世界银行-气候与自然融资工具和机会的评估和选择分析：气候与自然筹资综述（英文原版）.pdf

Assessment and Options Analysis of Climate and Nature Financing Instruments and Opportunities SUMMARY NOTE ON FINANCING FOR CLIMATE AND NATURE Assessment and Options Analysis of Climate and Nature Financing Instruments and Opportunities Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorizedb Elisson Wright, James Seward, Fiona Stewart, Anderson Silva, Federico Azpiroz Costa, Rachel Mok1 development of financial products in the capital markets is that climate and nature-oriented measures, especially GPGs, do not always provide a financial return or generate positive cash flow, and climate and biodiversity considerations are not fully integrated into financial models’ investors use to allocate capital. In addition, despite significant advances in the development of climate and nature-related financial risk assessment frameworks and regulations, the awareness of these risks is still limited among firms and there currently are no established standards for market participants to apply in this market 2. Leveraging finance to meet national commitments and implement climate and nature plans There is significant momentum globally to integrate climate and nature commitments in national development plans. Countries have made significant progress in outlining climate mitigation and adaptation challenges and opportunities in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). NDCs, National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and other national development and sustainable development plans set the vision and objectives for priority climate and nature investment opportunities. In addition, countries are also developing national climate financing strategies and partnership engagement efforts to channel more resources towards their commitments. The updated plans often contain monitoring, review, and verification (MRV) frameworks for mitigation and adaptation to track climate and nature finance flows. It is now more common for sector-specific plans to detail the specific near and medium-term interventions and SDGs’ linkages. 1. Context Despite increasing recognition of the material impact of nature degradation, the global financing gap for climate and nature investments is significant and growing. The Paulson Institute estimated in 2020 that the biodiversity financing gap at an average of US$711 billion per year. Government leaders and private enterprises must accelerate and scale financial resource mobilization strategies to close this gap. However, at a national level, many developing countries have limited market access and lack the fiscal space to mobilize financing at the scale required to avoid the severe negative impacts of biodiversity loss, nature degradation, and reduced ecosystem services. This can precipitate countries into a vicious circle, whereby delayed investment at scale exposes them to the risk of ecosystems collapse. These systems also provide essential climate benefits in terms of carbon sinks and adaptation buffers against severe climate impacts (e.g., floods, droughts, storms). These natural assets underpin economic growth of developing countries but are currently undervalued and underinvested. Given the difficulty of estimating the timing, progression, and extent of these impacts and their global public good (GPG) nature, other more immediate or visible needs tend to be prioritized. However, when nature-related risks materialize, economic activity is likely to contract, further reducing fiscal space, increasing a country’s borrowing costs, and delaying investments. Even when the risks and benefits of investing in climate and nature are recognized, there is a lack of bankable and financially profitable/ commercially viable projects in many countries. Financial products that directly finance nature action are nascent and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and impact investors have limited options to channel capital to directly support projects that deliver nature conservation outcomes, especially in lower and middle income countries. An underlying reason for the limited Assessment and Options Analysis of Climate and Nature Financing Instruments and Opportunities 2 These national efforts provide the platform for launching initiatives to overcome climate and nature financing challenges. Progress needs to be made on two fronts: incentivizing improved management of climate and nature risks (greening finance); and monetizing cashflows from the provision of climate actions and ecosystem services (financing green). Greening finance. Governments are estimated to spend at least US$800 billion on fossil fuel, fishing, and agricultural subsidies. While important for immediate concerns such as food security, livelihoods and incomes, they are harmful to biodiversity and will compromise longer-term development outcomes.i “Greening finance” refers to efforts to direct financial flows away from projects and programs that detrimentally impact the climate agenda or biodiversity and ecosystem services, toward investments that mitigate such negative impacts or deliver positive climate and environmental co-benefits. Examples include creating fiscal incentives for incorporating nature-related risks into investment decisions, or repurposing subsidies harmful to biodiversity towards nature-friendly programs and projects. Financing green. While a substantial portion of the climate and nature financing gap could potentially be addressed through subsidy reformii or other “greening finance” measures, direct investments in climate action and nature- based solutions will also play a key role. “Financing green” involves investments in projects and programs that contribute to climate mitigation, climate adaptation as well as the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of green and blue biodiversity and ecosystem services. Examples include the use of concessional finance to de-risk and scale private investment and pilot financial solutions. For instance, fixed income products linked to forestry, non-timber forest products, wildlife, and fishing, can help channel financing from the capital markets. Another example is investing domestic public finance in nature-based solutions that generate nature co-benefits while meeting other development objectives. 3. Engaging development partners in technical assistance and financing Governments are increasingly seeking technical and financial support to enhance the sustainability and climate resilience of their investments and strengthen their technical capabilities to structure and deploy innovative financial solutions. The WBG, along with other MDBs, is committed to: (i) developing financial instruments to support climate mitigation and adaptation, as well as reverse nature loss and promote nature protection, restoration, and sustainable use; and (ii) expanding the use of innovative instruments, both financial and technical, to support climate and nature positive investments. Building on and complementing other related assessment frameworks, including the Country Climate and Development Report (CCDR), and Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) Climate and Environmental Risk and Opportunity (CERO) Framework, The WBG has already provided country-level options analysis technical assistance support to Kenya, Jordan, Malawi, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Maldives, and other countries to assess potential policy, debt, and non-debt instruments available to help countries scale climate and nature action. These experiences highlight how various instruments can be used to mobilize additional public and private financing. It also emphasizes the potential country-driven efforts and platforms offer to maximize financing instruments available to countries to increase nature and climate action that deliver GPGs and generate benefits to local communities. A summary of these instruments is highlighted in Annex 1.3 Sovereign green/ blue bonds: When capital market conditions are conducive to new sovereign bond issuances, governments can explore the potential for a use-of-proceeds green, blue, or sustainable bond issuance.1 These bonds can be issued in the international or domestic market, depending on market opportunities. Sovereign green bonds can bring in new investors, signal positive policy directions, generate funding for specific portfolios of eligible green projects, and potentially yield slightly better financial terms. To prepare for future bond issuances, countries can prepare green/blue bond frameworks that establish eligible expenditures. These use-of-proceeds bonds can potentially be issued at the national level or a sub- national entity. Impact monitoring can be linked to NDC priorities, including GHGs avoided or captured, or NBSAPs. MDBs and bilateral partners have supported numerous countries globally on the development of such frameworks. Public green/blue bonds can also serve as a precursor for issuances by the private sector. Sovereign sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) A relatively new form of sustainable bonds are the SLBs, which tie the financial performance of the bond to the achievement of pre-established, agreed- upon Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The lack of progress towards the KPI achievement can result in an increase in the instrument’s coupon, and similarly exceeding the KPIs can result in the lowering of the coupon. However, despite being issued to attain a specific KPI, they are general-purpose bonds, and the funds are not tied to a particular use of proceeds allocation. SLBs have been predominantly used in the corporate space, but they are increasingly being explored by sovereign entities (e.g., Uruguay and Chile) for their versatile nature and the capacity of the issuer to set suitable KPIs as well as to raise investors’ interest. This approach may be interesting for countries to 4. Public financing Specific instruments countries can consider leveraging to catalyze climate and nature finance by the public sector include: Grants: In the short term, many countries will continue to rely on grants from donors to fund nature and climate projects and programs. These grants can be used to accelerate private climate and nature investments. Countries can engage bilateral and multilateral donors in project financing as well as program for results and overall budget support. There are also an increasing number of philanthropic organizations providing sizable grants for nature and climate. These grants can potentially be structured into innovative financing, including capitalizing national climate and nature funds, providing equity for projects, and de-risking investments or blending it with other financing to reduce overall costs. Concessional financing: National Treasuries and Ministries of Finance can explore opportunities to maximize concessional and semi- concessional funding from various donors, particularly development banks and bilateral lenders. Concessional loans can be blended with semi- or non-concessional loans to bring the all-in costs down for specific budget or project investments in priority climate areas. Countries can also explore more innovative financial structures from these concessional and semi-concessional resources. For example, they can be used for liquidity backstops for climate-focused projects (e.g., to create a price floor under a power purchase agreement for renewable energy projects) to incentivize private sector investments. In addition, concessional financing can be used in the form of guarantees that may give countries access to the financial markets at better terms. The environmental and social safeguards that are applied would also give added comfort to investors on the quality of projects.Assessment and Options Analysis of Climate and Nature Financing Instruments and Opportunities 4 which offer lessons learned and insights for replication and scaling. Technical assistance, knowledge exchanges, and financing can help countries and subnational governments to develop and invest in projects and programs that support locally led urban and peri-urban climate actions, private sector incentives for low-carbon emissions and climate resilient investments, and operationalized market-based mechanisms for carbon trade. 5. Private financing, including the financial sector As many developing countries are experiencing fiscal constraints and challenging macroeconomic conditions, a large share of new financial resources will need to come from the private sector. For some sectors that have an established market and where customers already pay for products and services (i.e., energy, water, transportation, etc.) private sector can deploy business models that can generate a profit. For other sectors, including some biodiversity and climate adaptation investments, significant financial incentives or risk-based financing may be needed for private enterprises to deploy capital which may not generate sufficient returns in the near to medium term. Domestic financial institutions can play an important role in closing a country’s climate financing gap, but in many countries their roles have been limited to date. There are several barriers inside and outside of the financial system that limit the development of green finance markets at scale. For example, there is misalignment between financial sector policies and incentives for climate and environmental objectives. In addition, many countries lack a taxonomy that provides a framework to assess which investments can be classified as climate, green or blue for a certain jurisdiction by financial actors. There is also often a limited pipeline of bankable green projects, partly consider as achievement of KPIs can provide a strong financial incentive and benefit to the government. The World Bank has been working on innovative sustainability-linked financial structures and on improvements on KPI design and measurement to amplify access of this form of financing for a broader set of sovereigns and other public sector entities. Debt for Results Refinancing: Some countries may have refinancing possibilities of existing commercial public debts with some form of concessional financing support from donors or otherwise with a designated purpose to invest in specified areas, such as nature conservation. In a global context in which 60 percent of low-income developing countries are already at high risk of or in debt distress, such opportunities could be found for countries that need debt relief, for which debt restructuring could be warranted. Detailed analysis and discussion with development partners and rating agencies would be beneficial to assess potential negative impacts of other market-based debt financing options. Debt-for-nature/climate swaps (e.g., Ecuador, Belize, Barbados, etc.) have been used to provide partial debt savings conditional to a climate spending commitment of equal or smaller size than the debt service savings. Swaps can reduce government d