time we have new projections, we obviously reconsider whether our stance is still appropriate. i would not be carried away by analysts in some institutions who want us to do what they would like, what they would consider as helpful. you can also say that they are lobbying. we are rather immune to these attempts. has the ecb played a role in fanning these hopes? i hope that we were able to explain in plain english what we meant. we review and possibly reconsider our monetary policy stance without giving any indication as to individual measures. now if some people want to sell their favorite measures, they create hype. but it is not the ecb that is creating hype in this respect. don ’ t forget that we have also very clearly said that by march we might see the necessity for technical corrections to our existing program. if it would be a little bit more looked at, what we have actually said, then we would not have been in the situation in december. and we certainly don ’ t want to be in this situation in march again. part of what is perceived as a communication blunder in december came bis central bankers ’ speeches from the fact that too much attention was attached to one or another statements. we are a collective decision - making body. so you cannot extrapolate one person onto 25 people. so if people interpreted the last press conference as signaling a strong increase in stimulus in march, that ’ s incorrect? again, this is misjudging the effects of what we decided in december which are still in the pipeline. after all it is €680 billion, which is more than a third of what we have announced at the beginning. yes, we will continue to have an accommodative monetary policy. yes, we have to reassess our monetary policy stance in view of the deterioration since our december analysis. does this reassessment of the analysis lead to the consequence that there will be the same, or different measures, or confidence that the existing measures will only have to be corrected? i think this is a policy decision that is ahead of us and i don ’ t want to deny that it is possible nor confirm that it has been decided. if the ecb were not to do anything in march and markets were disappointed again, does that pose questions about mr. draghi ’ s power to influence markets in the way that he wants to? you are hypothesizing that nothing will be done, which

##rase : “ natura finis magistra ”. [ 5 ] in fact, nature makes finance thrive. this is what ultimately needs to become fully embedded in the work of central banks, supervisors, regulators and international standard setting bodies, within their mandate. because nature - related risks are part of our mandate. thank you for your attention. 1. university of cambridge institute for sustainability leadership ( 2021 ), handbook for nature - related financial risks : key concepts and a framework for identification, march. 2. de nederlandsche bank ( 2020 ), indebted to nature : exploring biodiversity risks for the dutch financial sector, june ; de nederlandsche bank ( 2019 ), values at risk? sustainability risks and goals in the dutch financial sector ; and banque de france ( 2021 ), “ a silent spring for the financial system? exploring biodiversity – related financial risks in france ”, working paper series, no 826, august. 3. ecb ( 2020 ), guide on climate - related and environmental risks - supervisory expectations relating to risk management and disclosure, november. 4. dasgupta, p. ( 2021 ), the economics of biodiversity : the dasgupta review, hm treasury, london, february. 5. the word “ finance ” originates from the latin “ finis ” meaning “ limit ” or “ end ” and was first used in its current context in french in the sense of settling debt.