clear that we can no longer drag out feet with putting - it - intopractice. here an important contribution will be made by the new ngfs task force on nature - related risks that will be led by saskia de vries from de nederlandsche bank and sylvie goulard from the banque de france. both representatives from institutions that have done pioneering work on naturerelated risks. at the ecb the work on environmental risks is already starting to take shape in our banking supervision. in 2020 we published our guide on our supervisory expectations for the risk management of c & e risks. [ 3 ] indeed, c - and - e : climate - related and environmental risks. in this guide, we explicitly recognised that environmental factors related to the loss of ecosystem services, such as water stress, biodiversity loss and resource scarcity have also been shown to drive financial risk. we therefore expect banks to evaluate all environmental risk - related information beyond just climate risks to ensure that their risk management is all encompassing. when we asked banks last year to evaluate their own risk management practices in relation to our expectations, we found that some of them had already started to identify and manage risks beyond those that are just climate - related. however, very few banks back then had actually begun to implement these practices and we made them aware of this gap with regards to our supervisory expectations. as part of this year ’ s thematic review on climate - related and environmental risks, we followed up on these points, focusing on banks ’ assessments of the materiality of environmental risks and on their risk management frameworks. our preliminary results show that many banks have by now made an initial assessment of their environmental risk exposures. we also see that banks are using the “ climate risk playbook ” to develop their approach to environmental risk. they map out physical and transition risk drivers and typically start by excluding some activities to avoid financing those that have an excessive environmental impact. banks also integrate these risks into their due diligence processes to collect information and gain a better understanding of how their clients might be affected. besides these qualitative approaches, several institutions are leading the way in quantifying the risks and impacts through the use of biodiversity footprinting exercises and the development of approaches for biodiversity scores. we welcome this progress and will use the opportunity to share the best practices we have identified when we will soon publish the results of the thematic review. at the same time, we will reiterate that all banks must ultimately comply with all

the inception of the pss act and issuance of guidelines in april 2009, 21 non - bank entities have been authorized for ppi issuance exclusively of which 18 are issuing ppis, while the other 3 non - bank entities are in the process of doing so. apart from authorization, rbi has also proactively undertaken policy measures in consultations with stakeholders to encourage the growth of the industry. while doing so, we have always kept the management of risks and addressing aml concerns as a cornerstone of our policy. based on this approach, we have ushered in several rationalisation measures. but as we all know, while the regulator can act as a catalyst, it is the issuers who have to hit the ground running. third, have the industry associations done what could have been done? are we focusing too much on so called stumbling blocks and regulations instead of channelising our energies in achieving the required scale of operations? let me not pre - judge. but, may be it is time for more introspection. let me now flag certain important issues which i hope would be discussed over the course of next two days. payment system innovation and role of non - banks payment system providers the increased role of non - bank entities in payment system is linked to their potential to change the payment system landscape as they can leverage on their product offerings with latest technological features to cater to wide segment of the market. has this taken place in india? as can be seen from statistics, the share of ppis in the overall retail segment though growing is yet to achieve a significant level. if we analyse the types of ppis being issued, paper vouchers constitute the major share of pre - paid payment instruments with 73. 40 percent. the relative share of others is magstripe cards : 16. 59 percent ( mostly issued by banks ), m - wallets : 9. 94 percent and e - wallets : 0. 07 percent. what is the innovation that has taken place if paper ppis are merely acting as a substitute for cash? similarly, why are micro payments with ppis not been successful even though regulations are not stringent in this segment? kyc requirements for ppis issued up to rs. 2000 / – as well as utility payment ppis are quite relaxed. why then have ppis not been successful in at least these segments? do we have any credible answers? promoting access and inclusion in our vision document we have laid emphasis on access and inclusion. we have been