve Bank capital stock, except in the context of mergers.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published its assessment of risks through the quarterly Risk Dashboard and the results of the Autumn edition of the Risk Assessment Questionnaire (RAQ).