With a CV such as Banga’s, mobilising more private finance to complement public funding (which is a major objective of the ongoing reform of the World Bank) should be a piece of cake. But again, this will only solve part of the problems: public resources are scarce and can’t always be substituted by private funding. With the appropriate conditions in place, any windmill or solar powerplant should find private sponsors. But no matter how hard we try, it is unlikely that we will get the private sector to fund the deep regulatory and institutional energy sector reform that is needed in many countries to guide the transition.

What does this imply for the reform? Of course, significant efforts should be dedicated to finding the One trillion per year estimated funding needs for a transition in developing countries other than China. But as much attention should be given to reshaping the way public development banks operate so that the impact of every public euro spent is carefully maximised. When reforming the World Bank and the broader financial architecture, all types of activities should thus be reconsidered to answer the countries’ investment needs for the transition. In their latest report, Alice Pauthier and Aki Kachi (NewClimate Institute) share some insight on how international public financial institutions can take this direction and progressively move from a project to a counterparty and system-level approach, and align financial systems in developing countries with global climate goals.

Read more

L’article World Bank’s reform: almost a new pilot onboard est apparu en premier sur I4CE.

But at this stage, while the principle of transition plans exists in the three positions of the Commission, the Council and the Parliament, the exact wording differs in terms of ambition and clarity. In order for these plans to make a real difference, three key parameters will need to be clarified in the trialogue negotiations.

The first parameter is the nature of these mandatory climate transition plans. If the obligation is limited to transparency requirements, the focus will be on the need to publish a plan and not on the need to actually implement it. This is one of the problems with, for example, transition plans adopted voluntarily by financial institutions. Conversely, if banking supervisors are given the mandate to monitor these transition plans as part of the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP), they will have several tools at their disposal to ensure their proper implementation.

Read more

L’article Climate transition plans for banks: European legislators on a razor’s edge est apparu en premier sur I4CE.

The proposal for mandatory climate transition plans for banks is slowly making its way through the regulatory debate.

The European Parliament has adopted its final position on the Banking package. The package consists of a revision to the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation and Solvency II rules. This is done in order to implement the Basel III international framework which has the objective of increasing the resilience of the banking sector to future financial crises. Yet, another important requirement has been included to address climate change.

The text obliges banks to adopt climate transition plans as part of a broader ambition to better manage environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks. This new obligation has been proposed by the Commission and is confirmed in the positions of the European Parliament and Council. I4CE has supported the discussions on climate transition plans for banks through dedicated research for more than a year now.

It remains to be seen if this becomes a significant leap forward or just another side step

Mandatory climate transition plans for banks have the potential to become a game changer for financial risk management as well as for aligning financial flows with the transition to a low-carbon economy. Banks could potentially be required to restricting or limiting their business with regard to carbon intensive activities, adjusting their business models, governance structures and risk management procedures, or revising their strategies.

However, while there is a consensus at this stage on the principle of making climate transition plans for banks mandatory, the exact formulations differ in ambition and clarity. In order to develop their game changing potential, three key parameters need to be clarified in the final version that remains to be negotiated.

Read more on Euractiv’

L’article OP-ED – Climate transition plans for banks: European legislators on a razor’s edge est apparu en premier sur I4CE.

The IRA is a wake-up call for the EU, as is China’s Five years Plan and Japan’s 20 trillion Yen Green Transformation Programme. Let’s be clear. Seeing major Governments organising long-term climate investment plans is great news for climate action. In our latest brief published today, I4CE argues that the logical solution is an EU long-term climate investment plan. Yet, there is currently little political appetite for such a discussion. The Institute therefore recommends the European Commission to use the existing political momentum around the IRA and cleantech, to propose an EU Cleantech Investment Plan that focus on the scale-up and manufacturing of key clean technologies. The EU should scale green public procurement and launch EU-wide support schemes, as part of this plan.

Today the 27 Heads of States and Governments of the EU reconvene for a Special European Council. They should use this opportunity to provide political backing to an EU cleantech investment plan, and task their ministers to map and assess their own national schemes to identify synergies and gaps. This would help the European Commission design its Net-Zero Industry Act, tabled for 08 March 2023. However necessary, such Cleantech Investment Plan should only be the first step for a wider discussion. The EU needs to build a long-term climate investment plan that tackles all climate investment needs, such as public transport infrastructure or targeted support for low-income and middle-class Europeans. This is crucial to ensure EU, national and private investments turn all the European Green Deal objectives into tangible realities for businesses, workers and families.

Read more

L’article How the EU can match the US Inflation Reduction-Act est apparu en premier sur I4CE.

As we prepare to face hard evidence that too little is being done too slowly, let’s use the positive spirit of January to outline what we would like to see in the next chapter. Deep and concrete changes are what we hope to look back on this time next year and, as explained by Alice Pauthier in her blogpost, two areas of work appear particularly critical for a successful reform. First, the new international financial system should be driven at country level, by the thorough identification of financing needs for sustainable development. Second, the focus of attention should not only be on the volumes of development finance: we should allow more consideration to its real impact on the transition of economies.

At I4CE, we have been and will be dedicating our efforts to contributing to these priorities: on the financial end, by supporting the debate on how to maximise the impact of public development banks; and on the economic end, by developing methodologies and tools to help countries assess their financing needs and pilot the transition. You’ll find out some more about these activities going through our newsletter.

Read more

L’article 2023’s resolutions for a reform of development finance est apparu en premier sur I4CE.

In just one year, a global consensus was created on the need to reform the global financial architecture. Following up on Mia Mottley’s memorable speech at COP26 highlighting that “failure to provide climate finance is measured in lives and livelihoods being lost”, the government of Barbados, developed the Bridgetown Agenda for the Reform of the Global Financial Architecture. The objective is to drive financial resources towards a sustainable low-GHG and climate-resilient development while addressing the cost of living crisis and the developing country debt crisis. At COP27, Barbados received the support of countries including France, whose President announced the organization of a Summit to be held in June 2023. It also received support from the broader international community, as highlighted in the Sharm El-Sheikh Implementation Plan with the mention of the need for “a transformation of the financial system”.

In 2022, concrete proposals were already being discussed to reform the World Bank and other Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs). MDBs have a specific role in the global financial architecture as they should in theory be able to support countries in addressing current crises while contributing to their sustainable development over the long term. However, their resources are limited. In an effort to help address their current limitations, several organisations have developed proposals for reform. An Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance presented proposals for an MDB reform calling for “both a significant expansion in the scope of their activities and a major increase in the volume of their financing”. The G20 created an independent panel who developed recommendations to help MDB shareholder governments better understand whether MDBs can lend more without posing a threat to their long-term financial integrity. Building on these recommendations, Germany and the US, backed by 10 countries, including all of the G7 group, handed a joint proposal for “a fundamental reform of the World Bank” to its management. The World Bank responded with the publication of an “evolution roadmap” that should support next spring’s discussions with its Board on the Group’s evolution. Building on these proposed and planned MDB reforms, 2023 should see reforms of the entire finance architecture, including revisions of the role of all public finance institutions.

Beyond the Paris Summit, 2023 will be busy with many events organised to address different parts of the financial architecture reform agenda: the Spring Meetings of the IMF and the World Bank as well as the G20, the G7 and the Finance in Common Summit and COP28. These events are all opportunities that must be seized to change the trajectory of development finance and make the system fit for current and future challenges. Capitalising on over a decade of work on financing the transition in France, Europe and developing countries, I4CE has identified two minimum conditions for a successful reform process led by countries’ financing needs for a sustainable development and guided by the objective of maximising the impact of public finance for the transition of economies.

To be successful, the reform of the global financial architecture should give priority to defining the country financing needs.

The last time development finance received that much attention was 2015 when the climate and development agenda converged around the need for country-based and integrated approaches for a sustainable development. The Addis Ababa Action Agenda then acknowledged the importance of taking into account the three dimensions of sustainable development – economic, social and environmental – together. To do that, the same year both the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Agenda and the Paris Agreement have promoted a bottom-up and country-driven approach, with each “government setting its own national targets guided by the global level of ambition but taking into account national circumstances”.

In 2023, this bottom-up approach remains the key condition for a successful reform of the global financial architecture. The IMF recalls that “the desirable role of the public and private sectors in financing mitigation and adaptation investments is context specific. The role of public and private sector financing varies across countries depending on country-specific characteristics and the local economic and institutional context”. And, according to the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Brookings Institution: “the starting point for a big investment push must be strong country leadership and actions. All countries need to set out well-articulated investment programmes to stimulate recovery and transformation anchored in sound long-term strategies to deliver on development and climate goals. These programmes need to be translated into concrete pipelines of projects and supported by a favourable investment climate.”

However, we are still lacking a granular analysis of countries’ investment needs for a sustainable development. To achieve this, each country may take the following steps – with the support of international actors when needed:

• develop inclusive long-term strategies and sectoral plans, to achieve climate and broader sustainable development objectives to identify the country-specific socio-economic transitions that will occur over the long term;
• Translate these strategies into investment and financing needs over different time horizons (macro-economic component); 
• draw up an overview of current financing and additional financing needs to be met in order to:
  • identify the role of public and private sector actors as well as national and international actors;
  • identify the sources (national budget, carbon revenues, green bonds, domestic capital markets, international climate finance, etc.) and existing financing mechanisms that could be used;
  • identify innovative financing mechanisms and public-private collaboration to fill the remaining gaps.

Climate finance landscapes can be a key tool for these analyses. The dissemination of these analyses/methods/tools could be key to inform and help public finance institutions identify where their support is needed and where they should prioritise their efforts. This is why I4CE contributes to these analyses.

Public financial resources are precious, particularly in times of crisis. The reform of the global financial architecture should ensure that public finance is channelled to where it is needed the most.

Even though we are still lacking a granular analysis of financing needs for the transition, one point is clear: public financial resources alone won’t cover financing needs. While part of the reform agenda will be focusing on the different ways of increasing volumes of public finance, it will also be necessary to focus on how to make the most efficient use of these resources. To that end, what we should count is the impact on the transition, and not volumes of finance. And this impact should be measured taking into consideration countries’ specific needs for public finance.

Public Finance Institutions (PFIs), whether they be international, regional or domestic, play a key role in directing public finance. Today, a clear paradigm shift is needed to optimise the role of Public Finance Institutions in financing the transition: Individually, PFIs need to shift from a focus on volumes of climate financing to a focus on their real impact on the transformation of national economies. As PFIs’ resources are limited, financing sustainable activities like an additional windmill is not enough. They need to focus their efforts on activities that will have the most impact on the transition of economies, like the capacity building of national governments in the development and implementation of sustainable development plans. To maximize their impact, they should ensure that all their activities are consistent with sustainable development goals, assess how their activities will impact the transformation of systems at the national and global level and prioritize activities on the basis of their impact.

Collectively, analyses and coordination are needed to identify which PFI is the most well placed and equipped to answer countries’ financing needs. To be successful this reform should be comprehensive. It can’t only focus on multinational development finance that represents less than 10% of total public finance operations. The role of national finance institutions and subnational finance institutions that represent respectively 70% and 21% of operations according to latest research from INSE and AFD should also be a key part of the discussion. The current increasingly crowded and fragmented system should be reformed for more pragmatism, and efficiency. The most concessional resources should be allocated carefully where needs are high, such as for the adaptation of least developed countries. The development of the above-mentioned analyses of countries’ financing needs could represent the building blocks for a discussion on the role of public and private as well as national and international finance institutions and the different financing and non-financing instruments they can use to respond to these needs. In some regions, national public banks will have a decisive role to play, while in others, international finance will be absolutely necessary.

Reforming the international public finance architecture is ambitious. It represents a broad and complex item on the international agenda this year. But it is also an opportunity that we can’t miss if we want to remain on track to achieve climate and sustainability goals.

L’article Here’s to an impactful new year for financial reform est apparu en premier sur I4CE.

With these crises, the temptation to put the fight against climate change on the back burner was therefore great. And governments, in Europe and in the world, have in fact largely favoured short-term consumer subsidies over investments for the transition. In this context, one question deserves to be asked: after the time of the fire brigade, will architects still have enough to invest tomorrow, for both mitigation and adaptation? The answer obviously depends on the national context and the priorities of the moment. In Germany, the invasion of Ukraine has opened up the public moneybox, including for investment in renewable energies. In France, after the announced end of the “whatever it takes”, there has been a delay in implementing the transition financing plan outlined by Emmanuel Macron during the presidential campaign. In the face of a climate change that has been predicted by scientists for more than thirty years, we must plan the investments essential to transforming France into a green nation.

The year 2022 has been punctuated by remarkable advances. But for each of these advances, much remains to be done in 2023.

At the international level, COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh has led to an agreement on the issue of loss and damage. But in 2023, beyond the negotiations under the UN, the key will be the reform of the international financial architecture and its impact on the ability of development banks to tackle climate change. The contribution of development banks to financing the transition in developing countries could be much more decisive than their size would suggest.

In 2022, the European Union has agreed on the major components of the Green Deal: priority to renewable energies, now presumed to be of higher public interest; a ban on the sale of new combustion engine cars from 2035; reform of the carbon market; introduction of a carbon tax at the borders; a ban on the import of products that promote deforestation; progress on climate reporting by companies and their transition plans… In 2023, this regulatory framework will have to be complemented by progress on energy efficiency. And by a “European investment and financing plan”, which is essential to accompany economic transformations and respond to the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act and its $350 billion investment plan for the low-carbon transition and clean technologies. There will be no shortage of opportunities on the European agenda.

Finally, in France, the newly created General Secretariat for Ecological Planning, which reports to the Prime Minister, is now coordinating the development of the energy and climate strategy. It will also ensure that the commitments made by all ministries in the area of climate are properly implemented. But to facilitate this proper implementation, the Government should have a multi-year financing plan by 2023 that complies with its commitments to carbon neutrality, which also takes into account the need to adapt to climate change.

The I4CE team will engage in 2023 on all these issues. We remain driven by two convictions. First conviction: strong and structured public action (let’s call it “planning”) will be necessary for the transition; and such public action is all the more legitimate and relevant in a context of multiple crises, because it reduces the uncertainties for companies, households and local authorities that will implement the transition. Second conviction: crises can accelerate awareness and action in favour of the transition. And therefore make possible for public action what “yesterday” seemed impossible to implement, and even to discuss.

There has never been a better time to act: we look forward to seeing you throughout 2023, to contribute to these different agendas in France, in Europe, and internationally.

2023 Agenda

International public finance

The international debate on climate finance will be marked in 2023 by the reform of the international architecture, in the forefront of which are the World Bank and the IMF. There was a consensus at the last COP on the fact that the international system is not “fit for purpose” and that in-depth reforms will have to be initiated from 2023. With the French President’s Summit for a New Financial Pact, the Spring Meetings and the Finance in Common Summit, there will be many opportunities to increase and improve the effectiveness of international public financing. For this funding to be used to best effect, developing countries will need to continue to develop long-term transformation plans and strategies to finance them.

More informations.

Financing the Green Deal

The European Union has had a decision-laden 2022. Much of the regulatory pillar of the Green Deal has been adopted. In the face of Vladimir Putin’s second invasion of Ukraine, the European Union chose to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy and strengthen its energy efficiency efforts – but also new investments in fossil gas. As European regulation and the extension of the carbon price create new investment needs, how does the Union wish to finance its transition? While the US has made a huge leap forward with the Inflation Reduction Act, the EU has not yet responded to this challenge. It will have many opportunities in 2023 to do so with the on the Stability and Growth Pact, the mid-term review of its multiannual budget and the preparation of the European elections and the renewal of the Commission in 2024.

More informations.

Financial regulation

In recent years, whether it be with the taxonomy on green activities or the reinforcement of mandatory reporting for companies and financial players, the EU has worked hard to mobilise private finance for the transition and has positioned itself as the world leader in financial regulation for the climate. 2023 will be the occasion to move to the next stage: the Banking Package currently under discussion at the European Parliament should make climate transition plans mandatory for banks, and the European Banking Authority should define the precise modalities.

More informations.

Financing the transition

In France, the beginning of the five-year term was marked by the extension of the tariff shield, which will cost tens of billions of euros this year. Which financial resources will the State and local authorities have at their disposal to invest in the transition and help households and businesses to do the same? In 2023, the Office of the Prime minister and its newly created General Secretariat for Ecological Planning will have to complete their work on the financing of the transition, in order to feed the debates around the Energy and Climate Programming Law, the 2024 budget or the budget allocated to transport infrastructures.

More informations.

Adaptation to climate change

With the summer that it has gone through, France has become aware of an imperative: to adapt to a changing climate. After the first measures taken in the context of the budget debate, there will be opportunities to make sure that the awareness is translated into action and funding with the Energy and Climate Programming Law, the 2024 budget and the revision of the national adaptation plan. In 2023, all public funding should also pass an “adaptation stress test”, so that the government stops spending 50 billion each year on infrastructures that we do not know whether they are adapted to tomorrow’s climate.

More informations.

Local authorities investments

Uncertainty. This is the most appropriate word to describe the situation in which French local authorities find themselves. It is difficult to say whether they will have the capacity to increase their investments in the energy transition to start catching up, as they have to deal with inflation and rising energy prices. 2023 will be both a test of how well they have managed to deal with this shock, and a test of the new scheme launched by the Government to support the transition of local authorities: the Green Fund. The Fund has been allocated 2 billion in 2023, and the sustainability of this funding is so far… uncertain.

More informations.

Agriculture and carbon certification

On agriculture, the year 2023 will be marked in France by a new orientation law designed to meet the challenge of the retirement of a large number of farmers. It will have to both attract new farmers and help them adopt practices and invest in more sustainable farms in the face of climate change. To do this, the law will have to take a serious look at public aid for investment, and not forget the farmers who are retiring and whose farms are losing value due to climate change. At the European level, 2023 will be a key year for the carbon certification of agricultural practices, the first essential building block for reforming the EU’s agricultural policy.

More informations.

Forest adaptation and wood industry transformation

The French forest was severely tested in 2022, if only by the summer forest fires. While considerable resources have been allocated to forest renewal, the challenge this year will be to ensure that they are used to adapt forests, to make them more resilient to climate change. This is easier said than done. It will also be necessary to ensure that these resources contribute to the development of the most climate-relevant wood processing industries, foremost among which is the production of wood-based materials, which have a great advantage: they store carbon for many years.

More informations.

Read more

L’article 2023 agenda: there has never been a better time to act est apparu en premier sur I4CE.

Carbon certification systems have multiplied in recent years to answer this question. The problem is that their requirements are heterogeneous, to say the least. This is why the European Commission has just proposed a new regulation to create a common carbon certification “framework” at the European level. This might provide clarity for funders, farmers and forest owners.

This Commission proposal is therefore excellent news but, as the analysis we have made of it in this newsletter shows, better can sometimes be the enemy of good. The impossibility of valuing agricultural emission reductions in addition to carbon storage, or an overly complex way to ensure the long-term storage of carbon, may put off actors in the field. If the future European carbon certification framework is not sufficiently attractive, it will miss its objective. The ball is now in the court of the Council and the European Parliament.

Read more

L’article European Carbon Certification must be demanding… and appealing est apparu en premier sur I4CE.

As a reminder, the European Commission (EC) has decided to create a carbon removals certification framework to facilitate the deployment of high-quality carbon removals, including in the land sector, in order to reach the objective of carbon neutrality in 2050. A reliable framework is a prerequisite to be able to direct private and public funding towards projects with a real impact on the climate. Faced with the multiplication of carbon certification systems with very heterogeneous levels of requirements, this future European framework is an opportunity to sort out the issues and to provide clarity, both to project developers and to buyers. It is hoped that greater clarity will lead to increased financing and thus accelerate carbon storage in forests, wood products and agricultural soils. This future framework will also allow to certify projects throughout the Union, whereas the existing certification systems only target a few countries. These are laudable objectives, but it remains to be seen whether this tool will be a real incentive for farmers and foresters while levelling up the various existing carbon certification schemes.  

For the framework to be an incentive for farmers, it is necessary to extend its scope to include N2O and CH4 emissions   

The first point of concern in the Commission’s proposal is the scope, which at this stage is too limited. This certification framework was initially designed to meet the objective of enhancing the European carbon sink. It therefore focuses on carbon removals and does not include the reduction of N20 and CH4 emissions that farmers must also implement. This raises the question of the system’s attractiveness to farmers.  Indeed, the first projects certified by the French certification system, the Label Bas-Carbone, reveal costs that may exceed 100 euros per tonne of greenhouse gas reduced or sequestered. If only carbon removals can be credited in the European system, it will be even more difficult for farmers to cover the cost of their projects. It therefore seems unlikely that a system that only rewards carbon removals will encourage farmers to commit. 

Coordination of the different sources of funding for certified projects will be crucial  

The attractiveness of the scheme is crucial. In order to ensure this attractiveness, it is necessary on the one hand to value all the climate benefits generated, and on the other hand, it is necessary to diversify the sources of financing. Ensuring the diversification of funding sources is our second point of vigilance. The European Commission lists various possible sources of funding (voluntary markets, CAP, state aid, low-interest bank loans, low-carbon premiums on products from certified projects, etc.) and this is already very good. But it is not yet clear how these different sources of finance can be used together to provide a reward that is sufficiently attractive to accelerate the deployment of low carbon projects. Again, projects are expensive, may involve risk-taking, require investment in new equipment, training and support for project developers, not to mention the costs of certification. These different costs need to be clarified and it is essential to identify precisely who will fund what to ensure that funding is effective (i.e. does not overfund a project) and covers costs sufficiently to provide an incentive (i.e. does not underfund a project).     

Sustainability criteria must be ambitious but realistic  

Our third point of attention concerns the sustainability criteria: they must be ambitious but also implementable. The EC proposes guidelines on the quality criteria on additionality, long-term storage and sustainability of carbon removal activities. These guidelines are largely consistent with the recommendations we made in the public consultation.

But the Commission has chosen a definition of additionality that is less rigorous than The French Label Bas-Carbone. Where this French certification scheme encourages going beyond the current situation, whatever it may be, the EC wishes to reward the pioneers by basing itself on comparisons with local averages. The risk of a windfall effect i.e. that only those who are already better than the average will choose to develop projects, is therefore higher. This approach nevertheless has the advantage of encouraging the maintenance of existing carbon stocks in the soil.

Regarding long-term storage, the Commission’s proposal is more complicated to understand at this stage. It states that “the carbon should be assumed to be released into the atmosphere, unless the economic operator proves the maintenance of the carbon storage through uninterrupted monitoring activities”. This suggests the creation of temporary carbon credits, based on the same principle that was put in place under the Kyoto Protocol, but which did not work well. There is no incentive for a buyer to purchase credits that have an expiry date and potentially need to be replaced as and when required. While this is an extremely robust solution to tackle the risk of non-permanence, it seems unrealistic and sometimes the best is the enemy of the good. It would seem preferable to seek to ensure the long-term profitability of stocking practices in order to facilitate their maintenance and to assume in parallel that there will always be a risk of the release of carbon in the atmosphere. To manage this risk, a discount can be provided.  

Highly centralised governance, which must not demobilise players already involved in other national certification schemes

The last point of attention concerns the governance of the European certification. Several options, more or less centralised, were considered. They range from a very open system, where the national certifications like the French Label Bas-Carbone would remain central and where the Member States could apply the main European rules and to validate the methodologies proposed by the stakeholders, to a very centralized system where the Commission develops methodologies applicable by all.

In its proposal, the Commission seems to favour a highly centralised approach. This is a relevant approach to sort out the multiplication of certification schemes in Europe and to bring clarity, but it requires that European methodologies be able to take into account the different pedoclimatic contexts. This centralisation should also be done gradually and provide guarantees to the actors already involved in recognised certification processes. Otherwise, it will penalise the pioneers and discourage the deployment of low-carbon projects before the European framework is operational.   

The Commission proposal will now be discussed by the European Parliament and the Council, in line with ordinary legislative procedure. The EC will develop tailored certification methodologies for the different types of carbon removal activities, supported by an expert group whose work will be decisive in ensuring the development of carbon certification framework that is both rigorous and clear, but also provides incentives for farmers and foresters.

L’article Carbon certification: the Commission publishes a stringent certification framework that should also be and appealing est apparu en premier sur I4CE.

This is bad news. But not that bad actually. As explained by Michel Cardona in a policy brief that you’ll find in this newsletter, we should not expect too much from voluntary commitments from private actors anyway. Not only because they are voluntary, but because the committed actors are mostly refinancers of the economy, not primary actors, and their impact on the real economy is more limited than we think. To enable private finance to fully play a role and have a transforming impact, we need to see more action from public authorities and especially from financial regulators.

In this regard, the forthcoming vote at the EU Parliament on the Banking Package will be a test for the EU. It is likely that the regulators will ask banks to adopt “transition plans”. But as highlighted in a new study released today by I4CE, the effectiveness of this decision for climate will depend on the content of such plans and what kind of supervision is implemented afterwards. As always, the devil is in the details. And financial regulators must strengthen their game.

Read more

L’article Financial regulators must stenghen their game est apparu en premier sur I4CE.