RFI Newsletter Articles
Filter by date
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
Filter by topic
- ACMF 1
- AI 3
- ASEAN 3
- ASEAN Taxonomy 2
- Banking Supervision 1
- Biodiversity 2
- Blue Economy 3
- Blue Finance 1
- Blue Finance Challenge 1
- COP28 3
- CSRD 2
- Carbon Credits 1
- Central Asia 1
- Climate 1
- Climate Disclosures 6
- Climate Mitigation 4
- Climate Risk 23
- Climate Scenario Analysis 3
- Climate Stress Test 3
- Climate risk 1
- Coal Phase-Out 1
- Credit Ratings 1
- Derisking 3
- ESG 6
- Emerging Markets 14
- Emissions Intensity 1
- Ethical Finance 1
- FinTech 3
- Financed Emissions 6
- Financed Emissions Data 7
- Financial Institutions 9
- Financial Materiality 1
- Financial Shocks 1
- Financial Stability 2
- GCC 2
- GHG Protocol 1
- GVI Hub 3
- Global Stocktake 1
- Green Bonds 3
- Greenwashing 2
- ISSB 1
- Institutional Investors 1
- Islamic Banking 3
- Islamic finance 3
- Just Transition 6
- MAS 1
- MENA 2
- MSMEs 1
- Maqasid 1
- NGFS 3
Short-term climate scenarios can provide an input to help rewire the financial system
The Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) has released its first short-term climate scenarios. These are designed as a tool to evaluate the impact of climate change on the financial sector over a period that is in line with the policy and planning horizons for most businesses and governments.
The dynamic of climate change as a source of economic and financial risk did not emerge naturally. It arose as a result of two hundred years of historical emissions, and the process of generating those emissions involved significantly unequal sharing of the benefits. For the process of addressing the impacts of climate change, the costs should be similarly skewed towards developed countries to produce an equitable outcome for humanity.
Although there are some limitations of short-term climate scenarios in capturing the most likely outcome, they can be useful if users acknowledge the limitations and don’t allow their expectations of future climate risk to be anchored to either the most optimistic or pessimistic scenarios. These tools also shouldn’t be used in a vacuum because they could create unintended consequences for OIC markets and other emerging & developing markets by inhibiting flows of investment and climate finance that are already insufficient.
If short-term scenario analysis is instead viewed as a way to prioritise projects based on their ability to mitigate climate change, support the transition or invest in adaptation, then it may be able to play a more constructive role. The efforts to ‘rewire finance’ will still be necessary to reduce barriers to the flow of finance to OIC markets and others that are EMDEs, and efforts to improve the realism of outcomes covered by short-term climate scenarios will be more fruitful in directing capital where it can be most effective.
A step-change: how a systemic risk buffer could benefit transition finance
The financial consequences of climate change and the necessary transition to global Net Zero by 2050 have made it difficult for financial institutions to change the way they make decisions quickly enough. A working paper published by researchers at the European Central Bank provides evidence for how the financial sector could be insulated from any losses by creating a systemic risk for the entire sector.
Until now, most of the regulatory responses to the risks associated with climate change have been incentives for non-financial companies to make green investments, greater disclosure by corporations and financial institutions about their financed emissions, and climate stress-testing exercises by central banks and supervisors.
The Systemic Risk Buffer was developed to reflect the overall level of near-term transition risk exposure of the financial institution – within the coming three years — and not be linked to individual green or dirty assets. Instead of adjusting the risk weighting of individual exposures, as a green supporting factor or dirty penalizing factor would do, it groups financial institutions into buckets based on the potential transition risk relative to their risk-weighted assets.
Using the collected data for calibrating a systemic risk buffer provides a tangible use for the stress tests and a data-guided way to balance the risk of financing climate-exposed sectors with the short-term gain that banks have by continuing to provide financing. Transition risk buckets offers substantial leeway for banks to finance companies transitioning activities from unsustainable to sustainable activities without facing increases in their capital requirement.
Financial Institutions May Be Lulled Into Complacency By Climate Stress Test Results
The UK’s Institute & Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) says users of climate risk models may put too much weight on the results of scenarios selected for regulatory stress tests
Financial institutions should use a diversity of climate scenarios, both quantitative and qualitative, to ensure that the outputs are consistent with the economic implications of physical climate impacts in a ‘hot house’ world
Many models using traditional economic modeling applied to climate change scenarios produce overly benign results that significantly understate the true risk that financial institutions face