王遥：《绿色复苏：央行与金融监管机构的政策工具箱》报告的评议

近日，由伦敦政治经济学院与伦敦大学亚非学院学者合著的报告《绿色复苏：央行与金融监管机构的政策工具箱》（A Toolbox for Sustainable Crisis Response Measures for Central Banks and Supervisors）在线发布。6月29日，中央财经大学绿色金融国际研究院院长王遥教授受邀参加针对该报告的在线研讨会，并对该报告发表评议，就央行已有做法、各政策优劣、下一步应采取的政策等问题发表了自己的看法。

 

现将王遥教授讲话中英原文整理发布（中文译自英文发言），以飨读者。

 

我认为这份关于可持续危机应对的报告非常及时。它在第一时间对央行和金融监管部门为应对新冠疫情所采用的政策工具进行了梳理，总结了央行和金融监管机构如何在应对危机的同时促进可持续发展，以实现双赢的局面。该报告是一份难得的有益资料，可以作为央行从业人员和研究人员的重要参考。

 

马骏博士刚才已经给出了很有价值的发言，我十分认同，在此基础上，我提出以下观点。

 

首先在本轮危机应对中，央行与监管机构是如何考虑气候与其他相关因素的？我看到的情况是，多数国家的央行和监管者重点意识到的，还是传统的危机救济。特别是对中小企业、对就业的保护，以使企业尽量不解雇员工，尽量发放能够维持生计的基本工资。在中国，央行特别重视对小微企业的定向支持，拿出了超过1万亿元人民币的普惠性再贷款再贴现额度。我个人认为，当前各国央行的举措，符合联合国可持续发展目标，中央财经大学绿色金融国际研究院在前些时候与联合国开发计划署驻华代表处联合发布了《可持续发展投融资支持项目目录（中国）》，为金融领域活动和行为是否符合可持续发展要求提供了一个目录参考，而央行和金融监管的行动，一是为了公众的健康提供资金，二是为了中小企业提供基础金融服务，保证就业，稳定增长，毫无疑问是符合可持续发展目标的。至于危机应对过程中对气候、环境相关因素的考虑，似乎多数国家的央行都还没有做出实质性行动。我想，其原因是：历史上看，气候变化与环境因素并不在央行的政策框架中。而这便是今天这份报告发布的主要意义所在。很多朋友可能知道，今年1月国际清算银行发布《绿天鹅》报告，使得气候风险这只新的“天鹅”为更多人所知，在央行研究界引起了较大反响。我希望这份报告也能够获得类似成功，成为央行实质性启动可持续的危机应对、促进绿色发展的起点。

 

其次，关于报告所述工具箱的优缺点的评述。对报告本身进行分析后，可以看到其对政策工具总结比较全面。但报告暂未明确不同政策工具的适用场景、国家，哪些工具效果好、效果差。我想，如果有哪国央行和金融监管施行了这些政策，可以为报告作者提供相关经验。同时，报告偏重关注央行政策，未来还可补充央行以外监管机构的相关政策。比如，可以纳入中国银保监会在疫情期间出台的大量政策。

 

再次，关于央行的进一步行动。就政策实践而言，我认为，报告中提出的政策工具均为可行选项。但在疫情仍在持续，并可能出现第二轮暴发的情况下，考虑各工具的具体特点后，我认为：政策工具的应用应有先后顺序。这实际上也是我对央行的下一步工作的思考。我认为这些“绿色央行政策”的施行，应分清轻重缓急。

 

 

在应对新冠肺炎这个史无前例的危机的时候，央行实际上已经有了超负荷的目标任务。他们不仅要面对传统危机中的短期流动性不足、需求不足问题，也要面对企业长期偿还能力不足、供给能力意外下降、疫情二次暴发等许多新问题。这使得他们无暇顾及太多其他目标。当然，这不意味着央行应该忘记可持续发展、放任二氧化碳排放逐步回到甚至超过危机前水平，带来新的风险与危机。我想今天在座的各位，应当已有一个共识：我们应抓住本次复苏的机会，促进可持续和绿色发展。

 

在兼顾上述央行当下面临的困难与人类长期可持续发展要求的情况下，我想，央行应以一定的顺序选取政策工具——选择实施难度小、同时潜在绿色效果明显的政策优先使用；而不是需要投入较多精力开发、需要大范围能力建设、见效慢的政策。例如审慎监管中的环境压力测试，可以先推进试点工作。目前中国多家银行已经或正在开展环境压力测试工作，全面推进可放在优先政策之后再加以施行。

 

具体而言：

 

第一，应做好施行绿色监管政策的准备工作。这主要是对项目“绿色性”的识别，做好分类、标准工作。这项工作在欧洲和中国已较好的完成。就在本月早些时候，欧洲议会通过了可持续金融分类办法。近日，中国银保监会也将新的《绿色融资指引》发到各银行。中国拟发布的新版《绿色债券目录》征求意见稿，计划删除清洁煤相关项目。

 

第二，在具备识别能力后，央行应优先考虑在危机应对过程中业已出台的政策里纳入绿色因素。例如在抵押品框架中，明确绿色资产的可用性；在资产购买计划（APP）中，排除棕色资产，或特别购买绿色资产；应用再贷款政策时，定向支持绿色企业。将绿色因素纳入这些央行已经在用的政策，不需要牵涉央行太多的精力、增加太高成本，使得绿色政策能在繁忙的疫情应对过程中真正落地。对这些政策的先后顺序的选取，应优先考虑直接效果明显者，因为这能够给市场带来更强的信号，更好启动绿色刺激政策。我想，具备条件的国家，可以提前开始试点这些政策了。不过，根据以往的经验，将绿色要素特别纳入现有政策之中，仍需要央行行长们的高度认知，以及央行各部门的协调配合，而这需要大量的充分论证，证明环境和社会风险的紧迫性和防范风险的必要性，以及央行政策支持经济复苏和绿色转型的协同一致性。

 

第三，考虑到央行当前精力有限，一些全新的政策、需要大范围能力建设的事情，可先行推进试点，之后再逐步全面推广。比如环境压力测试等长期审慎工具，既需要开发新的且公认的方法与情境，又需要大范围能力建设与普及，会牵扯央行很多精力，可以不急于在疫情期间全面开展工作，而是逐步推进。

 

第四，应注意的是，一些短期、用于维护流动性安全的政策，比如常备借贷便利，可能不适合用于支持经济的绿色目标。一方面因为这些政策需实现维护短期金融体系的基本职能、不宜分散目标；另一方面因为绿色目标是长期的结构性的目标，短期政策本身也缺乏提供长期支持的能力。

 

以上是我的一些初步认识，很多要点还需进一步思考。特别是，哪些政策直接效果明显、市场信号作用强，且方便实施，我不是很确定。哪些政策适合在当下尽早出台，我还想听听大家的意见，也希望大家能指出我观点不足的地方。

 

谢谢！

 

 

 

I think this report on sustainable crisis response is a very timely one. It summarizes at first hand how central banks and financial regulators can promote sustainable development while responding to the crisis, how the win-win situation can be achieved. The report also summarizes policy tools already used by central banks and financial supervisors during the COVID pandemic, which is a rare and useful resource that can be an important reference for central bank practitioner and researchers.

 

Dr. Ma has just given a statement of both academic and practical value. I very much agree with these points. I am honoured to add some personal thoughts.

 

First of all, how have central banks and supervisors addressed climate and other factors in the crisis so far? What I see is that most central banks and supervisors are focusing on the traditional crisis response. Particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises and for employment. They mainly want enterprises not to lay off employees and pay basic wages that can sustain a livelihood, which is right. For example, in China, the central bank paid particular attention to targeted support for small and micro enterprises, taking out more than 1 trillion RMB refinancing and rediscount for them. I personally believe that these central bank measures are in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, SDG. Recently my institute, the International Institute of Green Finance, released the SDG Finance Taxonomy jointly with the UNDP China Office. According to this Taxonomy, providing funds for public health, small business and employment, are undoubtedly in line with the SDG goals.

 

As for the consideration of climate- and environment-related factors during the crisis response, it appears that most central banks in most countries have not yet taken substantive actions. The reason, I think, is that historically, climate change and environmental factors have not been a part of central bank’s policy framework.

 

However, this gives the main significance of the report released today. As many of you may know, the Green Swan report issued by the Bank of International Settlement in January this year made the new "swan" of climate risk widely acknowledged. The report is now well known to professionals and has generated considerable interest in the central bank research community. I hope the report released today will become a similar success and become a basis for central banks’ substantive launch of sustainable crisis response.

 

Then, my response to the the strengths, weaknesses, gaps, potentials of the Toolbox. In terms of the analysis of the report itself, the policy tools have been summarized comprehensively. However, the report does not yet clarify the countries where different policy tools can be applied suitably, and which tools may work well or poorly in certain scenarios. I hope if any central bank implements these policies in the future, it can contribute relevant experience to the authors of the report. Meanwhile, the report focuses mainly on central bank policies, which can be extended with policies of other financial regulators in the future. For example, in China, the Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission has also issued a series of green credit policies that could be included in the report.

 

In terms of policy practice, I think that all of the policy tools presented in the report are possible options. However, in considering the context of the ongoing pandemic and the possible second wave, and taking into account the specific characteristics of each tools, my opinion is that: the application of the policy tools should be sequential. This is in fact my view on the the next step of central banks. I think that the implementation of these so called green central bank policies should be prioritized.

 

In response to the unprecedented crisis of COVID, central banks have actually been overburdened. Not only do they have to face the short-term liquidity shortage and insufficient demand problems of traditional crises, but they also have to face new problems such as lack of repayment capacity of firms in the long run, the unexpected decline in supply capacity, second wave outbreaks and so on. This has already overburdened them. Meanwhile, this does not mean, of course, that central banks should forget about sustainable development and allow carbon dioxide emissions to gradually return to or even exceed pre-crisis levels, which may bring new risks and crises. I think there is a consensus among all of us here today that we should seize the opportunity of this recovery to promote sustainable development.

 

Balancing central banks’ current difficulties with the requirements of long-term sustainable development, I think that central banks should apply the sustainability-enhanced policies with certain sequence – first choose policies that are less difficult to implement and have a clear potential green effect; not policies that require a lot of effort to develop, extensive capacity building, or are slow to take effect.

 

To be specific, first, it is important to prepare for the implementation of green regulation. This is mainly to identify the "greenness" of projects by taxonomy, which has been developed well in Europe and China. Just earlier this month, European Parliament adopted the Taxonomy Regulation of sustainable finance. China started to revise its Green Bond Taxonomy, planning to remove the clean coal. The China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission released the new Green Financing Guidelines.

 

Second, with the ability to identify, central banks should prioritize the inclusion of green factors into policies already in place during the crisis response. For example, in the collateral framework, the acceptability of green assets should be clarified; in the asset purchase programs, APP, brown assets should be excluded, green assets should be prioritized; in refinancing policies, targeted support for green businesses could be applied. Incorporating green factors into these policies that central banks are already using, does not require too much effort or too much cost, making green policies can really get off the ground in the midst of a busy pandemic response. In terms of the sequencing of these policies, priority should be given to those that have a clear and direct green effect, as this can give a stronger signal to the market and better kick off the green recovery.

 

Based on experience, the special incorporation of green factors still requires a high level of awareness among central bankers, and coordination of various departments within the central bank. This needs a large number of well-documented evidence for the urgency of environmental and social risks, for the need to prevent them, and for the coherence of economic recovery and green transition. This is exactly what the NGFS and INSPIRE are currently doing.

 

Third, some entirely new policies that require extensive capacity building can be only piloted first, then gradually rolled out later. For example, long-term prudential tools, such as climate stress tests, require both the development of new methodologies and widely accepted scenarios, which may involve a lot of effort from regulators. It can be phased in gradually instead of rushing into the full-scale during the pandemic.

 

Fourth, it should be noted that some short-term policies for safeguarding liquidity, such as standing lending facilities, may not be appropriate for supporting the green transition. The reasons, on the one hand, is that these policies need to fulfil their basic function of safeguarding the financial stability in the short-term, which should not be distracted. On the other hand, green transition is a long-term structural goal, and the short-term policies naturally lack the ability to provide long-term support.

 

OK, the above four points are my preliminary perceptions. Some issues are needed to do further research. In particular, I'm not so sure which policies have clear direct effects, strong market signals, and are easy to implement in the practice, in different countries, and in today. I'd like also to hear your opinions on which policies are suitable for early introduction at the present time, and broadly, on how we can promote sustainable recovery from the view of financial regulators.

 

Thank you very much!