OpenLobby.EU
Explore

European Association of Public Banks and Funding agencies AISBL

EAPB

The EAPB represents the interests of European public development banks and local funding agencies.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Ana Vasconcelos (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur for opinion) and ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability European Secretariat

28 Jan 2026 · Performance Regulation

Meeting with Cristina Dias (Cabinet of Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque)

3 Dec 2025 · EAPB’s proposals to reduce complexity in EU banking and capital market regulation and Digital Omnibus

Meeting with Elena Arveras (Cabinet of Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque)

28 Nov 2025 · Sustainability omnibus package and banking sector competitiveness

Response to Revision of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines

13 Nov 2025

European promotional banks carry out targeted promotional measures on behalf of their owners central and regional governments and municipalities. National, regional, and often additional European funding is used for this purpose. European state aid rules are of essential importance in this context. Against this background, we would like to make a few suggestions and point out some significant shortcomings in the context of the consultation on the revision of the rescue and restructuring guidelines for companies in difficulty. Our primary concern is the definition of undertakings in difficulty (UiD), which should reflect economic reality and be simplified. Key demands: 1. Mezzanine capital should be recognized as part of own funds when assessing whether a company should be classified as an UiD. 2. For small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), only the existence of grounds for insolvency under national law should justify UiD status. 3. Exclusion from UiD status for companies receiving risk sharing aid See attachement for further details
Read full response

Response to EU’s next long-term budget (MFF) – EU funding for civil protection, preparedness and response to crises

15 Oct 2025

We suggest that national promotional banks be considered as eligible implementing partners for EU-supported investments in resilience, preparedness and civil protection infrastructure at national and regional levels. Many such projects such as those related to energy contingency systems, climate adaptation, flood prevention, or public health logistics are capital-intensive, have long payback periods, and require blended financing to be viable. Public promotional banks are well positioned to design and deliver such investments, particularly when grants are combined with long-term loan instruments or guarantees. Moreover, in Member States with limited fiscal space or underdeveloped capital markets, the presence of national promotional institutions can significantly accelerate the deployment of EU funding in this domain. Therefore, the relevant EU instruments should provide for the possibility of delegated mandates or co-investment roles for promotional banks in civil protection and resilience-related investments, in coordination with national authorities and emergency response systems.
Read full response

Response to EU’s next long-term budget (MFF) – performance of the EU budget

15 Oct 2025

The European Association of Public Banks (EAPB) would like to highlight the importance of adapting performance monitoring frameworks to better reflect the specific role and mission of public promotional banks. In that sense, evaluations should not be limited to financial absorption or return, but also consider developmental impact, social value, and the sustainability of investments. However, this should not lead to an increased reporting burden for implementing partners. Furthermore, performance reviews should clearly distinguish between commercial financial intermediaries and public development banks, as their mandates and investment logic differ significantly. The performance framework of the EU budget should also be broadened to better capture the developmental impact of investments delivered through national and regional promotional banks should the KPIs prove to be lacking in the matter. These institutions often finance projects that generate long-term public value, such as territorial cohesion, innovation capacity, decarbonisation, or social inclusion, which are not adequately reflected by current indicators focused primarily on absorption, disbursement speed, or financial leverage. Should the KPIs for the proposed funding programmes be insufficient, we recommend integrating performance indicators that take into account social, environmental, and territorial outcomes including job creation, greenhouse gas reduction, local economic multipliers, and contribution to EU policy targets (e.g. the Green Deal or Digital Europe). This would ensure a more accurate and fair assessment of EU budget performance.
Read full response

Response to EU’s next long-term budget (MFF) – EU funding for competitiveness

15 Oct 2025

The European Association of Public Banks (EAPB) acknowledges the intention to preserve the open architecture of the InvestEU programme, which has proven valuable in mobilising investment through its implementing partners, many of which are National Promotional Banks (NPBs). However, we strongly regret that the proposal no longer sets minimum or indicative participation ceilings for NPBs, unlike the current MFF regulation, which allocates up to 25% of the guarantee to partners other than the EIB Group. The absence of a reserved volume undermines the reliability and predictability necessary for NPBs to invest in the institutional capacity and pillar assessments required to participate in the programme, which is already quite high. In our view, it is imperative that the future legislative process considers the introduction of a minimum share or safeguard, no lower than 25%. Moreover, the regulation mentions the exceptional possibility, under Article 25(3), for private law entities to be entrusted with the implementation of budgetary guarantees and financial instruments. While we acknowledge that a similar provision exists in the current Financial Regulation, it is essential that Article 25 of the new ECF Regulation be amended to explicitly require that such private law entities operate under a public mandate. Unlike the 20212027 MFF, which fixed the InvestEU guarantee at 26.15 billion with a 40% provisioning rate, the ECF proposal allows for a flexible ceiling of up to 70 billion and a 50% provisioning rate (Article 21(3)(4)). While this provides more fiscal flexibility to the Commission, it weakens legal certainty for implementing partners. In that sense, the EAPB calls for stronger governance safeguards to maintain transparency and oversight, including clear multiannual planning of volumes by implementing partner and thematic window. As additional suggestions, the EAPB published a position paper on the Future of the MFF in May 2025, with specific recommendations for the future of the InvestEU framework. These include: Shortening the Pillar Assessment process. Simplifying the Guarantee Agreement text by merging exclusions and aligning with existing regulations. Increasing reliance on internal procedures of implementing partners and formally recognising them as credible partners for delivering EU funds. Publishing clear guidance or FAQs for entities willing to sign a Guarantee Agreement. Clearly defining the division of responsibilities between NPBs, commercial banks and final recipients, in particular regarding Restrictive Measures and other exclusion criteria, avoiding mutual liability risks. Ensuring climate and sustainability criteria are proportionate and tested in markets. Simplifying reporting and audit obligations, reducing redundancies and aligning definitions (e.g. DNSH) across programmes. Clarifying and easing the application of sustainability requirements to reduce the administrative burden. Streamlining State aid rules to improve alignment and reduce barriers to combining support instruments. Ensuring EIF agreements are tailored to the specific window each NPB is using. Finally, we suggest that the role of national and regional promotional banks be explicitly recognised within the governance and implementation framework of the ECF. National promotional banks could act as implementation partners for dedicated financial instruments under the Compass, especially in Member States with less-developed venture capital markets or lower absorption of innovation finance. It would therefore be relevant for the legislative framework to allow for direct mandates or delegated implementation roles for national development banks under the Competitiveness Fund, in line with their experience in managing both InvestEU and structural fund-backed instruments.
Read full response

Public banks urge EU to end digital reporting overlaps

14 Oct 2025
Topic — The Commission is consulting on a digital simplification agenda to reduce burdens for businesses.
Message — The EAPB calls for DORA to be the primary regulation for banks. They propose a single reporting gateway to eliminate conflicting cybersecurity rules. They suggest higher thresholds to focus on significant disruptions rather than immaterial events.12
Why — Streamlining regulations would lower compliance costs and reduce administrative workloads for financial institutions.34
Impact — Regulators might lose oversight of smaller security incidents that no longer meet reporting thresholds.5
Read full response

Meeting with Alicia Homs Ginel (Member of the European Parliament)

3 Oct 2025 · HOUS Draft Report position

Meeting with Vincent Hurkens (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné)

17 Sept 2025 · Simplification of financial services legislation

Meeting with Jonathan Denness (Head of Unit Regional and Urban Policy) and European Association of Long-Term Investors and

15 Sept 2025 · Structured Dialogue between the EAPB, AECM, ELTI, NEFI and DG Regional Policy Unit B.3

Meeting with Agnese Papadia (Cabinet of Commissioner Dan Jørgensen), Stella Kaltsouni (Cabinet of Commissioner Dan Jørgensen) and European Association of Long-Term Investors

8 Sept 2025 · Pan-European Investment Platform on Affordable and Sustainable Housing

Response to Review of the State aid rules on the Services of General Economic Interest (“SGEI”)

22 Jul 2025

The European Association of Public Banks (EAPB) welcomes the revision of the State aid rules for services of general economic interest (SGEI). The adaptation of state aid rules is one of the main proposals outlined in our position paper on Housing. Firstly, it is pivotal to have a clear and common understanding of affordability. We propose the following definition: Affordable housing is housing for households that cannot afford adequate housing at market conditions due to market outcomes and, in particular, market failures in their region or municipality according to Member State standards. The definition does not come at the expense of social housing. It enables Member States to distinguish between different segments of the AF marketsocial housing for the most vulnerable and mid-rental or affordable ownership for middle-income groups. In that sense, we note that the interpretation of what adequate housing should remain with national, regional, and local authorities, who are best placed to determine adequacy based on local conditions. Similarly, market failures on housing will generally materialise specifically at the local and regional level, although housing shortages may also have national-level causes and consequences, for instance demographic dynamics. In order to avoid confusion it is important that State aid rules do not introduce additional building requirements (e.g. energy efficiency). Furthermore the scope should not be limited to newly build or renovation but also include refinancing of existing buildings. Including the refinancing of existing buildings will bolster the capacity of affordable housing providers to provide new buildings and renovate existing ones.While it is difficult to provide a pan-European estimate of the impact of our proposal, some relevant national-level studies are available. For example, a recent Dutch study (Niet-Daeb investeringsruimte) by Ortec Finance on behalf of Aedes (the national association of social housing providers) estimates that amending State aid rules to support "middenhuur" (middle-income rent) housing could facilitate the construction of 5,000 additional units annually, without requiring additional public funding. In perspective, this represents 5% of the annual target for overall housing production in the Netherlands, and it covers 14% of the yearly target for affordable houses. We underline the importance of maintaining flexibility in the definition of SGEIs, and ensuring that national and local authorities retain discretion to define them in line with their specific needs. As mentioned in the EAPB position on housing, we propose in addition to changes to the SGEI framework, that the Commission consider introducing a dedicated block exemption for housing under the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER), applicable regardless of whether housing is formally recognised as an SGEI in a given Member State. Such an exemption could help stimulate the supply of housing, by providing a clear legal basis to support construction companies through public financial support. This could in turn help lower housing prices and increase the availability of rental and owner-occupied units. The GBER could also include conditions to ensure that newly built housing remains dedicated to affordability objectives for a defined period. In this context we welcome the recent launch of a public consultation on the review of the General Block Exemption Regulation, including to consider measures on housing. EAPB and its members look forward to supporting the Commission and will also participate in the other ongoing public consultations.
Read full response

Meeting with Alicia Homs Ginel (Member of the European Parliament)

20 May 2025 · Investment in the European Affordable Housing Plan

Meeting with Elena Arveras (Cabinet of Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque)

19 May 2025 · Sustainability Omnibus

Meeting with Karlo Ressler (Member of the European Parliament)

13 May 2025 · Cohesion Policy

Meeting with Irene Tinagli (Member of the European Parliament, Committee chair) and European Builders Confederation

29 Apr 2025 · Meeting on housing issues

Meeting with Francesco Corti (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Roxana Mînzatu), Sonia Vila Nunez (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Roxana Mînzatu), Triinu Volmer (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Roxana Mînzatu)

24 Apr 2025 · Meeting to discuss the Social Investment Framework (SIF) and present proposals on housing

Public banks urge taxonomy pause and reporting simplification

26 Mar 2025
Topic — Revisions to simplify EU taxonomy disclosure requirements and reduce company costs.
Message — The EAPB requests a pause on taxonomy disclosures until the review is finalized to ensure legal certainty. They also propose removing smaller companies from sustainability ratio calculations and deleting irrelevant reporting templates.123
Why — Public banks would avoid the financial burden of adapting to frequently changing sustainability rules.4
Impact — Transparency advocates lose visibility into the environmental impact of smaller business investments.5
Read full response

Meeting with Peter Berkowitz (Director Regional and Urban Policy) and

20 Mar 2025 · Exchange of views on the future MFF and the increased use of financial instruments from a regional perspective

Meeting with Jonathan Denness (Head of Unit Regional and Urban Policy) and European Association of Long-Term Investors and

19 Mar 2025 · Structured Dialogue Meeting between the associations of NPBIs and the DG for Regional and Urban Policy.

Meeting with Agnese Papadia (Cabinet of Commissioner Dan Jørgensen), Stella Kaltsouni (Cabinet of Commissioner Dan Jørgensen)

13 Mar 2025 · Investments for housing

Meeting with Elena Arveras (Cabinet of Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque), Lauro Panella (Cabinet of Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque)

13 Mar 2025 · Sustainability omnibus and FIDA

Meeting with Jonathan Denness (Head of Unit Regional and Urban Policy), Kadri Uustal (Head of Unit Regional and Urban Policy)

11 Mar 2025 · Joint Working Session on Housing between the European Commission, EAPB and the European Investment Bank.

Meeting with Nicolo Brignoli (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis)

3 Mar 2025 · Omnibus

Meeting with Florentine Hopmeier (Cabinet of Commissioner Piotr Serafin)

20 Feb 2025 · Exchange of views on the future Multiannual Financial Framework and other EU priorities

Meeting with Regina Doherty (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

27 Jan 2025 · FIDA

Meeting with Florika Fink-Hooijer (Director-General Environment)

22 Nov 2024 · Speech at CEO Conference Topics: the Water resilience strategy, Climate Adaptation policy, New Commission priorities

Meeting with Rasmus Andresen (Member of the European Parliament)

20 Nov 2024 · Framework for financial data access

Public banks urge exemptions for social and public entities

11 Sept 2024
Topic — Evaluation of EU rules targeting tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning practices.
Message — The organization recommends making the directive more targeted to avoid taxing strategic investments. They specifically propose an exemption for public sector entities and those with social purposes.12
Why — Proposed exemptions would lower the tax burden and facilitate lending to clients.34
Impact — Tax authorities would lose revenue as more entities deduct their borrowing costs.5
Read full response

Meeting with Nicolas Schmit (Commissioner)

27 Mar 2024 · Social taxonomy and the social investment framework

Meeting with Astrid Dentler (Cabinet of Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra)

27 Mar 2024 · sustainable finance, financing of climate resilience, climate risk management, reporting burden

European public banks urge reduced GDPR administrative and legal burdens

8 Feb 2024
Topic — This consultation evaluates the effectiveness and application of the GDPR after six years.
Message — The association requests reduced documentation duties and a clearer distinction for business-related data. They also propose shifting design responsibilities to manufacturers and limiting data access rights in legal disputes.123
Why — Public banks would face fewer documentation costs and technical hurdles when deleting data.45
Impact — Employees and customers lose extensive rights to access and delete their personal information.6
Read full response

Response to 9th Report on economic, social and territorial cohesion

28 Dec 2023

Ladies and Gentlemen of the European Commission, Please find attached the comments on Reducing disparities in the EU feeding into the 9th Cohesion report. Best regards, The EAPB Secretariat.
Read full response

European public banks urge mandatory engagement in ESG rating regulations

1 Sept 2023
Topic — A proposal to regulate the transparency and reliability of environmental, social, and governance ratings.
Message — The EAPB requests mandatory individual engagement between rating providers and rated entities. They also call for public consultations on methodology changes and a civil liability clause for rating agencies.12
Why — Public banks would gain the ability to correct business model misunderstandings and contest inaccurate categorizations.3
Impact — ESG rating providers would face increased costs and legal risks from mandatory cooperation and liability rules.4
Read full response

Response to Banking Union: Review of the bank crisis management and deposit insurance framework (DGSD review)

30 Aug 2023

The EAPB supports the objectives of the CMDI review which aims at strengthening rules for handling bank failures while protecting depositors. It is important however that the review duly considers the business model of promotional banks and other public banks which primarily fund the public sector and SMEs. General comments on the scope of EU resolution and the specificities of public banks We note that the Commissions intention is to extend the scope of the EU resolution framework to apply it to a larger subset of banks, including mid-sized banks. We like to note that this contrasts with past thinking where it was declared that resolution should be for the few not the many (Koenig 2020). While we understand that resolution authorities would retain a great degree of discretion, we think that the expected impact of the proposed changed should be clarified i.e. the number and type (large, medium, small) of entities that would be brought under the scope. The EAPBs position is that the BRRD framework should distinguish between banks based on their business model, ownership structure and risk profile. The current resolution framework does not sufficiently account for the specificities and business models of promotional banks and other public banks, which have a very low risk profile and a public policy mandate to grant loans to the local government sector. First and foremost, the rationale for the business model of public banks is generally contingent upon the very fact of public ownership, something that is generally not taken into account in the BRRD framework. Going concern resolution with resolution tools to transfer ownership to (private) creditors will generally not be feasible or credible, and may in any case not be consistent with the public policy objectives of the institution and its government mandate. BRRD does not sufficiently address or take into account resolution strategies where there is a public ownership premise. For the vast majority of EU promotional banks, liquidation under national insolvency or national liquidation regimes is the normal scenario. Promotional banks and other public banks should thus be exempted from contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF), as their contributions serve de facto as public cross-financing for bank resolution, which is not in line with the objectives of the Banking Union.
Read full response

Response to Interim Evaluation of the InvestEU Programme

10 May 2023

Dear Team of the European Commission, dear Team of DG ECFIN, Please find our comments on the Interim Evaluation of the InvestEU Programme in the attached file. Sincerely, The EAPB Secretariat.
Read full response

Public banks urge clarity on new taxonomy reporting rules

3 May 2023
Topic — Consultation on technical criteria and reporting rules for EU environmental taxonomy objectives.
Message — The EAPB requests urgent clarification regarding the timeline and format for reporting on environmental objectives. They seek confirmation on whether taxonomy eligibility and updated templates must be used starting December 2023.12
Why — Formal guidance would ensure reporting consistency and reduce the risk of administrative errors.34
Read full response

Public banks warn EMIR rules risk damaging forced relocation

21 Mar 2023
Topic — A review of EU rules to strengthen central clearing and competitiveness.
Message — The EAPB requests clear exemptions for legacy contracts and non-EU clients from active account requirements. They urge the Commission to extend the equivalence decision beyond June 2025 to provide market certainty. The association also calls for the removal of intrusive new supervisory powers to enforce exposure reductions.123
Why — Public banks would avoid costly operational changes and maintain global market access.4
Impact — EU market participants risk losing liquidity and access to international business opportunities.5
Read full response

Response to EMIR Targeted review

21 Mar 2023

EAPB wishes to comment on the following aspects: 1. Active accounts-requirement - new Art. 7a EMIR a) Design, calibration, implementation of active accounts-requirement b) Material scope c) Timelines 2. Exposure reduction planning and target setting obligation for institutions - Art. 76(2) CRD/Art. 29(1) IFD and corresponding new supervisory exposure reduction enforcement power - Art. 104(1)(n) CRD/Art. 39(2)(b) IFD 3. New reporting obligations regarding calculation outcomes and third-country CCP clearing activity new Art. 7a(4) and new Art. 7b(2) EMIR 4. Client information on alternative EU clearing possibilities - new Art. 7b(1) EMIR Please see attached file for detailled comments.
Read full response

Meeting with Jens Geier (Member of the European Parliament) and Bundesverband Öffentlicher Banken Deutschlands eV

21 Mar 2023 · Hydrogen Bank, MFF Revision (staff level)

Response to State aid – revision of rules on exemptions for small compensations to services of general economic interest

30 Dec 2022

The EAPB welcomes the possibility to provide feedback on the review of rules on exemptions for small amounts of aid to services of general economic interest (SGEI). The focus of the activities of EAPB members, public banks which act on behalf of their owners national, regional and local authorities - is the implementation of targeted promotional measures. A large part of its promotional activities is devoted to supporting small and medium-sized enterprises. National, regional, but also European promotional funds are used for this purpose. In doing so, promotional banks always act on the basis of the European regulations on State aid. Against this background, we would like to comment as follows: 1) The de minimis threshold should be raised to at least EUR 800,000. We expressly support the European Commission's proposal to raise the de minimis threshold. In view of the inflationary trend in Europe, but also worldwide, we consider this step to be urgently necessary. The period from 2012 to 2030 should be used as the basis for the inflation-related calculation to determine the adjustment of the de minimis threshold. The inflation expectation values for the years 2023 and 2024 and the medium-term inflation rate of 2% for the years 2025 to 2030 (assumption of the ECB Governing Council's target). This should be factored in when determining the right threshold Also in view of the current and future challenges that the European economy will inevitably have to deal with (e.g. consequences of the Corona pandemic, climate crisis, Russia's war of aggression on Ukraine, energy crisis, interest rate policy), we believe it would be appropriate to raise the SGEI de minimis ceiling to at least 800,000 euros. We believe that this adjustment would give the Member States more scope to take account of the EU's political objectives - climate targets, transformation of the economy by promoting digitalisation and sustainability, etc. - in a needs-based and tailored manner in the respective regions. 2) Adaptation of certain terms in the SGEI de minimis Regulation We are expressly in favour of adapting the terms to the General De Minimis Regulation. In our view, this is essential for legal certainty. At this point, several adjustments should be made and the relevant content defined analogously to the General De Minimis Regulation. This concerns the treatment of "undertakings in difficulty", which in future should also fall under the scope of the SGEI de minimis Regulation. The provisions of the SGEI de minimis Regulation on mergers and acquisitions should also be amended in line with the General De Minimis Regulation. 3) Continue to allow for Member State discretion with regard to the proper national tools based on self-declarations or registries As already stated in our comments on the General De Minimis Regulation of July and December 2022, EAPB doubts that national public registries are the suitable tools for reporting State aid in all cases. The Commission should allow for Member State discretion with regard to the proper national tools based on self-declarations or registries. It is important that the obligation for companies to provide correct and updated information is enforced. Member States considering setting up a database should take into consideration experiences gathered by Member States who have already set up such registers. Please see the attached file for further details.
Read full response

Meeting with Daniel Freund (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

12 Oct 2022 · Financial Regulation

Response to Review of the de minimis aid Regulation

19 Jul 2022

The European Association of Public Banks (EAPB) welcomes the possibility to provide feedback on the Commission call for evidence on the general de minimis Regulation. The focus of the activities of EAPB members, public banks which act on behalf of their owners – national, regional and local authorities - is the implementation of targeted promotional measures. A large part of its promotional activities is devoted to supporting small and medium-sized enterprises. National, regional, but also European promotional funds are used for this purpose. In doing so, promotional banks always act on the basis of the European regulations on State aid. Against this background, we would like to comment as follows on the revision of the de minimis regulation. 1) The de minimis threshold should be raised to at least EUR 500,000. We expressly support the Commission's proposal to raise the de minimis threshold. In view of the inflationary trend in Europe, but also worldwide, we consider this step to be urgently necessary. Taking into account the past, present and expected future challenges that the European economy will inevitably have to deal with (e.g. the Corona pandemic, the climate crisis, Russia's war of aggression on Ukraine, the energy crisis, interest rate policy), we believe that raising the de minimis ceiling to at least EUR 500,000 would be appropriate. Even if the determination of the new de minimis limit should primarily focus on economic aspects, it should be taken into account that the member states are facing enormous challenges and must be given more options for action in order to take into account the political objectives of the EU (e.g. Paris Agreement, transformation of the economy through the promotion of digitalisation and sustainability) in the respective regions in a needs-based and tailored manner. 2) Continue to allow for Member State discretion with regard to the proper national tools based on self-declarations or registries On the second point EAPB doubts that national public registries are the suitable tools for reporting State aid in all cases. The Commission should allow for Member State discretion with regard to the proper national tools based on self-declarations or registries. It is important that the obligation for companies to provide correct and updated information is enforced. Member States considering setting up a database should take into consideration experiences gathered by Member States who have already set up such registers. For example the agricultural aid register in Hungary distinguishes between requested aid and granted aid which enables the still-available de minimis amounts to be used effectively. Another example is Slovenia, which uses a public register alongside self declarations by companies. The Commission should allow for flexibility in the rules so that each Member State can have a system in place suitable to its needs, its political organisation (federal, centralised) as well economic sector structures.
Read full response

Meeting with Ville Niinistö (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

3 Jun 2022 · CRR/CRD from public banks perspective - staff level

Response to Central securities depositories – review of EU rules

25 May 2022

Please see attached file for more extensive comments. We particularly welcome the Commission’s proposal that so-called mandatory buy-ins pursuant to Article 7 of the CSDR should not initially apply. The buy-in is an instrument intended to protect the buyer and therefore belongs at trading level. Penalties are the right tool to address settlement fails and enhance settlement discipline and should generally accrue, irrespective of whether two trading parties are involved or not. We would welcome to see ESMA given a mandate to draw up and publish a clear and exhaustive list of the financial instruments covered by the scope of settlement discipline under Article 7 and to specify which market values of these financial instruments should be used for calculating penalties and buy-in cash compensation. The Commission’s proposal envisages a two-step approach permitting the Commission to (re)introduce MBIs by means of an implementing act if certain conditions are met. The three outlined conditions for assessing whether mandatory buy-ins are a proportionate means to address settlement fails but should be considered in combination, rather than as independent criteria. The buy-in should only be introduced for financial instruments that have a certain relevance for the overall market and not for niche products, which by their nature cannot significantly increase the settlement efficiency of the entire market. Should the requirement to appoint a buy-in agent be retained, such a quasi market infrastructure should have to go through an approval process, and it should be made sure that there are at least two providers within the EU. The implementing act – which should be subject to a prior consultation of the market and be based on a prior CBA - should provide for a sufficient implementation period of at least two years. In Article 7(3) CSDR, the term “calendar days” should be corrected to “business days” with respect to the extension period for transactions on SME growth markets. This would correspond to the other deadlines in Article 7 of the CSDR as well as the terminology commonly used for capital market transactions. The changes envisaged in Article 1(2)(d) and (f) of the proposal should be deleted. The proposed amendment to Article 7(6) CSDR (Article 1(2)(f) of the proposal) seems to be intended to correct an error that has already been corrected by Article 35(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1229 and thus requires no further adjustment. We welcome the amendment with respect to trading parties proposed in Article 1(2)(e). Article 1(2)(i) should be amended where Article 7(14) CSDR is referring to interest rates. A fixed interest rate for penalties due to a lack of cash should be introduced and could be determined in more detail at level 2. Certain recitals of the original CSDR should be adjusted and/or corrected to avoid misunderstandings. After the introduction of Article 7 CSDR, it was intended to delete Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012, which has long specified penalties and buy-ins for CCP-cleared business (see Article 72 of the CSDR). We would welcome if the amendment to Article 54 CSDR (Article 1(17) of the proposal) took account in Article 54(4)(e) of the fact that there is no need to impose additional capital requirements if intraday loans are already fully backed by collateral from CSD participants.
Read full response

Public Banks Call for Proportionality in EU Due Diligence

23 May 2022
Topic — The European Commission is proposing rules for corporate environmental and human rights due diligence.
Message — The EAPB requests sector-specific classifications for public banks to reduce administrative burdens. They propose limiting obligations to the group level and excluding households from the supply chain definition.123
Why — Narrower rules would prevent excessive administrative burdens and lower compliance costs for smaller banks.45
Impact — Environmental and human rights protections for households may be weakened if they are excluded from rules.6
Read full response

Response to EU single access point for financial and non-financial information publicly disclosed by companies

17 Mar 2022

The idea of a central contact point for relevant information is understandable. However, due to the large volume of information, it can easily become confusing and not useful for market participants. Duplicate reporting or publication channels should be avoided but built on existing systems. The start date for ESAP is very ambitious. Even if no new information must be reported, the reporting will require considerable time and effort. Once the final implementing measures are published, it will take at least two years to implement the relevant specifications. This means L2 meqsures would need to be finalised now if they were to be implemented by end-2024. Specifications should be set on a case-by-case basis considering technical restrictions such as overnight processing, when setting deadlines for submitting and transferring data. The focus of the ESAP is clearly on the needs of users. However, those compiling the data should not be forgotten. Specifications need to be compatible with market-standard software solutions, otherwise it will be difficult to establish ESAP. Information will have to be reported to the ESAP at the same time as it is published on a company’s website. Implementing the corresponding IT processes will be costly. Duplicate reporting should be avoided so as not to impose the cost of maintaining duplicate publication channels for preparers. This could be ensured by making it unnecessary to publish information disclosed to ESAP in any other format. Disclosure obligations should be dropped if the corresponding information is already subject to ESAP reporting. Some provisions (e.g., Art 38a(1)(b)(ii) EMIR) envisage that information should contain the name and LEI of an entity as specified by Art 7(4) ESAPR. The LEI is a globally-used standardised identifier with no need to be further specified. Most entities already have a LEI. There is a risk of confusion with the existing LEIs used by entities. Not all regulation would be suitable for the ESAP. We disagree with the idea to include the PRIIPs-KID in a machine-readable form as this would create enormous implementation efforts with hardly any benefit. If at all, machine-readability should be limited to necessary underlying metadata. The addressee of a requirement is not always clear, i.e., whether banks, CCPs, CSDs, TVs or CAs must provide relevant data to ESMA as collection body (e.g., new Art 23a MiFIR). In addition to the introduction of ESAP, various regulatory projects are already in force or planned and aim at achieving a common source of data. All companies that issue securities in the EU already must use the ESEF. The companies concerned have had to prepare their annual financial statements in XHTML format since 1 January 2020. In mid-December, the EBA and the ECB unveiled a plan for establishing an integrated reporting system for all statistical, supervisory, and settlement-specific reports since various authorities make available various reports with sometimes overlapping and contradictory information. Institutions will provide their CAs with the underlying raw data, based on which supervisors will be able to draw up their own reports. Standardising this reporting would save the institutions involved a considerable amount of time and effort. These projects need consolidation in terms of issues covered and timing and subject them to a single regulatory regime to ensure not just an ESAP but also a consistent data warehouse at the time of its introduction. This will require cooperation between the CAs involved. Finally, it would be highly ambitious to operate such a substantial database with three employees only. Access to the ESAP should be free of charge for users except for very large volumes of information or for frequently updated information. The financial industry will be the main user of ESAP, especially regarding ESG information. They need ESAP-information to fulfil regulatory requirements. The pricing should be transparent and not discriminatory.
Read full response

Response to Alignment EU rules on capital requirements to international standards (prudential requirements and market discipline)

14 Feb 2022

We welcome the proposed measures that limit the negative effects of the regulatory framework on bank’s capital requirement and thus on the real economy (e.g., the retention of specific treatments, the implementation periods and the relief for banks when calculating the output floor (OF)). In the upcoming legislative process, it is essential not to dilute these measures - where they are risk-adequate. However, where this is appropriate for reasons of risk sensitivity or consistency of the regulatory framework, the proposed provisions should also be extended. Since transitional arrangements will merely postpone the negative effects associated with the implementation of Basel III, they should be granted until the underlying problems have been solved. Several problems associated with the EU Commission's proposal for implementing the OF can be solved most easily within the framework of a so-called "parallel stacks approach". At least, it should be ensured that neither the O-SII buffer nor the P2G increase because of the OF. We welcome the proposal to allow banks until the end of 2032, when calculating the OF, to count exposures to unrated corporates under the Standardised Approach (CRSA) that have been assigned a probability of default of up to 0.5% under the IRBA with a risk weight (RW) of 65%. We believe that certain exposures to corporates that must be allocated to the exposure class "exposures secured by real estate" in the CRSA (article 126(1)(b) and 126(2)) should also be covered by this rule. We welcome that banks in member states (MS) where exposures to RGLA and PSE must be treated under the IRBA rules for institutions can still apply the A-IRB to these exposures. However, we consider the application of an LGD input floor of 25% to the new RGLA-PSE exposure class to be overly conservative. From our point of view, the LGD-Floor should be calibrated below 5% to reflect historically observed LGD. Furthermore, institutions in MS in which such exposures are treated under the CRSA as exposures to central governments should be allowed to apply the rules for central governments in the IRBA as well. Promotional banks, that finance the public sector in MS, where exposures to RGLA-PSE have a RW of20% under the CRSA, would see these exposures effectively be floored at 14,5%. To reduce the impact of the OF for promotional banks,promotional loans should be exempted from the OF (as in the leverage ratio in the CRR2). To avoid negative effects on the promotional business, promotional banks should be allowed to recognise the risk mitigating effect of receivables to the promotional borrower that have been assigned to them as collateral. As ESG-risks are long-term a semi-annual frequency of disclosures and reporting is not appropriate, especially as disclosures according to CSRD and Taxonomy-regulation are published annually. Information required for remuneration disclosures might only be available after the resolution of the shareholders' meeting. An option to publish this information later separately should be considered. The proposal to treat guarantees for prudential purposes in a uniform manner, regardless of whether the protection provider makes one lump sum payment or assumes the future payment obligations of the obligor should also apply in the framework of the NPL backstop. The reporting requirement for the calculation of capital requirements for CVA risks of the exempted transactions would undermine the effectiveness of the CVA exemptions. In addition, it should be clarified that not only transactions with NFCs that have a 20% RW are exempted, but also transactions with RGLA that have the same RW. The existing method for calculating own funds requirements for market risks should be preserved for banks with exposures falling below the current threshold for the market risk reporting requirement. The α-factor=1 in the SA-CCR formula should be applied not only for calculation of the OF, but also for institutions using the SA.
Read full response

Response to Alignment of EU rules on capital requirements to international standards (review processes)

14 Feb 2022

Fit and Proper: We urge for deletion of Article 91a to 91d. At least, we require the following changes. Any ex-ante assessment procedure of members of the supervisory board carried out by banks or by the competent authorities would be unfeasible to comply with for institutions which have practically no influence on the recruitment process due to existing legal requirements (e.g. public law institutions with ex-officio members, members elected by municipal trustees or appointed by public bodies or shareholders). For these cases an exemption is needed. The supervisory assessment period of up to 6 months should be shortened to 1 or 2 months to avoid long vacancies. Applying suitability standards comparable to those for managing directors to key function holders would be disproportionate. At least, the supervisory assessment period should be shortened and a possibility for immediate replacement should be included. Remuneration: The banking package provides an opportunity to further reduce administrative regulatory burdens for SNCIs. We recommend an exemption of SNCIs from the remuneration rules. Furthermore Article 92(2)(f) requires a direct monitoring of the compensation of "senior staff in the internal control functions". In some member states, national law requires two-tier board structures, so the supervisory board and its Remuneration Committee have no decision-making power regarding the remuneration (amounts) of staff members who are not part of the management board. In case of two-tier-structures we suggest replacing “senior staff in the internal control function” by “heads of the internal control functions”. ESG risks: According to the EBA’s report on management and supervision of ESG risks, ESG-risks are generally understood not to be a separate type of risk but to act as a driver for traditional risks. Due to some requirements (e.g. to hold internal capital explicitly for ESG risks; Art. 73), this principle does not seem to be sufficiently clearly anchored in the draft and should be included in the definition in Article 4 CRR. Strategies and processes to assess and maintain internal capital now refer to all risks to which institutions are or might be exposed in the short-, medium- and long-term time horizon (Art. 73(1) and 74(1)). While these time horizons are appropriate and necessary for strategies on climate risks, introducing those diverse time horizons for all risks would be unnecessary and counterproductive. We propose to skip the specification of the time horizon to avoid unnecessary complications for the ICAAP. Moreover, the long-term view is already taken in Art. 87a, that explicitly refers to ESG-risks. The requirement for competent authorities to examine the progress made to align the institution’s business models to relevant policy objectives of the Union or broader transition trends towards a sustainable economy is too far-reaching. The specifications do not allow for a legally secure interpretation. Such a proposal is outside the scope of the current mandate of banking supervision. Responsibility for the business strategy and a viable business model must primarily lay with the institution's management body. (see Art. 76(2), 87a(4/5), 104(1)m) Stresstests, Art. 100(3): The proposed ban on institutions, advisors and third parties to refrain from activities such as the exchange of information etc. in the context of supervisory stresstests should be omitted. The exchange between the institutions and via the associations promotes a high quality and enables conceptual further development. Third Country Branches, Art. 21c(1): The proposal to reauthorise already authorised branches is disproportionate and leads to unnecessary costs and administrative efforts for both the bank and the supervisory authority. Therefore, the competent authority should be allowed to waive the requirements in case the undertaking continues conducting the activities and is already authorised in accordance with Title III Chapter 1 CRD
Read full response

Response to EU Standard for Green Bond

24 Sept 2021

Summary of the EAPB position (the full position paper is attached) The EAPB welcomes that the Commission has proposed a voluntary EuGB label rather than a binding one. However, the draft regulation falls short in several crucial respects that, if not addressed, would cause significant problems for both investors and issuers (bond-by-bond issuers as well as issuers who apply a portfolio approach, where a pool of green bonds finance a portfolio of eligible green assets). The EAPB therefore proposes a number of changes to the draft legislative text to ensure that the EuGB becomes a success. The EAPB recommendations to the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council are as follows: • Offer certainty that issued EuGBs will not lose their status at any point of their maturity due to changes of the EU Taxonomy and the technical screening criteria, as well as ensure that EuGBs can finance (refinance) a portfolio of use of proceeds that were Taxonomy aligned at the time of creation, i.e. full grandfathering of use of proceeds. • Ensure that regional and local authorities, regional agencies, local government funding agencies and public credit institutions fall under the definition of ‘sovereigns’. • Ensure that the requirement to carry out an additional post-issuance external review of the allocation report is applicable to all issuers following the dynamic portfolio approach and not only to financial undertakings. Furthermore, the requirement as such is quite far-reaching. An additional post-issuance review should only be requested in cases where significant changes have been made to the portfolio of European green bonds. • Ensure that green loans/leases that have been granted to finance assets or activities mentioned in Article 4(2) of the draft regulation should qualify as assets that the credit institutions could allocate to European green bonds that they issue, and it should be ensured that the level of diligence/verification required by the financial institution should be consistent with the diligence requirements the sovereign would have to fulfill as if it had chosen to issue a EuGB instead of financing the activity via a green loan, including the timing of allocation reporting/verification etc. so that it would be consistent with the issuance activities of the credit institution. • Enable the conversion of existing green bonds and green portfolios to EuGB and portfolios. • Clarify the use of the factsheet and impact report document for portfolio approach. • Clarify in the regulation and its annexes that an EuGB factsheet can be used for several EuGB issuances. • Ensure that the regulation does not require project level information or environmental impacts in the factsheet, as these are presented in allocation and impact reports post issuance. • Define financial asset and debt more clearly to make sure it includes also financial leases in addition to loans. • Further clarify the term ‘total amortised value’. • Ensure that the regulation refers to “net proceeds of the EuGB” instead of “proceeds of the EuGB”. • Ensure that the time limits for the publication of the reviewed allocation report and the post-issuance review be more aligned with the schedule for financial reporting, i.e. around 90 days currently. • Align the time limits in the Regulation that guide the schedules relating to a) sending the allocation report for post-issuance review, b) the preparation of the post-issuance review and c) the publication of the previous two reports (allocation report and post-issuance review). • Align the Regulation with best practice according to which portfolio approach issuers usually report annually at year end the outstanding amount of green bonds and the outstanding amount of use of proceeds assets taking into account amortizations. • Ensure that the regulation refers to ‘face value’ of the EuGB. • Clarify which requirements apply to issuers not subject to Prospectus Regulation.
Read full response

Response to Quick fix to the PRIIPs Regulation

9 Sept 2021

The European Commission’s proposal to maintain 1 July 2022 as the date the new Level 1 and Level 2 requirements apply to all product manufacturers, despite the delay in publication of the RTS, cuts the implementation period for the industry by more than 2 months. The proposed implementation period is too short, especially for new rules that relate to communication with investors and potential investors. To achieve better trust and understanding among investors and potential investors, the market needs time to adapt and get it right first time and avoiding confusion, to the detriment of consumers and Europe’s economy. Implementing changes involves numerous departments and competences to interpret the new requirements; gather new data; make actuarial and financial calculations; properly plan and make changes to IT; redesign templates; test the calculations and design; legally assess the narratives and figures; translate them; adapt training for staff and distributors; and implement new website disclosure requirements, etc. The many stakeholders in the value chain are involved in implementation. Many PRIIPs sold by insurers are MOPs that provide investors with a combination of different underlying funds. Where these are UCITS, insurers need the data and documents produced by UCITS providers to comply. As the new rules apply to both insurers and UCITS providers, MOPs providers will need sufficient time to collect the data from UCITS providers — once available - and update all their existing pre-contractual information for MOPs, update and store all KIDs on their websites, etc. This requires extensive dialogue between insurers and asset managers to agree the practicalities of data exchanges. Too short an implementation period could lead to poor implementation or force operators to suspend the distribution of certain products, which would be detrimental to consumers’ participation in the capital markets and trust in the information they receive. To ensure an orderly implementation, we urge for a 12-month implementation period from the adoption of the RTS proposals as the minimum time needed for all products and all market participants. A synchronised application date for all products (IBIPs, UCITS, MOPs, etc.) and providers (insurers, asset managers, etc.) for both the Level 1 and Level 2 amendments is key. In particular, Article 18 of the current PRIIPs RTS - which allows insurers to rely on the derogation in Article 14(2) of the PRIIPs RTS and to use the UCITS KIIDs for the provision of information on underlying funds for MOPs - is independent of any changes to the date of application of the UCITS exemption. The extension of the UCITS exemption will therefore not prevent Article 14(2) from expiring in December 2021, as currently stated in Article 18. This would pose significant practical difficulties for providers currently making use of the derogation in Article 14(2), as they would be required to produce their own PRIIPs KIDs for each underlying fund by the end of this year. This would also entail a substantial compliance burden for insurers and asset managers. They would need to produce entirely new data to populate the PRIIPs KIDs by a deadline that is much too short, and where the data simply could not be produced on time, the range of products offered to consumers would ultimately decrease. To ensure a consistent transitional regime across providers, the necessary legal certainty while UCITS remain exempted from the PRIIPs Regulation and a smooth implementation of the new PRIIPs RTS, we therefore reiterate the importance to align the expiry date of Article 18 of the PRIIPs RTS with the new end date of the UCITS exemption. As the scrutiny of the revised RTS by the co-legislators will take some time, we would also appreciate an expedited procedure by the co-legislators to facilitate publication in the EU Official Journal as soon as possible.
Read full response

Response to Designation of a statutory replacement rate for CHF LIBOR (Benchmarks)

31 Aug 2021

The EAPB welcomes the Commission's initiative to legally replace CHF LIBOR. We welcome the approach to include all contracts in the scope of the statutory replacement rate, if they do not have a fallback provision until and for 31 December 2021. As there is no substitute for CHF-LIBOR based on a forward-looking method, the switch to the SARON compound is appropriate. The use of the last-reset approach also appears appropriate, in particular for retail contracts. The fixing of the respective tenor-related spread creates a publicly accessible legal source. A reference in the Implementing Act corresponding to Article 23b(3) that the statutory fallback rate only applies in cases where no or no suitable fallback provision exists would be useful. The information requirement should not be linked to the written form but may also be provided electronically to all affected clients in a timely manner. As CHF LIBOR will be discontinued already on 31 December 2021, the Implementing Act will be decisive for the remaining contractual relationships, and should therefore be finalised as soon as possible.
Read full response

Response to Designation of a statutory replacement rate for EONIA (Benchmark)

31 Aug 2021

The EAPB welcomes the Commission's initiative to replace EONIA by statutory means since it will not be possible to convert all EONIA references in contractual relationships and instruments by the deadline. The Implementing Act will ensure the necessary legal certainty and also prevent market distortions. The proposed replacement of the EONIA by the €STR plus the spread adjustment of 8.5 basis points in all relevant contracts is clear, consistent and a transparent solution. Minor adjustments and further clarifications could be considered to improve the effectiveness of this statutory replacement and prevent uncertainties and misunderstandings. The date of application of the EONIA replacement should be moved forward to 1 January 2022 to eliminate any time gap between the date of the statutory replacement becoming applicable and the formal ending of the deadline for the use of EONIA. Any time gap between the two dates could cause confusion and uncertainties over the implications. In addition, the statutory replacement should not prevail over any replacements or fallback provisions agreed by the contracting parties. This already follows from Art. 23b(3) but a corresponding legal clarification would prevent any uncertainty or misconception in the markets and also serve as a further encouragement to market participants to implement necessary replacements and fallback provisions, including for other IBOR rates. The Implementing Act will nevertheless play an essential role for those instruments and contractual relationships that could not be converted in time. A timely finalisation of the adoption procedure would therefore be very welcome. Similar challenges may exist with regard to other IBORs but may merit more differentiated approaches.
Read full response

Response to Revision of Non-Financial Reporting Directive

13 Jul 2021

The EAPB supports the planned transformation to a sustainable economy in Europe. The legislative proposal for a “Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive” is an important step towards harmonised sustainability reporting. New reporting requirements seem to be rather ambitious, in terms of both content and timing. This applies especially to those companies and banks, which should report for the first time. They will face very high challenges. For those institutions that already issue a sustainability report, this move will also lead to a considerable amount of additional work, also due to the digital disclosure format and the very tight deadlines for implementation. The EAPB proposes the following changes to the draft Directive (detailed recommendations can be found in the attached paper): - Reliefs for smaller institutions operating at national and regional level: Smaller, less complex and regional credit institutions should be explicitly granted at least the same relief envisaged for medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) listed on regulated markets. This relief includes a reduced set of standards and a later application date (2026). - Option of a sustainability report separate from the management report: We support the possibility of continuing to publish the sustainability report separate from the management report. The mandatory inclusion of sustainability reporting in the management report unnecessarily shortens the already short preparation periods for many companies compared to previous non-financial reporting. It will be more difficult to commission a separate auditor for the sustainability information if it is a part of management report. Especially for credit institutions, a separate sustainability report could improve clarity. - Global standards for sustainability reporting: Uniform global standards are of great importance. Globally active companies need global standards. In view of the international harmonisation expected in the short term, European standards (yet to be developed) are only the second best solution. - Considerable implementation required with very tight implementation deadlines: We are calling for an adequate time scale adapted to corporate practice and supplemented by a gradual introduction of reporting obligations. However, the reporting requirements must always be known with a lead time of at least one year so that the reporting processes and reporting formats can be implemented before the first reporting period. - Limited assurance: To ensure proportionality policymakers should define the scope of audit and the timeline of its implementation taking into account that: i) the impact assessment accompanying the draft CSRD did not properly assess the costs and benefits; ii) the assurance standards mentioned in Article 26a of the Audit Directive have not been developed yet. - Extending the scope of activities beyond the scope defined by the Taxonomy Regulation: Reporting on environmental factors should not be limited to activities covered by the EU Taxonomy. Indeed, many pieces of information non covered by the EU Taxonomy could be reported on as well, on a voluntary basis, for instance “brown” activities, if the companies deem them meaningful.
Read full response

Response to Commission Delegated Regulation on taxonomy-alignment of undertakings reporting non-financial information

1 Jun 2021

• Art. 11(3) should be harmonised with the application date of the CSRD. KPIs should be disclosed only from reporting year 2023. By then, the corresponding data will be available in standardised form. • Including several areas (e.g. exposures to non-NFRD, trading book below a certain threshold) in the denominator of the GAR but excluding from the numerator keeps the GAR artificially low. Voluntary inclusion should be allowed. • It is technically unclear how to include derivatives, therefore they should be excluded from both numerator and denominator of the GAR. • The EAPB advocates to add to the main indicator GAR a second KPI, GAR2. GAR2 should focus on alignment with the ‘significant contribution’ criteria. Considering DNSH criteria or minimum social safeguards is strongly reducing the comparability of the KPI due to their foremost qualitative character. GAR2 should be an additional KPI for institutions with a major part of their exposures towards entities outside the scope of NFRD/CSRD/TR, thus reflect at least the significant contribution coverage in their portfolio based on proxies and standardised models. A DNSH-assessment based on individual level is too complex for small transaction sizes in bulk lending business (both stock and new business). • For many EAPB members with a public policy mandate, a major part of lending for environmentally sustainable activities constitutes sovereign exposures, either by financing directly local or regional authorities or channeled via local public enterprises classified in the “general government” sector. The CDR would exclude most environmentally sustainable activities of many EAPB members (and include only housing loans to municipalities). Banks with a public policy mandate with an artificially low GAR would be disadvantaged disproportionately in relations with investors and other stakeholders. We advocate that GAR2 should be adopted as an alternative KPI and special purpose lending exposures (including green, social and other labelled lending) to local and regional authorities and public sector entities should be defined as eligible assets for the GAR2 calculation, and institutions should be allowed to include those exposures in the GAR2 calculation on an optional basis. • As regards SMEs and other non-NFRD corporates, even after the transition period their reporting capacity will be the same. Although CSRD will extend the NFRD scope, it is expected that the CSRD provisions will be proportionate. Therefore, an alternative method for use beyond the end of the transition period should be developed, e.g. for non-NFRD/CSRD counterparts the GAR2 should apply after the transition period. We advocate for an optional inclusion of non-NFRD exposures in the numerator and denominator already from the first KPI reporting year. • The templates accompanying the CDR and terms used (e.g. management companies, retail, local government) require well-structured instructions for completion, as many of the terms do not have clear definitions in FINREP. Similarly, there is no easy way to differentiate counterparties on their NFRD-compliance. We also see a need to clarify the term of total assets. It could mean the sum of eligible assets, i.e. denominator of the GAR, or total assets according to FINREP. • The use of the prudential scope of consolidation for Art. 8 makes the disclosure inconsistent with the rest of the management report as it is based on the accounting scope of consolidation. Even total assets would differ. Clarification is needed on how to deal with it without extending the volume of disclosure explaining differences. The option for a sustainability report outside of management report could be a solution. • No GAR templates in Pillar 3 to avoid repeated disclosure. • Complexity could be reduced, e.g. through deleting the split of exposures to financial corporations into credit institutions, management companies, etc.
Read full response

Meeting with John Berrigan (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

20 Apr 2021 · COVID-19 situation and the impact on SMEs

Response to Revision of the Financial Regulation 2018/1046

16 Apr 2021

We appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the 'Targeted revision of the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the EU (i.e. the Financial Regulation)'. Please find herewith attached the response from the European Association of Public Banks (EAPB). Kind regards
Read full response

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

18 Dec 2020

EAPB welcomes the Taxonomy as a tool to define and promote sustainable activities. That said, we have a number of concerns as listed below. (Please also find detailed EAPB comments attached). • In its current form and in the absence of pragmatic usability guidance, the total burden of the Taxonomy is too high, in terms of both excessively demanding criteria requirements, a non-proportional administrative burden and the non-consideration of regional contexts. • In particular, we fear that project owners (customers of public banks) will lose interest if the information burden is too onerous and opt for traditional funding requiring less disclosure. Ultimately, the sustainable finance market rests on the availability of eligible assets. • For financial institutions like EAPB members, who are not project owners, the cost/benefit of Taxonomy alignment simply does not add up. This conflicts with the aims of the Delegated Act to “ensure usability and proportionality” and being “easy for economic operators and investors to use”. • We fear the current Taxonomy design risks undermining not only the EAPB members’ own ability to contribute to the sustainable finance market but also considerably slowing down its harmonization (via the proposed EU Green Bond Standard). Moreover, we believe the Taxonomy does not ensure technology neutrality and disregards numerous sustainable economic activities. Bioenergy fulfilling requirements for sustainability and GHG-savings of RED should be classified as a sustainable activity, and not as only transitional. It is also unfortunate that all relevant existing technologies are not addressed in the delegated acts, prohibiting a systems approach to sustainable energy solutions. EAPB considers that the Delegated Regulation should indicate a timeline for resolution of matters related to nuclear energy. • From an investor or financing perspective, the delegated acts must not give rise to any legal or reputational risks, especially in view of the taxonomy's focus on investments in economic activities with long-term life cycles. Liability for fulfilling Taxonomy requirements and for accuracy of data should be on the project owner, clarification on this matter is needed. Be more precise by means of technical screening criteria. • Freedom of choice regarding different CO2 accounting methods (ISO vs. GHG Protocol etc.) within the scope of an economic activity could considerably reduce the comparability for investors or make the due diligence process more complex. The goal of the taxonomy should be to ensure a uniformity of methods for individual economic activities and thus to guarantee comparability. Criteria that requires ex-post data gathering is unwelcome, as it results in increased administrative burden and is contrary to current market practice. • For most companies, the implementation of the Delegated Act will only be possible at great expense and by consulting a sustainability consultant. EAPB therefore advocates that, in view of the short implementation period, the delegated act should be limited to new business from January 1, 2022, for a sufficient transitional period. Existing business at this date should be excluded from this. On DNSH requirements • Complying with DNSH requirements should be simplified. Where relevant national or EU legislation exists, compliance should mean a ‘tick the box’ exercise where project owners confirm the legislation is respected. • The credit institution should not be required to verify such statement, unless it receives indications on non-compliance. While such an approach is outlined in the TEG Taxonomy Report, it does not match the detailed criteria laid out in individual DNSH requirements. • Regarding DNSH assessment, the principle of proportionality (in terms of company size, investment size, risk profile, etc.) should prevail, in accordance with established risk management practices.
Read full response

Response to Commission Delegated Regulation on taxonomy-alignment of undertakings reporting non-financial information

7 Sept 2020

It makes sense to differentiate between NFU and FU as regards non-financial disclosure obligations of large companies provided for in Art. 8, taking into account their special fea-tures, as business activities and accounting differ. For FU, appropriate implementing rules depend on the type of taxonomy-compliant business activities. Securities transactions differ from credit provision. For banks, taxonomy-reporting methods should reflect the special requirements with regard to granularity, average maturities and lack of customer data from private or SME clients. Taking into account the high transaction costs of ensuring compliance is particularly the case for DNSH- and MS-criteria. The current legal framework can be used as a basis for the assessment and the submission of required permits should be considered as sufficient evidence for the examination of those criteria that reflect the legal framework. FU need to know more details on the requirements for NFU to report taxonomy-compliant turnover and expenditures, Art. 8(2). The development of new indicators might work but due to high conversion costs, the financial industry should be involved in any conceptual considerations. The determination of further indicators in the NFRD or delegated legisla-tion would be difficult, as they usually do not apply to every undertaking. In comparison to a large number of indicators, a uniform binding set of rules would be preferable. The development of EU-wide harmonised indicators should take into account the interaction with European (bank) accounting and financial reporting standards. As method for FU, and in particular banks, as developed under Art. 8(4) and with regard to Art. 8(2), EAPB members suggest a taxonomy-compliant proportion to be reported in relation to the total loan portfolio, and initially in relation to new business. In addition, an undertaking-specific reporting should state as of which reporting year it is intended to use the taxonomy-compliant proportion to make a statement on the total loan portfolio, which would depend on the business model and the underlying maturities of the existing business. For a taxonomy-based review, an optional threshold of EUR 10 million per individual exposure should be applied. This would be in line with the threshold of EUR 10 million proposed by the Commission as part of the sustainability proofing of InvestEU. The high threshold may reduce the significance for investors of the taxonomy-compliant proportion; however, an optional threshold would take into account the granularity of the lending business and the inadequate database of non-reportable corporate and private customers. Smaller exposures can be included in the taxonomy-compliant proportion, provided that the necessary data for an evaluation of taxonomy conformity is available or can be provided technologically. The reporting of taxonomy-compliant activities should be proportionate. Requirements for banks to collect taxonomy-compliant data in the lending business have a direct impact on all borrowers in the real economy including on SME and government entities such as counties and municipalities. An appropriate cost-benefit ratio must be ensured and SME and local authorities must not be burdened with excessive bureaucratic costs due to additional reporting obligations. Essential information required for the reporting obligations under Art. 8 should be collected and made available centrally. FU cannot evaluate their portfolios without sufficient and valid data from the real economy. Meaningful reporting is only possible once this information is available. Therefore, FU should only be obliged to report when the real economy provides relevant information. Due to the complexity of valuation, sufficient implementation periods should be granted. Due to the close connection between transparency obligations under TR and NFRD, regulatory consistency with other disclosure requirements (NFRD, SFDR, Pillar III disclosure) should be ensured.
Read full response

Response to Strengthening the consideration of sustainability risks and factors for financial products (Regulation (EU) 2017/565)

6 Jul 2020

Misalignment between MiFID II Delegated Acts and SFDR when defining sustainability preferences The new provisions of Article 2(7)(b) MiFID II Delegated Regulation and Article 1(5) second bullet point MiFID II Delegated Directive extend the definition of “sustainability preferences” by referring to Article 8 SFDR and adding new criteria. Since this is consequently not congruent with Article 8 SFDR, it would essentially introduce an own product category and also invalidate the category of “Article 8 products”. The inclusion of requirements going beyond the requirements of the SFDR would lead to considerable contradictions between the MiFID II Delegated Acts and the SFDR. Instead, the requirements for sustainable products in MiFID II and the SFDR should be harmonised. Requirements for the MiFID II target market determination should not go beyond the requirements of the SFDR. The requirement to pursue sustainable investments also blurs the delimitation between Article 9 products (impact products) and Article 8 products. While the SFDR draft RTS only require the identification of "sustainable investments" in an Article 8 product, the draft MiFID II Delegated Acts obviously make the existence of a sustainable investment a requirement. Such a gradation is not foreseen by the SFDR. There is also the risk that a product may be sustainable in the sense of the SFDR but must be categorised as unsustainable in the target market according to MiFID II which should not be understandable for investors receiving investment advice. Scope of application Both OTC as well as ETD derivatives should be excluded from the scope. When providing investment advice on such products, it makes no sense to ask customers about sustainability preferences or to take such preferences into account. Such derivatives usually serve to hedge business risks, i.e. a function in which sustainability considerations do not play a role. Furthermore, as regards the technical setup of such derivatives, sustainability factors cannot be integrated. Risk management We are referring to the insertion into Article 23(1)(a) MiFID II Delegated Regulation. The regulatory requirements as regards sustainability risks in prudential and securities regulation should be in sync. According to Article 449a CRR II, large institutions that have issued securities that are admitted to trading on a regulated market will be required to disclose information on ESG risks. In CRD V, the EBA received an audit mandate for the integration of sustainability risks in the supervisory review process (SREP) and the institute's internal risk management. This should not be anticipated and therefore, we kindly ask to reconsider the intended insertion.
Read full response

Response to Strengthening the consideration of sustainability risks and factors for financial products (Directive (EU) 2017/593)

6 Jul 2020

Misalignment between MiFID II Delegated Acts and SFDR when defining sustainability preferences The new provisions of Article 2(7)(b) MiFID II Delegated Regulation and Article 1(5) second bullet point MiFID II Delegated Directive extend the definition of “sustainability preferences” by referring to Article 8 SFDR and adding new criteria. Since this is consequently not congruent with Article 8 SFDR, it would essentially introduce an own product category and also invalidate the category of “Article 8 products”. The inclusion of requirements going beyond the requirements of the SFDR would lead to considerable contradictions between the MiFID II Delegated Acts and the SFDR. Instead, the requirements for sustainable products in MiFID II and the SFDR should be harmonised. Requirements for the MiFID II target market determination should not go beyond the requirements of the SFDR. The requirement to pursue sustainable investments also blurs the delimitation between Article 9 products (impact products) and Article 8 products. While the SFDR draft RTS only require the identification of "sustainable investments" in an Article 8 product, the draft MiFID II Delegated Acts obviously make the existence of a sustainable investment a requirement. Such a gradation is not foreseen by the SFDR. There is also the risk that a product may be sustainable in the sense of the SFDR but must be categorised as unsustainable in the target market according to MiFID II which should not be understandable for investors receiving investment advice. Scope of application Both OTC as well as ETD derivatives should be excluded from the scope. When providing investment advice on such products, it makes no sense to ask customers about sustainability preferences or to take such preferences into account. Such derivatives usually serve to hedge business risks, i.e. a function in which sustainability considerations do not play a role. Furthermore, as regards the technical setup of such derivatives, sustainability factors cannot be integrated. Risk management We are referring to the insertion into Article 23(1)(a) MiFID II Delegated Regulation. The regulatory requirements as regards sustainability risks in prudential and securities regulation should be in sync. According to Article 449a CRR II, large institutions that have issued securities that are admitted to trading on a regulated market will be required to disclose information on ESG risks. In CRD V, the EBA received an audit mandate for the integration of sustainability risks in the supervisory review process (SREP) and the institute's internal risk management. This should not be anticipated and therefore, we kindly ask to reconsider the intended insertion.
Read full response

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Executive Vice-President) and

28 May 2020 · COVID-19 relief measures

Meeting with Florentine Hopmeier (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen) and Bundesverband Öffentlicher Banken Deutschlands eV

16 Oct 2018 · InvestEU Programme

Response to Multiannual Financial Framework-Draft legislative proposal on the InvestEU Programme and EFSI evaluation SWD

7 Aug 2018

Please find attached the position of the European Association of Public Banks on the InvestEU Proposal.
Read full response

Meeting with Florentine Hopmeier (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen) and Bpifrance and

26 Feb 2018 · The role of National Promotional Institutions in the next MFF

Meeting with Ioannis Latoudis (Cabinet of Commissioner Corina Crețu), Jan Mikolaj Dzieciolowski (Cabinet of Commissioner Corina Crețu) and

29 Jan 2018 · Position of the EU Finances

Meeting with Antoine Kasel (Cabinet of President Jean-Claude Juncker) and Association européenne du cautionnement and Network of European Financial Institutions for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises

9 Jan 2018 · Future of EU Financial services

Meeting with Markus Schulte (Cabinet of Vice-President Günther Oettinger)

4 Dec 2017 · MFF

Meeting with Marc Lemaitre (Director-General Regional and Urban Policy) and Association européenne du cautionnement

4 Dec 2017 · EAPB and AECM joint position on the future of EU Financial Instruments and Cohesion Funding as part of the new MFF

Response to Review of Regulation on cross-border payments

2 Aug 2017

The European Association of Public Banks (EAPB) gathers over 30 member organisations which include promotional banks such as national or regional public development banks and local funding agencies, public financial institutions, associations of public banks and banks with similar interests from 17 European Member States and countries, representing directly and indirectly the interests of over 90 financial institutions towards the EU and other European stakeholders. B. Objectives and Policy options On OPTIONS I and II The announced consultation will indicate whether a change of the regulation 924 is really required. And if that were the case, the harmonization of the scope of this Regulation would be useful. On OPTION III The cost of the PSP (located in a Euro-member state) for the execution of cross-border payments (within SEPA and non-euro currencies) can vary greatly depending on size, business model and customer base. A pricing system by law (maximum or minimum amount, caps, percentage) could also be inconsistent with the actual cost of the PSP. However, new technologies, like distributed ledger technology, may have the potential to cut down on costs. PSP already inform their customers about the fees for cross-border payments in their “List of Prices and Services”. In practice, both fixed amounts and percentages of the transfer amount are applied. Even today the customer has the possibility to compare these fees. Whether customers therefore should take advantage of additional services from banks or non-banks (i.g. FinTech) remain open and will depend on the developments in the market. According to McKinsey Global Payment Map, 2016, the cost of an international payment transaction lies between 25 and 35 USD (made up of the following elements: Payment operations 7%, Nostro-Vostro liquidity 35%, Claims and treasury operations 27%, Compliance 13%, FX costs 15%, Network management and Overhead). Therefore, we suggest the Commission to thoroughly assess how to promote the development of new technologies (e.g. distributed ledger technologies) in order to make non-euro cross-border payment transactions more competitive, but rather avoid intervening in the market driven setting of fees. To recall, just about 1% of all transactions are cross-border transactions. Thus, we are not in a situation of a significant distortion of the internal market, which would be the precondition for an EU-intervention as regards internal market policies. In our opinion, joining the EURO-area should be associated with incentives to those Member States that are not yet in. Turning down fees by law would remove an important such incentive.
Read full response

Meeting with Marc Lemaitre (Director-General Regional and Urban Policy)

27 Oct 2016 · Promotional banks in the European Union in the context of the MFF and the completion of the banking union.

Meeting with Olivier Guersent (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

15 Sept 2016 · DG FISMA’s approach to the specific business models of promotional banks in the leverage ratio framework in the light of the leverage ratio calibration report by the European Banking Authority (EBA) expected to be released in July 2016.

Meeting with Jonathan Hill (Commissioner)

23 Sept 2015 · Introductory Meeting

Meeting with Fabien Dell (Cabinet of Commissioner Pierre Moscovici), Ioana Diaconescu (Cabinet of Commissioner Pierre Moscovici)

29 May 2015 · Capital Markets Union