MAS launched three consultations on the guidelines for management of environmental risk by banks, insurers, and asset managers. The guidelines, which were co-created with financial institutions and industry associations, set out the supervisory expectations of MAS for financial institutions in their governance, risk management, and disclosure of environmental risk. The comment period for these consultations ends on August 07, 2020. MAS also proposed to provide a transition period of 12 months after the guidelines are issued, for financial institutions to assess and implement the guidelines as appropriate to reflect the evolving nature and maturity of risk management practices.
The guidelines are tailored to each sector based on the business activities and risk management practices. In the banking sector, the guidelines apply to all banks, merchant banks, and finance companies. MAS recognizes that the scale, scope, and business models of banks can be different. A bank should implement these guidelines in a way that is commensurate with the size and nature of its activities as well as its risk profile. MAS proposes to apply the guidelines to banks’ extension of credit to corporate customers and underwriting for capital market transactions. A bank should also apply the guidelines to other activities that expose it to material environmental risk. In particular, banks with material investment activities should refer to the relevant sections of the Guidelines on Environmental Risk Management for Asset Managers, for sound practices on the management of environmental risk with respect to investments. The following are the key highlights of the proposed guidelines for banks:
- Governance—MAS also proposes that the Board ensure that environmental risk, where material, is addressed in the bank’s risk appetite framework, so that environmental risk exposures beyond the bank’s risk appetite can be promptly recognized and addressed. MAS further proposes that where environmental risk is deemed material to a bank, the bank should designate a senior management member or a committee to oversee environmental risk.
- Risk management—MAS proposes that banks should identify, assess, mitigate, and monitor material environmental risk at both the customer and portfolio levels. MAS also proposes for the bank to develop capabilities in scenario analysis and stress testing to assess the impact of environmental risk on its risk profile and business strategies, and explore its resilience to financial losses.
- Disclosures—MAS proposes that a bank disclose, at least annually, its approach to managing environmental risk and the potential impact of material environmental risk on the bank. The latter includes quantitative metrics such as exposures to sectors with higher environmental risk. A bank’s disclosure may be consolidated at the group or head office level. MAS also proposes that banks take reference from international reporting frameworks, including the FSB’s Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), to guide their environmental risk disclosures. The TCFD recommendations provide a useful framework for the disclosure of climate-related risks.
The guidelines aim to enhance the resilience of financial institutions to environmental risk and to strengthen the role of the financial sector in supporting the transition to an environmentally sustainable economy, in Singapore and in the region. This is part of the Green Finance Action Plan of MAS to become a leading global center for green finance. The guidelines serve as a call to action for financial institutions to help drive the transition to an environmentally sustainable economy, by enhancing the integration of environmental risk considerations in financial institutions' financing and investment decisions and promoting new opportunities for green financing.
Comment Due Date: August 07, 2020
Keywords: Asia Pacific, Singapore, Banking, Insurance, Securities, ESG, Governance, Disclosure, Green Finance Action Plan, Climate Change Risk, MAS
Previous ArticleIOSCO Proposes Guidance on Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning
APRA issued a letter on the loss-absorbing capacity (LAC) requirements for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) and published a discussion paper, along with the proposed the prudential standards on financial contingency planning (CPS 190) and resolution planning (CPS 900).
The European Commission (EC) launched a call for evidence, until March 18, 2022, as part of a comprehensive review of the macro-prudential rules for the banking sector under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and Directive (CRD IV).
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report that sets out good practices for crisis management groups.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) found that Heritage Bank Limited had incorrectly reported capital because of weaknesses in operational risk and compliance frameworks, although the bank did not breach minimum prudential capital ratios at any point and remains well-capitalized.
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the annual report for 2020-2021.
Through a letter addressed to the banking sector entities, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) announced deferral of the domestic implementation of the final Basel III reforms from the first to the second quarter of 2023.
EIOPA recently published a letter in which EC is informing the European Parliament and Council that it could not adopt the set of draft regulatory technical standards for disclosures under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) within the stipulated three-month period, given their length and technical detail.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the third in a series of policy statements that set out rules to introduce the UK Investment Firm Prudential Regime (IFPR), which will take effect on January 01, 2022.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published, along with a summary of its response to the consultation feedback, an information paper that summarizes the finalized capital framework that is in line with the internationally agreed Basel III requirements for banks.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) issued a consultative report focusing on access to central counterparty (CCP) clearing and client-position portability.