In particular, we didn’t  set as an objective to assess the extent to which the current regulatory framework is sufficient and well suited to absorb climate-related risks, and whether additional supervisory capital requirements would be legitimate. Models, metrics and methodologies developed so far are still in their infancy and the data too sparse to allow drawing firm conclusions about the loss absorption capacity of current capital levels. Nonetheless, we already see at the ACPR these exercises as prudential tools, as they have proved helpful to us at incentivizing financial institutions to give the proper level 1/3  BIS central bankers' speeches  of priority and resources to the monitoring and management of climate-related risks. The publication in November 2020 of the SSM guide on climate and environmental-related risk was driven by the same logic and the preparation underway of an SSM stress test should provide an additional step at European level towards more supervisory scrutiny in the process of fully integrating these risks into the day-to-day risk management of banks. 2- There are also a few lessons that can be drawn from our experience from a methodological standpoint, as the use of such scenario analysis by supervisors is likely to be repeated and is likely to spread among supervisors. I would like to highlight two of them. First, tremendous progresses have been made in the domain of climate risk scenarios under the aegis of the Network of central banks and supervisors for the greening of the financial sector, the NGFSs.
With such caracteristics of climate-related risks, climate « stress test » as well as climate « scenario analysis », can prove to be very useful tools for financial institutions and their supervisors, to examine and understand the effects of different pathways for climate  change, as well as the effects of different pathways for climate policy, technology and consumer and investor preferences. It can prove also useful to reflect on and examine the impact of management decisions. It is with those mainly qualitative objectives in mind that, at the ACPR and the Banque de France, we have conducted with the French insurance and banking industry our first scenario analysis, which was completed and published a few weeks ago. I must say that those qualitative objectives have been well met, from our perspective. In particular, the exercise has clearly incentivised the participants to reflect on and develop appropriate tools and methodological frameworks to incorporate climate-related risks as a  mainstream risk to be governed and managed on a day to day basis accordingly, in line with our supervisory expectations. Given the difficulties to assess the exposure to and the impact of climate-related risk we have not assigned to this exercise quantitative objectives, beyond providing participants and us with a first bottom up assessment of their exposure, based on common assumptions, assessment which appears to be moderate by 2050.