better climate performance. this is a milestone in the implementation of our climate action plan which will reduce our exposure to climaterelated financial risks and support the green transition of the european economy in line with the eu's climate neutrality objectives. the climate action plan that we unveiled in the summer of last year is not an aim in itself. the ecb is committed to regularly reviewing all the measures it has introduced. this means that we will assess the effects of these measures and adapt them, if necessary : ( 1 ) to confirm that they continue to fulfil their monetary policy objectives ; to ensure – within our mandate – that the relevant measures continue to support the decarbonisation path to reach the goals of the paris agreement and the eu climate neutrality objectives ; ( 3 ) to respond to future improvements in climate data and climate risk modelling or changes in regulation ; and ( 4 ) to look beyond climate and address additional environmental challenges, within our mandate. while i understand it is not a specific topic covered in today's conference, a similar commitment to fully incorporate climate - related and environmental risks applies to our banking supervision tasks and responsibilities. in addition to the climate stress test that was concluded by ecb banking supervision earlier this year, we will soon publish the results of our thematic review. as part of this exercise, our core banking supervision teams – joint supervisory teams – thoroughly assessed to what extent banks'risk management practices for climate - related and environmental risks live up to the supervisory expectations we published in 2020. we conducted this exercise to assess where banks stand with regard to our expectations and to highlight any gaps they urgently need to close. we will also take the opportunity to identify and share best practices to help banks close any gaps identified. and we will insist that banks'risk 2 / 3 bis - central bankers'speeches management practices are fully aligned with all our expectations by the end of 2024 at the latest. it is clear that central banks and supervisors are not primarily responsible for addressing the ongoing climate and environmental crises. they are climate and environment policy - takers, whereas governments and legislators – including the european parliament – are climate and environment policymakers. the european union and its co - legislators are clearly committed to the paris agreement. the eu is taking concrete steps to implement legislation that puts this commitment into practice. central banks and supervisors cannot ignore this in the pursuit of their mandate. similarly, on the path to meeting the paris agreement goals, we cannot ignore scenarios which include a greater manifestation of physical risks

important thing, in contrast to the previous and other growth cycles, is that it is growing without an increase in loans and without a real estate bubble. with lending growth that is below nominal gdp and a current account surplus in the balance of payments. as long as these two things continue, the spanish economy will keep growing faster than the rest. the recommendation, which is also valid for portugal, greece and ireland, and even for italy, is this : stabilise the banking sector and the credit markets. and maintain competitiveness. then you will do better than average. 3 / 5 bis central bankers'speeches the public message is quite clear. are there more discreet messages in private? no, none. i say the same thing in public that i do in private. have the ecb ’ s non - standard measures run their course? no. we can still increase bond purchases or lower interest rates further, which means that we still have the same tools available. what is happening is that the secondary effects are becoming more tangible. and each measure has less of a return. i look at the effects, and these can vary greatly. i am worried by risk taking in the asset management sector against the background of low interest rates. it is a matter of concern for me. banks are now better capitalised, they have more liquidity, and they are much safer than they were. but they face low profitability, which is a problem. supervision is centralised and is more suitable than when it was the remit of national authorities. but in the area of asset management and investment funds, what we see is that, in a low interest rate environment, their investment strategy always moves towards increased risk, in the sense of assets with potentially greater returns and greater risks but that are less liquid. and there is also more leveraging, not to the extent seen in the united states, but still more than before. and the supervision in this sector is not comparable with that in the banking sector. there is a risk. if they are asked for units to be paid out they have to do so within two or three days. i see a potential risk of liquidity imbalance. that is what worries me the most at the moment. and, while it may not technically be a secondary effect of monetary policy, because its causes are structural, i am concerned by the banking sector ’ s low profitability. are you in favour of changing or widening the ecb ’ s mandate? or of defining more