Bloomberg Opinion
Twice a year, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) reviews the stability of the country’s financial system. Its latest report made for good headlines: The proportion of loans that have gone sour is at a multiyear low and is likely to decline further.
However, buried in the report is a warning from the very institutions the central bank is charged with regulating.
Market participants responded to a survey asking what they saw as the biggest contributors to systemic risk. While they downplayed the usual concerns — asset quality, interest rate risk, capital outflows — one particular threat loomed larger than ever before: climate change. In fact, respondents named it for the first time as the greatest source of systemic risk to the Indian financial system.
They are not wrong to worry. It is not just that India would see sharply lower growth unless temperature rises are controlled, the Network for Greening the Financial System said. That growth would be more variable and subject to sharper shocks, including those from weird weather and delayed monsoons. This worries the country’s financial arteries; so does the uncertain fate of sectors such as construction, cement and energy, to which they are deeply exposed.
Indian regulators have been slow to respond. It was not until earlier this year that the RBI finally released a draft framework that would require financial institutions to devise and disclose their strategies to mitigate climate-related risk.
Even then, the timeline for adopting the new rules was exceedingly generous. For regular Indian banks, they would only fully come into force for the financial year that ends in March 2028.
What explains the lethargy? Part of the problem is no doubt the bureaucratic inertia that bedevils all policymaking in India. Regulators are scared of stepping on each other’s toes and on the government’s.
Nobody is sure, for example, who would eventually have the last word on what counts as “green” investment.
The securities market regulator moved first to define a taxonomy and a reporting framework for large publicly traded companies. The Indian Ministry of Finance in New Delhi would naturally prefer that any such taxonomy be decided centrally.
An interdepartmental task force, with various regulators and ministries represented, is supposedly working on definitions. However, it was set up in 2021 and nothing has yet been decided.
At the same time, regulators might be too focused on reinventing the wheel. India’s markets are large enough and its problems pressing enough, that policymakers here generally believe they have little to learn from attempts made elsewhere to solve the same challenges.
This is short-sighted, especially when it comes to financial regulation. Whether it is a taxonomy, disclosure requirements or climate stress tests, transparent criteria that align with those in use elsewhere are helpful — at least if you want global investors to understand and trust your standards.
Regulators might be more motivated to push through disclosures and restrictions — such as, for example, tagging specific loans as being at risk in the green transition — if they thought such transparency would attract greater investment.
Unfortunately, Indian policymakers no longer entirely believe promises that a greener financial system would allow the country to access pools of sustainable finance globally.
India launched a sovereign green bond last year. It did not sell at much of a premium and was mostly taken up by domestic investors; interest from foreigners seemed low. The RBI canceled the sale of a second tranche scheduled for this year.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there might be an unspoken fear of what a more stringent examination of climate risk might reveal.
The RBI released the results of a preliminary set of climate stress tests last year. They found that India’s vast network of public sector banks was particularly vulnerable.
While it is not exactly clear why — more granular tests have been promised, but not conducted yet — the fact is that many of India’s banks have lent heavily in the past to the energy sector.
Banks, even in the public sector, are now balking at financing new coal-fired power plants, data from last year showed. That suggests they worry they are overexposed to the sector. (Renewables have not faced the same problems.)
Five years ago, Indian regulators might have been blissfully unaware that climate change posed macro-economic risks. They no longer have that excuse.
The very report that identified climate change as a major problem also listed, in exhaustive detail, how other central banks and regulators are responding. The roadmap is there — India just needs to pick up the pace.
Mihir Sharma is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi and is the author of Restart: The Last Chance for the Indian Economy.
The Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises, the largest naval exercise in the region, are aimed at deepening international collaboration and interaction while strengthening tactical capabilities and flexibility in tackling maritime crises. China was invited to participate in RIMPAC in 2014 and 2016, but it was excluded this year. The underlying reason is that Beijing’s ambitions of regional expansion and challenging the international order have raised global concern. The world has made clear its suspicions of China, and its exclusion from RIMPAC this year will bring about a sea change in years to come. The purpose of excluding China is primarily
In 2010, while speaking to a Taiwanese group in California, I was asked during a question-and-answer session: “What do you think of Confucius Institutes?” Confucius Institutes had been gaining popularity at the time, but despite that, my answer was quick and to the point. “Beware of them, they are Trojan horses.” Few grasped the implications, yet now, more than a decade later, the US Government Accountability Office has finally woken up to the danger they pose. There are barely five institutes left where once there were more than 100. A few years later, in a different discussion with Pavel Suian, a former Romanian
Midnight on Monday marked the 27th anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong from British to Chinese sovereignty. Under the terms of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, an international treaty lodged at the UN, China promised that Hong Kongers’ way of life would remain unchanged for 50 years and the territory would have “a high degree of autonomy” under the so-called “one country, two systems” framework. Beijing’s crushing of the 2019-2020 anti-extradition law protests and imposition of the National Security Law in 2020, overriding even the pretense that Hong Kong’s autonomy would be respected, is a profound reminder to Taiwanese —
Fear is a powerful emotion. Major media outlets play on fear to draw in viewers and hold their attention. Book publishers relish opportunities to release titles that grab attention. For example, I once was told — semi-jokingly — that if I wanted to sell a lot of copies of my books, I should put a mushroom cloud over a picture of Taipei on the book cover. I declined that advice. But in the process, I was reminded that fear sells. When fear intrudes on policymaking it can cloud sound judgments. There is a tension in government, though, because intelligence agencies are