Climate change is already wreaking havoc throughout the developing world. Vietnam, for example, has reported that natural disasters, some of them exacerbated by climate change, have caused annual losses equivalent to 2 percent of its GDP. In agriculture-dependent countries like Ethiopia, longer droughts and more frequent flooding are threatening livelihoods and food supplies.
As the international community gears up for the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris in December, identifying and streamlining sources of financing for the fight against climate change must be a top priority. Development banks like the French Development Agency (AFD) are well placed to contribute.
For starters, development banks can finance projects that benefit both development and the environment. Global warming is now a vital factor to consider when planning any development project. For example, the effects of climate change can pose critical risks to infrastructure — agricultural irrigation, public transportation or nearly anything else. Meanwhile, rising incomes — a goal of any development effort — nearly always means increased consumption of natural resources and energy, resulting in more emissions and further warming.
Such interlocking relationships between global warming and development explain why the French government requires that at least 50 percent of the funding provided by the AFD be directed toward development projects that also have a positive impact on the environment. Examples include wind farms in Ethiopia, better forest management in Madagascar, nationwide climate plans in Indonesia and Vietnam, and clean urban transport in Colombia.
Development banks can also play an important role in designing financial tools that allow private investors to contribute to the fight against climate change.
However, today’s funding challenge is no longer just about quantity. Though potential sources for climate-friendly development financing now include pension funds, insurance companies, foundations and sovereign wealth funds, what is often missing are mechanisms to ensure that investments are channeled into well-targeted and effective projects.
One solution is “green” (or “climate”) bonds. These instruments have all the characteristics of conventional bonds, but they are backed by investments that contribute to sustainable development or the fight against climate change.
Until recently, only a few organizations or governments, including the World Bank, the US state of Massachusetts and the French region of Ile de France, issued green bonds, and generally the amounts involved were modest. However, in the past two years, other players have entered the market, and volumes have skyrocketed. Last year, emissions of green bonds exceeded the total in all previous years combined.
Indeed, demand is outstripping supply. The latest bond offers were all oversubscribed — and the trend is likely to continue. The insurance industry has committed to double its green investments, to US$84 billion, by the end of the year. And in September last year, three major pension funds from North America and Europe announced plans to increase their holdings in low-carbon investments by more than US$31 billion by 2020.
As the market for these bonds expands, they must be better labeled and certified. Today, harmonized standards do not exist. The quality of the assets backing the bonds depends solely on issuers’ goodwill and technical skills. Specific guidelines and rating methods need to be developed. In this context, the recent decision by a coalition of institutional investors to measure and disclose the carbon footprint of at least US$500 billion in investments is a step forward.
In September last year, the AFD issued 1 billion euros (US$1.2 billion) in climate bonds, with one goal being to contribute to the development of concrete quality standards. With the help of a major agency that rates corporate social responsibility, we were able to provide investors with solid information — and an accountability process — about the portfolio’s direct impact on greenhouse-gas emissions.
Indeed, the projects financed by these bonds were required to meet stringent criteria, including a prior analysis of their carbon footprint, proof of a clear and significant impact on climate change and a design that is aligned with the broader strategies being pursued by local actors and countries.
Climate bonds have the potential to empower countries and institutions as they move toward meeting enforceable commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. However, if they are to be effective, they will require clear guidelines and a reliable framework for assessment. As leaders from countries and institutions from around the world prepare to meet in December, getting the financing right should be a top priority.
Anne Paugam is chief executive of French Development Agency. France will host COP21 in December in Paris
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers