Pentti Hakkarainen of ECB spoke, at the Hannes Snellman Financial Law Seminar in Helsinki, about the climate change risks faced by banks and the work that lies ahead for regulators, supervisors, and banks. Banking supervisors must deal with the risks that climate change poses to banks and must raise awareness among banks. He suggested that the climate change risks must be better understood and ways must be found to mitigate them. He also emphasized that banks need to approach climate risks from the angle of risk management and more work needs to be done in this area.
Mr. Hakkarainen classified the climate-related risks into physical and transition risks. Physical risks directly arise from a changing climate while the transition risks arise from the potential shift to a more sustainable economy. These risks are spread unevenly and are complex, chaotic, and non-linear. Transition risks are greater for some sectors and regions than for others. Moreover, the risks span "a very long time horizon" as these changes will happen over decades. However, the risk models used by banks and regulators cover much shorter time frames and this means that there might be blind spots. The 2019 risk map of ECB for the banking sector features, for the first time, climate risk as one of the key risks for the European banking sector. Nonetheless, more needs to be learned about these risks in terms of how to measure and mitigate them. He also discussed the following items on the to-do list of banking supervision:
- First, there is the issue of “green” assets. These are generating some hype and demand is growing fast. However, the definition of green assets is unclear and "a common and precise definition" is needed. EC has made a proposal on defining sustainable assets, which is now being discussed. This proposal just classifies “green” assets though. To get the full picture, “brown” assets will also need to be classified.
- Second, climate risks need to be integrated into the supervisory framework. In this respect, EBA has the legal mandate to propose an approach. This proposal will focus on the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process or SREP—the main tool of supervisors. Supervisors also need to think about how banks should disclose climate risks. Here, approaches differ across countries and need to be harmonized.
- Third, coming back to “green” and “brown” assets, their respective risks need to be better understood. It is risks that determine how supervisors and regulators treat these assets. EBA will work on this over the coming years.
These are just a few of the items on the to-do list. However, given the scope of the challenge and its complexity, no one can solve it alone. Regulators, supervisors, and central banks have joined forces in a Network for Greening the Financial System. This network comprises 42 members worldwide, including the ECB and eight observers. It is encouraging that so many institutions share a common understanding of these problems and have joined forces to come up with solutions. To understand the way banks approach climate risks, ECB recently surveyed a sample of banks. It was found that banks are very much aware of climate change. So far, they have approached the topic from the angle of corporate social responsibility, but they also see the need to approach it from the angle of risk management. In this area too, more work needs to be done.
Related Link: Speech
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Climate Change Risk, Banking Supervision, SREP, Green Assets, EBA, ESG, ECB
BCBS Finalizes Revisions to Credit Valuation Adjustment Risk Framework
PRA published a statement to insurers that clarifies the approach to application of the matching adjustment during COVID-19 crisis.
EBA published a report on the implementation of selected COVID-19 policies within the prudential framework for banking sector.
EC launched a consultation to revise the network and information systems (NIS) Directive (2016/1148), which was adopted in July 2016 and is the first horizontal internal market instrument aimed at improving the resilience of the EU against cybersecurity risks.
PRA published a statement that outlines its view on the implications of LIBOR transition for contracts in scope of the “Contractual Recognition of Bail-In” and “Stay in Resolution” parts of the PRA Rulebook.
PRA published the policy statement PS15/20 to reflect additional resilience associated with higher macro-prudential buffers in a standard risk environment with a reduction in Pillar 2A capital requirements.
BCBS published the eighteenth progress report on implementation of the Basel III regulatory framework in member jurisdictions.
FCA announced proposals that would provide continued support for certain consumer credit products to users, who are facing a financial impact because of the exceptional circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
ACPR published a draft version of taxonomy RAN 1.4.0_PWD1, along with the related documentation, for Solvency II reporting.
BCBS amended the guidelines on sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism (ML/FT).