that its action is effective. in response to the temptations voiced across the atlantic, let us be clear : simplification is not deregulation. vii i already had the opportunity to say this three weeks ago, on the subject of banking supervision. it ’ s not necessarily a question of reducing requirements, which are vital to mitigate the risk of a financial crisis – something the united states all too often forgets. but there is undoubtedly scope for reducing the complexity of our rules and their application. and the same can also apply to insurance. in prudential matters, the new “ proportionality regime ” set out under the revised solvency ii directive offers a first avenue for rationalisation. while preserving the robustness and level of requirements – notably capital requirements – the page 8 of 9 new regime proposes adapting the practical implementation of the directive to the size and complexity of each institution. there is one crucial area in europe where we are thankfully at the forefront, but which is representative of a certain build - up of overlapping regulations, namely that of climate change. these are essential if the financial sector is to be able to contend with the very real risks to which it is exposed. but if the regulations become too complex and difficult to understand, there is a risk they will be applied poorly or not at all. we therefore need to achieve the most unified regulations possible in europe, instead of a plethora of regulations including – to name but a few – the csrd regulation viii, the csddd ix and solvency ii, and france ’ s energy and climate act and its article 29 which is well - known to insurers. each of these regulations, often issued by different bodies, represented legitimate progress at the time. however, their accumulation now clearly lacks overall consistency. let ’ s stick to the objective but, at the very least, bring the definitions closer together and avoid duplicating requests for data. secondly, we need to come up with a single transition plan per institution, summarising prudential requirements under solvency ii and net - zero alignment requirements under the csrd and csddd. this is vital if we are to set credible targets for financial institutions. and one day, we will perhaps be able to go further in aligning european efragx and international issbxi standards. * as the year draws to a close, filled with economic and political uncertainties, i will conclude with a nice quote from the french writer and former insurance

and consolidating our european economic sovereignty. iii however, we need to get beyond the excessive opposition between solidity and competitiveness. security guidelines have served our financial system well through the recent crises, whether they be basel iii, solvency ii, or the macroprudential policies deployed by the hcsf in france, whose action is lauded by european and international authorities. this continuity imperative applies just as much to progress in supervision. together, these elements have effectively protected the euro area – through the pandemic and then the sharp rise in interest rates – from the risk of a financial crisis and contagion from the californian and swiss crises. to preserve this financial stability, the time has now come for regulatory stabilisation. this is why european supervisors and legislators are determined to ensure a level playing field between different jurisdictions and, consequently, a fair application of basel iii everywhere : nothing less … and nothing more. the aim here is neither a basel iv nor overtransposition. clearly, this transposition of basel iii is necessary in the united states, where it currently applies to only 13 banks – leaving a multitude of sometimes large banks subject to rules that are too lax. at the ghosiv meeting in basel on 13 may, the competent us authorities reiterated their commitment to implementing all aspects of the agreement fully and consistently. however, there is still uncertainty over the timetable and the exact substance of the final text. if, unfortunately, delayspresentation and / or differences in content are too significant, then europe of the annual report of the au … could – and should – postpone the entry into force of certain provisions, particularly those on market risks, as provided for in the " banking package " approved on 6 december last. this is clearly not our first best solution, but it is a safeguard. as regards the revision of the european solvency ii directive, we are very satisfied with the political agreement reached by the co - legislators in december, which maintains the neutrality of requirements on the french market while supporting longterm sustainable investment and improving how the principle of proportionality is taken into account. as regards supervision, we will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of europe ’ s single supervisory mechanism ( ssm ) here on 24 june. this will be an opportunity to recognise this great success - the euro area has more secure supervision than elsewhere - but also to stress the need to maintain balanced supervision. this must be strong in terms of its powers, proactive and intrusive,