 ==>> 点击下载文档 |
Contents
Executive Summary ........... 3
Introduction . 6
1. Environmental Risk Analysis (ERA) ... 7
1.1. Why ERA ...... 7
1.2. Increasing Momentum but not yet Widespread ........... 7
1.3. Categorizing Environmental Risk Analysis Tools ......... 8
1.4. Applying the Tools: Case Study Analysis ........ 9
1.5. Using the Results of Environmental Risk Analysis .... 10
1.6. Challenges to the Effective use of ERA Tools ........... 10
1.7. Options for Encouraging Voluntary Adoption of ERA . 11
2. Publicly Available Environmental Data (PAED) ........12
2.1. Why Environmental Data..... 12
2.2. Why PAED .. 12
2.3. Examples of PAED ... 13
2.4. Challenges to Effective Use of PAED14
2.5. Options for Improving the Accessibility and Usefulness of PAED on a Voluntary Basis ......... 15
3. Progress Report ..........17
3.1. Provide Strategic Policy Signals and Frameworks .... 17
3.2. Promote Voluntary Principles for Green Finance ....... 19
3.3. Expand Learning Networks for Capacity Building ...... 19
3.4. Support the Development of Local Green Bond Markets ....... 20
3.5. Promote International Collaboration to Facilitate Cross-border Investment in Green Bonds .. 21
3.6. Encourage and Facilitate Knowledge Sharing on Environmental and Financial Risk . 21
3.7. Improve the Measurement of Green Finance Activities and their Impacts ..... 22
References .24
Annex 1: List of Background Papers .......27
Annex 2: Acknowledgements and Contacts .......27
G20 Green Finance Synthesis Report – 2017Executive Summary
The objective of the G20 Green Finance Study Group (GFSG) is to “identify institutional and
market barriers to green finance, and based on country experiences, develop options on how
to enhance the ability of the financial system to mobilize private capital for green
investment”. With the objective of supporting the G20 goal of strong, sustainable and balanced
growth, the G20 Heads of State, at the 2016 Hangzhou Summit, recognized the need to “scale up
green finance” and identified seven broad options, for voluntary implementation by countries in light
of national circumstances, in addressing this goal.
During 2017, the GFSG has focused on two themes: first, the application of environmental risk
analysis (ERA) in the financial industry; and second, the use of publicly available environmental
data (PAED) for financial risk analysis and informing decision-making. In addition, the GFSG has
taken stock of developments across G20 members and internationally against the seven options set
out in the 2016 G20 Green Finance Synthesis Report.
ERA is an important cross-cutting theme that supports the GFSG’s objective. The
identification, pricing and management of material risks are key features of an efficient and resilient
financial system. When it comes to environmental risks, private sector feedback received by the
GFSG suggests many financial institutions face challenges in identifying, quantifying and applying
analytical tools to assess the financial impact of these risks. Considerable differences can exist in
terms of the capacity of financial institutions to apply ERA, notably between different countries and
between different types of financial institutions such as banks, insurance companies and other
institutional investors; thus, the application of ERA can be limited in terms of the implications for
financial institutions themselves, their clients and the financial system as a whole. A number of case
studies suggest if financial firms do not effectively take material environmental factors into account,
they may misappreciate short- and long-term environment-related financial risks.
Financial institutions could combine two elements to assess environmental risks: 1)
understanding and identifying the environmental sources of financial risks; and 2) translating these
factors into quantitative and qualitative information to understand the potential magnitude of
financial risk to investments and to aid investment decisions. The appropriateness of risk analysis
tools and associated metrics may depend upon, among others: first, risk types (e.g., market, credit,
business); second, the risk factors financial institutions are exposed to (e.g. physical or transition
risks); third, the size of direct and indirect exposure to the specific environmental risks; and fourth,
key country/sector-specific factors.
Based on a review of current practice, it is clear there is considerable scope for more
dialogue, awareness and knowledge sharing on ERA. A stock take of practice by both financial
institutions and financial authorities identified a diverse portfolio of ERA tools, methodologies and
case studies that can help financial decision-makers to understand and integrate environmental risk
into risk management and asset allocation decision-making. Case studies suggest that the
application of these tools can result in improved credit and investment policies; reduced portfolio
and firm-level risk; product innovation; reallocation of capital and enhanced stakeholder
engagement.
The effective use of ERA faces a range of challenges. Research by GFSG knowledge partners
and consultation with the private sector suggest barriers to wider adoption of ERA practices can
include: a lack of clear and consistent policy signals; limited methodologies and relevant data;
G20 Green Finance Synthesis Report – 2017capacity limitations within financial institutions; time horizons; terms of investment; and performance
incentives.
Options for encouraging voluntary adoption of ERA include: ensure the consistency of policy
signals; raise awareness of the importance of ERA for financial institutions that have significant
environmental exposures; encourage better quality and more effective use of environmental data;
encourage public institutions to assess environmental risks and their financial implications in
different country settings; review and, if appropriate, clarify financial institutions responsibilities to
consider environmental factors; and enhance capacity building on financial sector ERA.
PAED are important sources of information for ERA and broader financial analysis. PAED, as
used in this report, refers to environmental data that are provided and reported by non-corporate
entities and can be useful for financial analysis. The lack of, and difficult access to, relevant
environmental data limits the ability of financial firms and other market participants to analyze and
manage environmental risk exposures. It also hinders the reallocation of resources to financing
green investment opportunities.
ERA can be supported by not only environmental data disclosed by corporates for assessing their
“current exposures” but also economy-wide environmental information, implications (e.g.,
externalities) of environmental changes, possible future changes in climate and other environmental
risk factors, as well as potential policy and market responses to environmental changes. Such
information, some of which is forward-looking in nature, comes largely from public sources including
governments, international organizations (IOs), science institutes or non-governmental
organizations (NGOs). Such information can help financial and non-financial firms to assess the
probabilities and impacts of both physical and transition risks as well as green investment
opportunities. At the same time, it is important to note that forward-looking analysis always involves
uncertainties around the precision of projections and country relevance, and therefore the selection
of assumptions and scenarios used for generating projections should stay with data users.
Current PAED reviewed by GFSG knowledge partners can be broadly grouped into: (i)
historical physical trends, (ii) forecasts and forward-looking scenarios, and (iii) costs of
pollution and benefits of remediation. The nature of the data varies, with some reflecting current
status, whereas others providing more forward-looking information. Some PAED examples include:
physical asset (facility) level environmental data; water stress and other ecosystem pressures;
natural disaster probabilities; scenarios of climate change, energy demand shift, changes in
technology, production and consumption patterns; data on solar and wind resources; databases on
green technologies; costs of air, water and land pollutions; and the benefits of environmental
remediation.
Obstacles constraining the effective usage of PAED in financial analysis as identified by
GFSG knowledge partners include: the nascent state of ERA methodology usage and green
investment assessment; the lack of comparable future scenarios and uncertainties of future policy
responses to environmental and climate challenges; PAED formatting that is unfriendly to financial
sector users; high search costs (monetary and non-monetary); and uncertainty over the business
models for PAED provision. The GFSG agreed that it would be useful to prepare a Catalogue that
would describe and contain links to existing PAED databases.
Options for improving, on a voluntary basis, the availability, accessibility and relevance of
PAED include: G20 members can work with other partners to share publicly available
。。。以上简介无排版格式，详细内容请下载查看
