生物多样性 ›› 2024, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (11): 24363.  DOI: 10.17520/biods.2024363  cstr: 32101.14.biods.2024363

• 保护与治理对策 • 上一篇    下一篇

“犀牛债券”对我国绿色债券和昆明生物多样性基金的启示

赵阳1, 王也1,*(), 丁黎明2   

  1. 1.生态环境部对外合作与交流中心, 北京 100035
    2.四川省生态环境对外合作交流中心, 成都 610031
  • 收稿日期:2024-08-13 接受日期:2024-11-12 出版日期:2024-11-20 发布日期:2024-11-30
  • 通讯作者: E-mail: wang.ye@fecomee.org.cn
  • 基金资助:
    全球环境基金(GEF)长江经济带生物多样性主流化项目(10753/P04148)

Implications of the rhino bond for China green bond market and Kunming Biodiversity Fund

Yang Zhao1, Ye Wang1,*(), Liming Ding2   

  1. 1. Foreign Environmental Cooperation Center, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, Beijing 100035, China
    2. Foreign Environmental Cooperation Center, Department of Ecology and Environment of Sichuan Province, Chengdu 610031, China
  • Received:2024-08-13 Accepted:2024-11-12 Online:2024-11-20 Published:2024-11-30
  • Contact: E-mail: wang.ye@fecomee.org.cn
  • Supported by:
    Global Environment Facility (GEF) Mainstreaming Biodiversity in the Yangtze River Economic Zone Program(10753/P04148)

摘要:

《昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架》提出, 为缩小7,000亿美元的生物多样性资金缺口, 除了需要逐步降低有害补贴(每年5,000亿美元), 还须从“所有来源”每年筹资2,000亿美元, 包括“新的和额外资源”, 如“利用私人资金, 促进混合融资, 激励私营部门投资”和“鼓励绿色债券、影响基金等金融创新” (行动目标19 C/D)。本文从债券背景、结构设计、风险分担和资金模式4方面, 剖析犀牛债券为何能同时吸引风险和收益形态差异化的3类投资者: 全球环境基金(Global Environment Facility, GEF)赠款、财务回报优先投资人、影响力优先投资人, 形成迭加式资本结构的成功原因, 并总结其优势特点与不足, 以期对昆明生物多样性基金探索业务创新、促进混合融资带来启迪, 并据此提出我国规范与扩大生物多样性主题绿色债券的建议。

关键词: 犀牛债券, 生物多样性主题绿色债券, 昆明生物多样性基金, 生物多样性混合融资, 全球环境基金(GEF)

Abstract

Background & Aims: Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) proposes the need to close the 700 billion USD biodiversity financing gap and phase down harmful subsidies of 500 billion USD per year. However, achieving this goal requires mobilizing 200 billion USD yearly from new and additional sources including leveraging private finance, promoting blended finance, incentivizing private investment, and encouraging financial innovation such as green bonds or impact funds. We address an innovative combination of green bond and impact fund, rhino bond, to which Global Environment Facility (GEF) provides “conditional grants” which incentivize investors up to 13.76 million USD and link to actual performance of rhino conservation in two protected areas in South Africa.

Methods: We use fact sheets of green bond markets in China and worldwide to compare classifications of biodiversity- themed green bond projects in the 2021 International Capital Markets Association’s Green Bond Principles and China’s Green Bond Supported Project Catalogue. Three models of green bond issuance are compared: (1) Pure market issuance; (2) Market issuance supported by public finance; (3) Market issuance supported by grants (rhino bond). We analyze the benefits and drawbacks for each model, then compare and place into application scenarios.

Progress & Conclusion: We find rhino bonds issued by South Africa in 2022 create an innovative combination of “grant + market” from the perspectives of bond background, structural design, risk sharing and funding mode. This combination is characterized by five distinguishing features: (1) attracting impact funds; (2) optimizing risk sharing; (3) increasing repayment sources; (4) assessing performance independently; and (5) strengthening information disclosure. Altogether these traits make the rhino bond successful in attracting three types of investors with differentiated risk and return patterns: (1) GEF grants; (2) Financial return preferred investors; (3) Social impact preferred investors, with a stacked capital structure ideally formed.

Recommendation: We suggest initiating proposals for the Kunming Biodiversity Fund to innovate blended financing through experience drawn from rhino bonds, and for biodiversity-themed green bonds in China to be promoted. Further, the policy of Green Bond Supported Project Catalogue should be reformed as follows. First, explicitly recognize biodiversity as a separate project category and publish criteria for the identification of biodiversity-themed green bonds and the issuance process. Second, provide a more specific list of biodiversity-friendly projects in comparison to traditional green bond projects. Third, classify biodiversity conservation and sustainable use in different categories and encourage the packaging of non-profitable conservation projects for those which provide incentives and have profitable biodiversity use. Fourth, under the “conservation” category, refine the provisions for Wildlife Conservation Bonds (WCBs) to provide “Biodiversity Credit” for companies that provide grants. Lastly, introduce third-party organizations to assess the impact of projects on biodiversity and enhance information disclosure as a necessary means to boost market confidence.

Key words: rhino bond, biodiversity-themed green bonds, Kunming Biodiversity Fund, biodiversity blended financing, Global Environmental Facility (GEF)