You would expect financial institutions to understand investing in assets that deliver outsize returns.
When it comes to biodiversity and the broader category of natural capital, most investors still behave as if these assets were unlimited, even as they are being depleted or destroyed. They continue to assume that the services these assets provide are free, even as the COVID-19 pandemic shows the almost limitless cost of ignoring human encroachment on the natural world.
Human-induced decline in the natural environment is a fact, and it is happening fast.
This year’s Living Planet report published by the WWF showed an average decrease of 68 percent in wildlife population sizes between 1970 and 2016.
Inevitably, where populations crash, extinction follows.
According to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, about 1 million species — or about one-quarter of all assessed animal and plant groups — face the threat of extinction within decades unless action is taken to mitigate the drivers of biodiversity loss.
Aware of such wildlife population declines and projections of extinction, politicians often call for action, but stop short of implementing the necessary measures.
Yet, as is clear from the response to climate change, if citizens engage and apply pressure on their leaders, inaction becomes too politically costly.
European policymakers decided to embrace bold action on climate change through measures ranging from binding renewable-energy targets to carbon pricing, because they knew that it was their responsibility to avoid the massive disruption that awaited a world that had heated up by several degrees Celsius.
Fortunately, the future of biodiversity might soon benefit from similar decisions — and the opportunities they imply.
Politics and science are rapidly converging on loss of biodiversity and natural capital broadly. The existence and the causes of the problem are recognized in politics.
However, given dramatically weakened budgets, governments might not be able to pay for the next stage, in which the issue is actually addressed.
Regulators are prodding financial institutions toward the reporting and disclosure standards that would make green investments more transparent and attract much-needed private capital.
Markets see and are responding to this change: Total assets under management in funds emphasizing environmental, social and governance factors rose to US$1.1 trillion in the second quarter of this year. Civil society is also making its voice heard and calling for faster change.
Last month, Portfolio Earth released its Bankrolling Extinction report, in which it calculated the exposure of 50 of the world’s biggest banks to particular “biodiversity impact” sectors, including agriculture, forestry, mining, fisheries, infrastructure and transport.
The exposure of the top three banks — the Bank of America, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase & Co — alone exceeded US$550 billion last year, and loans and underwriting in these sectors by all 50 surpassed US$2.6 trillion.
Very few of the banks assessed had introduced reporting systems to measure the impact of their loans and underwriting on biodiversity, a first step toward reducing adverse effects.
Moreover, aside from a few leading European banks, very few blocked the financing of companies causing the most harm.
The Bankrolling Extinction report highlights the financial system’s weaknesses and suggests banks’ balance sheets are at risk.
That risk reflects biodiversity damage, which threatens to reduce output — for example, food output, owing to shrinking fisheries — and the prospect of new regulations, which could devalue commercial investments such as forestry and mining concessions.
As the report shows, financial institutions’ reputations are also at risk.
At Finance for Biodiversity, we believe that radical systemic change is needed to reform rules, rights and norms. Last month, we made several recommendations that we hope can guide leaders in the field.
Financial institutions might implement many of these changes themselves, which could create an early-mover advantage, or do so once regulators make them mandatory.
These include measuring and disclosing their activities’ effects on biodiversity and stress-testing the expected risks.
By making such risk data available, lenders can help companies, citizens, regulators and governments join the dots between biodiversity loss and the real economy, thereby identifying risks and opportunities, and heading off a biodiversity-related financial crisis.
Policymakers should step up in three ways.
First, they should assess the effects of their own actions on biodiversity, for example, through corporate bond purchases via quantitative easing by central banks.
Second, financial regulators should sharpen their prudential role in scrutinizing domestically domiciled institutions’ biodiversity exposure and impacts.
Third, policymakers should use the conditions and rules for licensing financial firms to change industry norms.
Governments should reform legal systems to remove financial institutions’ shield, and extend companies’ liability for biodiversity loss to their bankers and other creditors.
Holding financial institutions legally responsible for damage caused by the use of their capital is hardly unprecedented. Authorities investigating crime and human rights offenses routinely impose financial sanctions when local or international laws are unfit for purpose.
Biodiversity can be made more important in financial decisions only by adopting systemic changes that recognize the interconnectedness of our society, economy and planet. Only such changes can reduce pressure on biodiversity and reveal the financial opportunities to be gained from preserving our natural resources.
Robin Smale, director and cofounder of Vivid Economics, is a leadership group member of the Finance for Biodiversity Initiative.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Taiwan’s business-friendly environment and science parks designed to foster technology industries are the key elements of the nation’s winning chip formula, inspiring the US and other countries to try to replicate it. Representatives from US business groups — such as the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, and the Arizona-Taiwan Trade and Investment Office — in July visited the Hsinchu Science Park (新竹科學園區), home to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) headquarters and its first fab. They showed great interest in creating similar science parks, with aims to build an extensive semiconductor chain suitable for the US, with chip designing, packaging and manufacturing. The
RSS