The TCFD 2018 Status Report found that non-financial industries (energy, transport, building and agriculture) were the most advanced at measuring strategic resilience, including some examples of scenario analysis.13,14 The TCFD review found that the financial sector is also moving toward enhanced strategic analysis. For example half of all insurance companies reviewed used the 2°C scenario, and the majority of banks described the potential impact of climate-related issues on their businesses. 10  Prudential Regulation Authority. (Oct 2018). Consultation Paper on Enhancing banks’ and insurers’ approaches to managing the financial risks from climate change. Available: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/publication/2018/enhancingbanks-and-insurers-approaches-to-managing-the-financial-risks-from-climate-change. 11 Prudential Regulation Authority. (March 2019). PRA and FCA’s joint Climate Financial Risk Forum. Available: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2019/march/first-meeting-of-the-pra-and-fca-joint-climate-financial-risk-forum. 12 Forthcoming April 2019 13 As described in TCFD September 2018 report: These companies disclose the inputs to and outputs of their scenario analyses including strategic responses to the low-carbon transition, such as changes in portfolio mix or investment 14 Encouragingly, all members of the oil and gas preparer forum used the 2-degree energy transition scenario to inform strategic decisions. The materials and building sector also had the highest percentage of companies disclosing information about strategic resilience and most provided some information on the climate-related scenarios they used to make these assessments. 6  All speeches are available online at www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/default.aspx  6  However, the September TCFD report showed that while firms were starting to consider strategic resilience, few systematically conducted scenario analysis.

So yes, it is in our national interest that France remain committed to a full implementation of the December 2017 Basel III accord that is fair, definitive and reasonable: fair in the sense that there must be regulatory consistency with the United States, which appears to be fully guaranteed; definitive because there will be no Basel IV; and reasonable with regard to the application of the output floor. I support the application of the output floor at consolidated level for French banking groups, and solely for the calculation of the capital requirements defined in the Basel accord, as proposed by the Franco-German position. In insurance, Solvency II has enabled firms to confront the crisis on a very solid footing. But, as well as providing essential support for equity investment, the review of the regulation must allow us to strengthen the supervision and cooperation framework for cross-border activities. It is unacceptable that our national guarantee funds have to cover insurance payouts in the event of failures of cross-border insurers. Supervisors and guarantee funds in countries  of origin should be made to shoulder more responsibility. Our single market has its rules: freedom of movement does not imply free-riding! II. Five essential challenges still need to be addressed  In the short term, two challenges linked to the exit from the crisis Let us turn now to the challenges. The emergence from this crisis remains shrouded in uncertainty, and is very much conditional on the financial health of our firms.