are dealing with it bank by bank. but there are some issues which will affect the entire sector and we have to deal with these as well. think of clearing. the clearing of derivatives in uk ccps is crucial for euro area banks. but a nodeal brexit could mean that they will lose access to these services. for that eventuality, the european commission now plans to take temporary measures to preserve access to uk ccps. this is certainly good news. however, these measures are just a stopgap, and banks must make sure that they are prepared for what happens next. so, there is no time to relax ; there is just a little more time to prepare. the market for central clearing is highly concentrated. this may be positive in terms of the efficiency of central clearing. but we need to ask at what point these gains in efficiency may be accompanied by risks for individual banks, as well as for financial stability. and we need to start a discussion about how to mitigate these risks. or to put it more bluntly : as supervisors, do we want big banks to rely on a single ccp for important asset classes? but brexit does not just affect the banks, of course. it also affects regulation and supervision, and these will have to adapt too. european banking supervisors have worked hard to prepare for brexit. but whatever we do must be rooted in the existing regulatory framework. and that framework is still fragmented. this is certainly not ideal, particularly when it comes to supervising globally active banks. for one thing, the ecb still lacks the powers to directly supervise the provision of cross - border banking services. national authorities have some powers in this area, but their reach is limited too, and it varies from country to country. this is a problem. a number of global banks, located outside the eu, currently access eu markets via the united kingdom. after brexit they will have to find new ways of entering the eu. they might set up subsidiaries in the eu, but they might also set up branches or provide services directly from non - eu countries, or third countries, as we call them. i ’ m fine with subsidiaries, because european banking supervision would cover them. i have concerns when it comes to the rest, though. ecb banking supervision does not cover third - country branches or services provided directly from third countries – even if they are 2 / 5 bis central bankers'speeches material. it is true, of course, that

will increasingly seek information on these alignment metrics – and banks ’ disclosures must become meaningful in this regard. best practices like many other institutions and agencies, the ecb is committed to sharing the best practices we have found across the industry. not only do they serve as inspiration for banks who need to catch up, they also show that the ecb ’ s expectations can, in fact, be met. for example, one of the banks under our direct supervision published its own climate strategy – which aims at achieving net zero emissions for its lending portfolio by 2050 or sooner – in tandem with a number of ( interim ) targets and related metrics, as well as the progress made in meeting them. for each of these targets and metrics, the bank discloses the sectors covered, the underlying methodology and the scenarios used to draw up benchmarks. for the methodologies and scenarios, it reports on the options it chose, the data sources it used and the changes it made with respect to the previous disclosure. another bank endeavoured to align its portfolios with science - based transition pathways, including technology pathways originating from the international energy agency ’ s “ net zero by 2050 ” report. the bank disclosed dashboards that displayed the performance of its loan books in various transition sectors, such as power generation, oil and gas, automotive, steel, cement and real estate, against a science - based transition pathway. it also disclosed the precise indicators used, the underlying methodologies and the reference scenarios for each indicator. for each of 3 / 4 bis central bankers'speeches the indicators, the bank then disclosed its current and projected performance against the pathway and set associated targets. importantly, many of the banks raising the bar in c & e disclosures are small and medium - sized – showing that remarkable progress is achievable by all. supervisory follow - up let me now outline the next steps that the ecb plans to take to follow up on the results of our assessment of banks ’ c & e disclosures. we have sent individual feedback letters to all banks under our direct supervision, setting out the key gaps in their disclosures and conveying our explicit expectation that they will take decisive action to address these gaps. in doing so, banks will ultimately ensure that their risk profile is transparently and comprehensively reflected in the information they disclose to the public. addressing such gaps will also mean banks are well prepared to meet impending technical requirements. as i mentioned, the consequences of non - compliance with minimum transparency