our focus is threefold : detecting impairments to the transmission mechanism, such as fragmentation risk, monitoring a possible build - up of financial imbalances, and identifying how far macroprudential policy addresses financial imbalances. let me summarise how i see the complementarities between fiscal and macroprudential policies with monetary policy : 1 / 4 bis - central bankers'speeches fiscal and macroprudential policy should be the first lines of defence for economic stabilisation and fostering financial stability, respectively. this leaves monetary policy to focus exclusively on price stability. the importance of both fiscal and macroprudential policy has recently increased. fiscal policy became more important because of its role in times of crises, and its enhanced effectiveness at the lower bound. macroprudential policy became more relevant given its capacity to contain the potential side effects of monetary policy – both in the accommodative and tightening phases. both fiscal and macroprudential policy need to be strongly countercyclical : this entails building up " buffers " during good times 3 for use in bad times. 4 while sovereign debt must be sustainable to be used countercyclically, macroprudential capital buffers need to first be built up so that they can be released when risks materialise. in the economic and monetary union ( emu ), both fiscal and macroprudential policy can be targeted at the country, sector or industry level. they can therefore account for heterogeneity within emu by alleviating the occasional one - size - fits - all problem. thus, both fiscal and macroprudential policy can support monetary policy in its aim to achieve price stability. in the same way, successful monetary policy supports economic stabilisation and financial stability. all three policies have the potential to be mutually complementary in their respective fields of responsibility. the recent pandemic crisis and the current challenges of soaring energy and commodity prices coupled with high overall inflation have underlined the case for these policy complementarities. the successful interplay between accommodative monetary policy, fiscal support measures and prudential relief safeguarded the real economy and the financial system across the euro area during the pandemic crisis. it succeeded in protecting nominal incomes, thereby supporting a fast recovery of demand when our economies reopened. subsequently, to combat steadily rising inflation, in december 2021 we started normalising our monetary policy by announcing the end of our asset purchases, in tandem

captured by this biodiversity indicator – think of water availability for instance. and practitioners also need shared concepts and a common language. the work of the ngfs provides a first common ground for a science - based understanding of how nature related risks can affect the economy and the financial system. 4 ) future new steps include dedicated scenarios – a challenging task as it is to make sure that they incorporate the hazards that expose us to the highest or more impactful risk. among various possible physical risks, we will have to assess whether we should focus first on an amazon dieback, on droughts in high income countries or on drops in crops yield globally. when considering transition risks, understanding the potential disruptions page 4 sur 5 associated with removing harmful subsidies and / or protecting 30 % of land and sea, as agreed in kunming - montreal, is a challenge. the ngfs is currently working to build appropriate narratives, but also to assess the capacity of existing models to quantify these narratives, accounting not only for direct impacts but also for the indirect ones across the value chains. the outcome of this work should be released in december, and will pave the way for the development of nature related scenarios relevant for the financial sector. the development of these scenarios is a priority as they will underpin the nature - related stress tests we know we will need to conduct, as for climate today, within a few years. 5 ) recommendations on ways to correct current biases in economic models, which tend to assume that nature ’ s contributions to economic activities can be substituted by more manufactured capital and labour, and are thereby largely unable to assess the impacts of many potential physical and transition patterns or hazards, placing us at odds with scientific findings. these recommendations will be provided in the abovementioned report to be published by year - end. 6 ) last but not least, coordination will be key, because nature - related risks are a global issue – we are lucky to have klaas knot here, as chair of the fsb. we need to work together, across public and private sectors, across borders. i will just reiterate one near term priority : we need interoperable standards on nature to facilitate and amplify prudential actions. the international sustainability standard board ( issb ) has just closed a public consultation on its future agenda, among which was a proposed focus on biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services. meanwhile, the european commission finalized in july its reporting standard on disclosure requirements related to biodiversity and ecosystems,