王遙：《綠色復(fù)蘇：央行與金融監(jiān)管機構(gòu)的政策工具箱》報告的評議

近日，由倫敦政治經(jīng)濟學(xué)院與倫敦大學(xué)亞非學(xué)院學(xué)者合著的報告《綠色復(fù)蘇：央行與金融監(jiān)管機構(gòu)的政策工具箱》（A Toolbox for Sustainable Crisis Response Measures for Central Banks and Supervisors）在線發(fā)布。6月29日，中央財經(jīng)大學(xué)綠色金融國際研究院院長王遙教授受邀參加針對該報告的在線研討會，并對該報告發(fā)表評議，就央行已有做法、各政策優(yōu)劣、下一步應(yīng)采取的政策等問題發(fā)表了自己的看法。

 

現(xiàn)將王遙教授講話中英原文整理發(fā)布（中文譯自英文發(fā)言），以饗讀者。

 

我認(rèn)為這份關(guān)于可持續(xù)危機應(yīng)對的報告非常及時。它在第一時間對央行和金融監(jiān)管部門為應(yīng)對新冠疫情所采用的政策工具進行了梳理，總結(jié)了央行和金融監(jiān)管機構(gòu)如何在應(yīng)對危機的同時促進可持續(xù)發(fā)展，以實現(xiàn)雙贏的局面。該報告是一份難得的有益資料，可以作為央行從業(yè)人員和研究人員的重要參考。

 

馬駿博士剛才已經(jīng)給出了很有價值的發(fā)言，我十分認(rèn)同，在此基礎(chǔ)上，我提出以下觀點。

 

首先在本輪危機應(yīng)對中，央行與監(jiān)管機構(gòu)是如何考慮氣候與其他相關(guān)因素的？我看到的情況是，多數(shù)國家的央行和監(jiān)管者重點意識到的，還是傳統(tǒng)的危機救濟。特別是對中小企業(yè)、對就業(yè)的保護，以使企業(yè)盡量不解雇員工，盡量發(fā)放能夠維持生計的基本工資。在中國，央行特別重視對小微企業(yè)的定向支持，拿出了超過1萬億元人民幣的普惠性再貸款再貼現(xiàn)額度。我個人認(rèn)為，當(dāng)前各國央行的舉措，符合聯(lián)合國可持續(xù)發(fā)展目標(biāo)，中央財經(jīng)大學(xué)綠色金融國際研究院在前些時候與聯(lián)合國開發(fā)計劃署駐華代表處聯(lián)合發(fā)布了《可持續(xù)發(fā)展投融資支持項目目錄（中國）》，為金融領(lǐng)域活動和行為是否符合可持續(xù)發(fā)展要求提供了一個目錄參考，而央行和金融監(jiān)管的行動，一是為了公眾的健康提供資金，二是為了中小企業(yè)提供基礎(chǔ)金融服務(wù)，保證就業(yè)，穩(wěn)定增長，毫無疑問是符合可持續(xù)發(fā)展目標(biāo)的。至于危機應(yīng)對過程中對氣候、環(huán)境相關(guān)因素的考慮，似乎多數(shù)國家的央行都還沒有做出實質(zhì)性行動。我想，其原因是：歷史上看，氣候變化與環(huán)境因素并不在央行的政策框架中。而這便是今天這份報告發(fā)布的主要意義所在。很多朋友可能知道，今年1月國際清算銀行發(fā)布《綠天鵝》報告，使得氣候風(fēng)險這只新的“天鵝”為更多人所知，在央行研究界引起了較大反響。我希望這份報告也能夠獲得類似成功，成為央行實質(zhì)性啟動可持續(xù)的危機應(yīng)對、促進綠色發(fā)展的起點。

 

其次，關(guān)于報告所述工具箱的優(yōu)缺點的評述。對報告本身進行分析后，可以看到其對政策工具總結(jié)比較全面。但報告暫未明確不同政策工具的適用場景、國家，哪些工具效果好、效果差。我想，如果有哪國央行和金融監(jiān)管施行了這些政策，可以為報告作者提供相關(guān)經(jīng)驗。同時，報告偏重關(guān)注央行政策，未來還可補充央行以外監(jiān)管機構(gòu)的相關(guān)政策。比如，可以納入中國銀保監(jiān)會在疫情期間出臺的大量政策。

 

再次，關(guān)于央行的進一步行動。就政策實踐而言，我認(rèn)為，報告中提出的政策工具均為可行選項。但在疫情仍在持續(xù)，并可能出現(xiàn)第二輪暴發(fā)的情況下，考慮各工具的具體特點后，我認(rèn)為：政策工具的應(yīng)用應(yīng)有先后順序。這實際上也是我對央行的下一步工作的思考。我認(rèn)為這些“綠色央行政策”的施行，應(yīng)分清輕重緩急。

 

 

在應(yīng)對新冠肺炎這個史無前例的危機的時候，央行實際上已經(jīng)有了超負(fù)荷的目標(biāo)任務(wù)。他們不僅要面對傳統(tǒng)危機中的短期流動性不足、需求不足問題，也要面對企業(yè)長期償還能力不足、供給能力意外下降、疫情二次暴發(fā)等許多新問題。這使得他們無暇顧及太多其他目標(biāo)。當(dāng)然，這不意味著央行應(yīng)該忘記可持續(xù)發(fā)展、放任二氧化碳排放逐步回到甚至超過危機前水平，帶來新的風(fēng)險與危機。我想今天在座的各位，應(yīng)當(dāng)已有一個共識：我們應(yīng)抓住本次復(fù)蘇的機會，促進可持續(xù)和綠色發(fā)展。

 

在兼顧上述央行當(dāng)下面臨的困難與人類長期可持續(xù)發(fā)展要求的情況下，我想，央行應(yīng)以一定的順序選取政策工具——選擇實施難度小、同時潛在綠色效果明顯的政策優(yōu)先使用；而不是需要投入較多精力開發(fā)、需要大范圍能力建設(shè)、見效慢的政策。例如審慎監(jiān)管中的環(huán)境壓力測試，可以先推進試點工作。目前中國多家銀行已經(jīng)或正在開展環(huán)境壓力測試工作，全面推進可放在優(yōu)先政策之后再加以施行。

 

具體而言：

 

第一，應(yīng)做好施行綠色監(jiān)管政策的準(zhǔn)備工作。這主要是對項目“綠色性”的識別，做好分類、標(biāo)準(zhǔn)工作。這項工作在歐洲和中國已較好的完成。就在本月早些時候，歐洲議會通過了可持續(xù)金融分類辦法。近日，中國銀保監(jiān)會也將新的《綠色融資指引》發(fā)到各銀行。中國擬發(fā)布的新版《綠色債券目錄》征求意見稿，計劃刪除清潔煤相關(guān)項目。

 

第二，在具備識別能力后，央行應(yīng)優(yōu)先考慮在危機應(yīng)對過程中業(yè)已出臺的政策里納入綠色因素。例如在抵押品框架中，明確綠色資產(chǎn)的可用性；在資產(chǎn)購買計劃（APP）中，排除棕色資產(chǎn)，或特別購買綠色資產(chǎn)；應(yīng)用再貸款政策時，定向支持綠色企業(yè)。將綠色因素納入這些央行已經(jīng)在用的政策，不需要牽涉央行太多的精力、增加太高成本，使得綠色政策能在繁忙的疫情應(yīng)對過程中真正落地。對這些政策的先后順序的選取，應(yīng)優(yōu)先考慮直接效果明顯者，因為這能夠給市場帶來更強的信號，更好啟動綠色刺激政策。我想，具備條件的國家，可以提前開始試點這些政策了。不過，根據(jù)以往的經(jīng)驗，將綠色要素特別納入現(xiàn)有政策之中，仍需要央行行長們的高度認(rèn)知，以及央行各部門的協(xié)調(diào)配合，而這需要大量的充分論證，證明環(huán)境和社會風(fēng)險的緊迫性和防范風(fēng)險的必要性，以及央行政策支持經(jīng)濟復(fù)蘇和綠色轉(zhuǎn)型的協(xié)同一致性。

 

第三，考慮到央行當(dāng)前精力有限，一些全新的政策、需要大范圍能力建設(shè)的事情，可先行推進試點，之后再逐步全面推廣。比如環(huán)境壓力測試等長期審慎工具，既需要開發(fā)新的且公認(rèn)的方法與情境，又需要大范圍能力建設(shè)與普及，會牽扯央行很多精力，可以不急于在疫情期間全面開展工作，而是逐步推進。

 

第四，應(yīng)注意的是，一些短期、用于維護流動性安全的政策，比如常備借貸便利，可能不適合用于支持經(jīng)濟的綠色目標(biāo)。一方面因為這些政策需實現(xiàn)維護短期金融體系的基本職能、不宜分散目標(biāo)；另一方面因為綠色目標(biāo)是長期的結(jié)構(gòu)性的目標(biāo)，短期政策本身也缺乏提供長期支持的能力。

 

以上是我的一些初步認(rèn)識，很多要點還需進一步思考。特別是，哪些政策直接效果明顯、市場信號作用強，且方便實施，我不是很確定。哪些政策適合在當(dāng)下盡早出臺，我還想聽聽大家的意見，也希望大家能指出我觀點不足的地方。

 

謝謝！

 

 

 

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!