( or global value chains ) a few years ago. likewise, the latest report of the working group iii of the ipcc ( dedicated to climate mitigation ) contains a chapter ( # 5 ) that places great emphasis on the need for sufficiency and behavioral changes, and it discusses the literature exploring how we could thrive as societies and individuals without depending so much on gdp growth. professor dasgupta also invites us not only to acknowledge that gdp growth will be limited at some point even if you are a techno - optimist, but also to think about new approaches to economic value and social well - being that do not rely on gdp. all this begs us, and especially the young scholars present today, to ask what will be essential in 5 to 10 years from now. in addition to this need to promote new approaches, it is urgent to act. page 10 sur 12 we cannot afford to lose time or to wait until we have elaborated “ perfect ” tools. we need to seek how transformative changes can be implemented as soon as possible and if needed, develop and revise our scenarios, metrics, approaches. the responsibility to revert nature loss falls first and foremost with governments, and no central bank – above all in a democracy - can replace them. but we can accompany the movement and even lead some parts of the transition : - we can do our best to incorporate climate and biodiversity dimensions within our non - monetary portfolios ( the equity components of our own funds and pension liabilities portfolios ). this is what we have started to do at the banque de france. xxvii - we can also push for innovative approaches to integrate nature - related concerns within our monetary operations, as the ecb has started to do for climate change, looking in particular at its collateral assessment. - we can also promote new nature - related stress testing exercises ( including both climate and biodiversity shocks ) for banks and financial institutions and for global financial stability ; and improve our knowledge, as we have started to do with our ngfs task force and as we are doing with this conference. regulators can also facilitate the work of central bankers. for example, the european union has been at the forefront of the reflections around the question of what is material for investors. we consider that financial institutions and non - financial corporations are not only vulnerable to environmental risks ( dependent ) but also contribute to environmental degradation through their actions ( they have an impact ). in line with this concept, the article 29 of the

, let alone central bankers, care about it? the short response is : because they belong to mankind. another one, is that there cannot be macroeconomic, price or financial stability on a dead planet. but let me be a bit more specific. you probably already know that central banks and supervisors created a network in 2017 to “ contribute to the development of environment and climate risk management in the financial sector ”. the ngfs ( network for greening the financial system ), created by 8 members, now counts with 121 members in addition to 19 observers, and the banque de france proudly hosts its secretariat. xiv in march, the ngfs acknowledged that biodiversity loss and nature loss are also a source of macroeconomic and financial instability. xv this statement followed some groundbreaking work conducted by researchers from ngfs members along with the inspire research networkxvi, as well as other research conducted by researchers at a few central banks including the dutch page 5 sur 12 central bankxvii ( dnb ), the banque de france, as well as the central banks of malaysia and brazil jointly with the world bankxviii. at the banque de france, we published a study called “ a “ silent spring ” for the financial system? ”, xix which explored the dependencies and impacts of the french financial system on biodiversity. xx importantly, the study was interdisciplinary and involved several researchers and experts from various institutions. xxi as i will discuss later, i believe that this interdisciplinary approach is essential to address the challenges of the anthropocene. these different studies enable us to understand that nature - related financial risks can be split between physical and transition risks, much like climate - related financial risks. physical risks stem from the dependency of economic activities on ecosystem services and their vulnerability in the case of disruption. for instance, the loss of pollination could affect agricultural output and lead to food shortages or higher consumer prices, while new pandemics could disrupt entire value chains. transition risks result from the negative impacts of some economic activities on biodiversity, which makes them vulnerable to transition policies. for instance, it is hoped that the cop15 that will take place in december in montreal will lead to an international agreement to protect 30 % of land and sea areas by 2030. regional and national policies are also expected : the eu green deal contains several goals related to biodiversity, such as the need to increase organic farming practices from 9 % to 25 % cultivated areas. all these policies could have profound implications for different