All in all, if, as we are often emphasizing during this crisis, the post-crisis reforms have mitigated the risks to the sector’s financial stability, the implementation of the resolution framework has contributed to strengthening the banking sector in a crucial manner. Identifying gaps for a more robust resolution framework in the EU Accepting that we have made great advances in this field, we have to acknowledge also that there is still some way to go before we can truly assert our journey is over. First of all, it is important to recall that the European resolution framework is one of the three pillars of the Banking Union and it is essential to develop the third one – the much needed European Deposit Insurance framework – to ensure the resilience and well-functioning of this Banking Union. As this matter goes beyond the scope of this conference, I will rather concentrate on the second pillar of the Banking Union. So, entering into this resolution pillar, there are certain areas on which both policymakers and practitioners should concentrate, and it is precisely some of these gaps that I want to discuss today, namely: -  liquidity in resolution, the resolution approach to small and mid-sized institutions, avoidance of unlevelled playing fields, and the adequate treatment of systemic situations. The first issue to be addressed, as it affects all institutions alike, is the provision of liquidity to a bank in resolution.
Therefore, I would like to insist that a new European approach to smaller institutions is paramount. Now, having regard to the European nature of supervision and resolution, the Eurozone should move swiftly to sort out this unlevelled playing field. And, let me be clear on this, I would urge consistency in finalising the Banking Union, covering EDIS and smaller institutions. The disconnection between truly pan-European supervision and what still is, largely, a national burden is untenable. Finally, the coronavirus has, as I mentioned, fundamentally changed our lives within a short period. The current situation reveals our limited ability to deal with systemic risks. The pandemic will inevitably trigger widespread economic problems, and the health of the financial system will unavoidably be affected. The reforms made during the past decade seem to have increased the resilience of the financial system, which, helped by other 2  policies given the size of the shock, has continued to provide financing to the real economy. Obviously, lessons will emerge. This kind of shock is to some extent new, as it has not been generated by the financial system itself, and that will help us improve regulation. In this respect, several academics think that the current resolution framework is not wellequipped to deal with systemic crisis. And several elements could be adjusted in order to make resolution more efficient in these very specific circumstances.