Achieving a complete and consistent macroprudential safety net, in addition to completing the microprudential one, is also desirable in the current context to enable banks to absorb further shocks while maintaining the provision of key services. This should take several avenues, ranging from countercyclical buffers, to be set at 0.5 % in France as of 2023, to borrower based measures. In this regard, there is clearly a need to act across Europe with regards to the buoyancy of the residential real estate market. In France, the macroprudential authority has put in place since 2019 a framework to regulate lending standards in the residential real estate market by imposing a debt-service-to-income ratio 2/4  BIS central bankers' speeches  cap of 35% and a maturity limit of 25 years on new housing loans. Such measures together with the prominence of fixed rates in France, has strengthened households’ financial resilience against any potential increase in market interest rate and any related rise in loan maturity. 3.Challenges associated with climate change and digitalisation of finance The challenges brought forward or amplified by the war in Ukraine should not blind us to more structural vulnerabilities, which the war in Ukraine has not made disappear. What I have in mind here is the transition to a sustainable economy and the digitalisation of finance. To conclude my remarks I would like to say a few words about the role we can play as supervisors and central banks to help banks address those two challenges.
Regarding the first one, the publication at the beginning of the month of the last contribution to the IPCC 6th assessment report on climate change mitigation reminds us of the need for an urgent transition toward carbon neutrality, which will entail major transition risks for banks. Supervisors have already started to assess the exposure and disclosure of financial institutions to those risks to incentivize them to identify, assess and manage those risks as mainstream ones– and the ACPR played a pioneering role in this respect, with the achievement of the first bottom-up climate risks stress-test last year. From now on climate risks will be progressively integrated into the prudential framework,  starting with pillar 3 and pillar 2 requirements. Banks must step up their efforts to prepare meeting these forthcoming regulatory requirements, including those related to climate stress-tests and banks’ transition plans, which are part of the CRD6 proposal currently in negotiation. As regards the pillar 1 framework, let me note that the integration of climate risks is still a hotly debated topic and I hope the upcoming publication of a discussion paper by the EBA on this issue will allow us to move forward. We shouldn’t jump to conclusions though. There are many methodological and data shortcomings to address before implementing new requirements. In any case, let me emphasise that from my supervisory perspective the pillar 1 should remain risk-based and that we should overcome the green / brown dichotomy by assessing transition risk on the basis of the transition plans instead.