a great deal of money, had also cost citizens'confidence in banks, in the financial sector. we had to restore that confidence. for our citizens and our sector, for our economy and for our future. the question was how? we decided that our mission as a central bank and as a financial supervisor should focus more on our contribution to sustainable prosperity and hence, sustainable finance. we decided that we would choose to emphasise the long term instead of the short term. to look beyond financial welfare to well - being, to look beyond mere economic growth to inclusive, sustainable growth. because we were convinced that sustainability was a prerequisite to restore confidence, a prerequisite to safeguard the future. for our citizens and for the financial sector. 1 / 4 bis - central bankers'speeches eleven years ago, that was – if i may say so myself – a bold decision, because sustainability was not mainstream, not on every agenda. but what could and can a central bank, wat can we do, to help save our planet? definitely not everything. we are not elected politicians. we are not in the driving seat, but definitely part of the team. a part of the team in three different ways, in three different roles. as a supervisor and regulator, as a long - term economic adviser and as a leader by example. to start with the obvious : as a supervisor and regulator we have a responsibility to address macro - and microprudential risks and thereby contribute to financial stability. in this capacity we can help guide financial institutions to identify, recognise and mitigate risks, and - should risks materialise - prevent them from having serious consequences. to give a few examples : we have developed a climate stress testing framework for transition risks, which we will expand this year to include a focus on physical risks. also late last year, dnb published a guide with good practices to control climate - and environment - related risks. this guide was particularly aimed at insurers and pension funds and in line with the ecb's 2020 guide aimed at banks. it seeks to provide financial institutions with constructive good practices to help with their risk management. in the near future, we aim to integrate climate - and environment - related risks into our'regular'periodic supervision. our role as a long - term economic adviser is – of course – based on accumulated knowledge, on data and facts : we are central bankers, not philosophers. before we tackle a problem we have to understand it, and in order

inequality has fallen from 2009 to 2014 in terms of the gini coefficient for equivalized disposable income. for details, see 2014 national survey of family income and expenditure ( available only in japanese ). 10 similarly, the relative poverty rate, the child poverty rate, and the poverty rate of single working - age households with at least one child have all declined from 2012 to 2015. see ministry of health, labour and welfare, summary report of comprehensive survey of living conditions 2016, june 2017. decline in regional income inequality regional income inequality also has been declining. the left panel of chart 7 shows the ratio of the average per capita prefectural income of the top five prefectures weighted by population to that of the bottom five prefectures weighted by population ( top five prefectures divided by bottom five prefectures ) and the gini coefficient of prefectural income. 11 the chart seems to exhibit that, after dipping in fiscal 2010 following the outbreak of the global financial crisis in 2008 ( reflecting the decrease in income in wealthier regions ), inequality increased again ; however, compared to fiscal 2012, the year before the introduction of qqe, inequality appears to have decreased. in other words, regional income inequality is falling. moreover, as seen in the right panel of chart 7, income both in the top five and the bottom five prefectures is growing, which is why it cannot be said that inequality has been falling because the top prefectures other than tokyo - - with the highest income level in japan - - have become poorer. while i would not go so far as to say that the decline in inequality is due solely to qqe, i think it can be said that the decline is due to the benefits of the economic expansion extending to all regions. however, it also is argued that the decline in regional inequality is not necessarily something to celebrate. the reasoning for this is that tokyo has fallen behind in the competition among major global cities, as evidenced by the fact that the average per capita income in tokyo today is still lower than in fiscal 2007. the gini coefficient represents the degree of concentration in the distribution of income, etc., and is an indicator to measure inequality. the closer the coefficient is to zero, the smaller the extent of inequality, and the closer it is to one, the greater the extent. here, the gini coefficient is calculated on the basis of population - weighted per capita prefectural incomes. chart 7 regional income inequality measured by per capita prefectural income