彭博推送 | 生物多样性需要更多金融选择
本文由 Jingyi 翻译，由百度翻译校对。
译文
难以真正衡量缺乏投资的情形，赚钱的挑战，以及保护自然环境的挑战。
现在是金融市场需要生物多样性了,依据 John 的断言，他是 15 年的信贷市场老兵，早些年活跃于市场，现在是康奈尔大学教授。
问题是，你如何触达喜爱利润的资本家，将钱犁到细分市场，关于昆虫的细分市场，或者关于和海洋生物的，或者是保护红树林的。
* mangroves 红树林
目前，资本战略家，将生物多样性战略，定在 10-15 年计划，在聚焦于削减全球温室气体之后，这位教授说到。
为了刺激市场，包括保护海洋生物的债券，或者互换这类金融衍生品 —— 人们认为需要更复杂的金融合同（金融产品）。这种情况，长期投资者就有更多贡献，政府会吸引更多私人投资。教授说到。
“这是个很大的交易场所，若您是一位银行家，还致力于设计金融产品的话。”他在采访中说到。
这类工具的版本，也是由 Credit Suisse 这家公司打头阵的，现在被全世界最大的几家银行研究着，包括高盛、花旗、瑞银，瑞银现在是 Credit Suisse 的母公司，已然着手于他们首单设计的、基于天气的互换。
彭博原文名称：Citi Eyes Debt Swaps Once Dominated by Credit Suisse
有些金融产品，其存在是用于弥补一些由公司造成的环境损失。这存在于很多形式，包括所谓的，缓释银行信贷风险。与此同时，摩根大通也在众多这类银行中，这些银行致力于找出最佳的货币化生物多样性的方法。
Tobin 教授，其博士领域关于热带生态学，作为律师进行训练，或者在银行工作，为了成为他所谓的“有效的生物学家”。在 Credit Suisse 工作的时候，这位教授建议具有结构风险的银行家们，去关注他们的声誉风险，这些声誉是和环境及之后的自然金融相关的。教授会帮助他们引入所谓的对话重点，重点关注金融合同，这些合同将资本导向受保护的陆地、水资源，以及其他自然资源。这位教授 2016 年离开银行，继续追求学术了。
关于自然金融（nature finance）早些年的实验，产生了并没有特别骇人的利润。教授称，你要保护自然的时候，就更难以赚钱，会使得人们（将重点）转到资本主义经济如何起作用。他说道，“你并不想转化它、改变它，或者摧毁它，去获取利润”。
2014年时候，Tobin 合著了一篇报告，报告说到，投资者试图转移全球新投资或者再投资资本的 1%，来桥接关于环境保护基金的缺口。
效果就是积累了为自然而融资的资本，未来可能干更多事情。创造“结构化产品”，例如，聚合复杂的金融合同，这些合同通常都会利用税收优惠，或者货币化未来现金流，或者部署保证产品来削减融资成本。教授说，金融衍生品和保险产品，也应该被纳入，以及混合公共资本和私人资本的金融产品。
说到纯粹影响，自然金融一个比较纯粹的案例，就是生态旅游 —— 但难以增长。其他投资，包括垂钓权限，购买公开上市股份，都在改变他们的商业实践，使其对于环境影响更小，他说道。
* ecotourism 生态旅游
这位教授评论，先于联合国生物多样性峰会，众所周知 COP16，10月份在哥伦比亚召开，参与者会讨论，关于2022年确立目标完成情况。
作为会议协议一部分，200个国家同意每年动用 2000 亿美元，保护生物多样性，这个标准在没有大量私人投资情况下，是无法达到的。该项计划包括这样的目标，保护这个星球 30% 的土地、河流、海洋，直至 2030 年。
彭博原文：How to Fund Biodiversity and Fight ‘Biopiracy’
随着目标推进，某种程度变得更加模糊（nebulous），教授说到。他们采取主动去衡量生物灭绝风险，就是我们所知的 STAR 衡量标准，这些都是早期做事动机，但它们仍然是需要被广为接受的衡量标准。
* nebulous 模糊，星云的
教授说到，他是很乐观的，因为有一种环境基因，也称 eDNA，这些基因会量化多样性的生物，以及识别特殊的种群。
就像所有新市场，生物多样性也是经历越发多的挑战，如果不严格的话，现实主义、实践主义很难起飞 。他说道，政府的政策及规定，相应改革会毫无疑问地倾向于市场。
他说道：“从内在来说是很难的，我是首个指出这点的。但并非不可能。”
Email Original
Biodiversity needs more financing options
Difficult to define and measure. A lack of investment options. A challenge to make money and protect the natural world.
That’s the state of the financial market for biodiversity, according to John Tobin-de la Puente, a 15-year Credit Suisse veteran and early player in the market who’s now a professor at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.
The question is how do you get profit-loving capitalists to plow money into a niche market that focuses on the well-being of insects, the health of marine species and the preservation of mangroves?
Currently, financial strategies targeting biodiversity are about 10 to 15 years behind those focused on cutting greenhouse-gas emissions, Tobin-de la Puente said.
To boost the market—which includes bonds tied to protecting oceans and debt-for-nature swaps—there needs to be more complex financial contracts, a greater commitment from long-term investors and governments to lure more private money to the sector, Tobin-de la Puente said.
“It’s a great situation to be in if you’re a banker developing products,” he said in an interview.
Versions of such instruments that were pioneered by Credit Suisse are now being explored by many of the world’s biggest banks, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Citigroup Inc. UBS Group AG, which now owns Credit Suisse, is already working on its first-ever debt-for-climate swap.
Read More: Citi Eyes Debt Swaps Once Dominated by Credit Suisse
Then there are credits designed to offset the damage a company might do to its natural environment. These exist in many forms, including so-called mitigation banking credits. Meanwhile, JPMorgan Chase & Co. is among banks creating new roles to figure out how best to monetize biodiversity.
Tobin-de la Puente, who has a doctorate in tropical ecology, trained as a corporate lawyer and worked in banking to become what he calls an “effective biologist.” At Credit Suisse, he advised bankers in structured finance and focused on reputational risks linked to the environment and later nature finance. He helped introduce so-called conservation notes, which are contracts that direct money to conserve land, water and other nature projects. He left the bank in 2016 for academia.
A lot of early experiments in nature finance have so far produced “underwhelming” profits, Tobin-de la Puente said. It’s harder to make money from protecting nature, he explained, because it often runs counter to how a capitalist economy works. “You want to not transform it, not change it, not destroy it, and then try to generate revenue,’’ he said.
Back in 2014, Tobin-de la Puente co-wrote a report that said investors need to direct just 1% of new and reinvested capital globally to bridge the shortfall in conservation funds.
The effort to shore up nature finance would involve doing more “creative structuring,” such as putting together complex contracts that would make use of tax benefits, monetize future cash flows and deploy guarantees to help reduce financing costs, he said. Financial derivatives and insurance should also be included, as well as blended finance, which combines public and private capital, he said.
When it comes to sheer impact, the “purest” example of nature finance is ecotourism—but it’s hard to grow, he said. Other investments include buying fishing rights and shares of publicly traded companies that are changing their business practices to be less harmful to nature, Tobin-de la Puente said.
His comments come ahead of the next United Nations-chaired biodiversity summit, known as COP16, due to take place in Colombia in October, where participants will discuss progress made on targets they agreed to in 2022.
As part of that agreement, almost 200 nations announced plans to mobilize about $200 billion annually toward protecting biodiversity, a figure that can’t be reached without considerable private investment. The deal included a goal of protecting 30% of the planet’s lands, rivers and oceans by 2030.
Read More: How to Fund Biodiversity and Fight ‘Biopiracy’
As far as targets go, they’re “somewhat nebulous,” Tobin-de la Puente said. An initiative to measure risks of species going extinct—known as the STAR metric—is a good early attempt, but there needs to be more widely-accepted gauges, he said.
Tobin-de la Puente said he’s optimistic about an effort known as environmental DNA, or eDNA, which seeks to quantify biodiversity and identify species.
Like all new markets, biodiversity is experiencing growing pains. But without more rigor, realism and pragmatism, it’s unlikely to take off, Tobin-de la Puente said. Government policies and regulatory reforms will undoubtedly help the market, he said.
“It’s inherently difficult,” he said of the market. “I’m the first one to point that out all the time. But it’s not impossible.”
原文链接
长按/扫码，有您的支持，我们会更加努力！
|
8138
沪公安联网 31011502019103