COP26 – Role of Finance in Tackling the Climate Crisis
COP26 – Role of Finance in Tackling the Climate Crisis
This year’s UN Climate Change Conference in Madrid has wrapped up, and all eyes will now focus on Scotland as next year’s host of what is arguably the world’s most important international conference. Also known (somewhat confusingly) as COP 26, Glasgow will be centre stage between 9 and 20 November 2020 as it welcomes an estimated 30,000 delegates from around the world.
Next year’s climate change conference will be particularly important since it will mark five years since the historic Paris Climate Agreement, which committed countries to strengthening actions to combat climate change and limit the global temperature rise this century to below 2 degrees Celsius. We know however that the world is not on-track to cut carbon emissions which must be halved on today’s levels to restrain temperature increases to just 1.5 degrees Celsius, the upper limit advised by climate scientists. Progress will need to be ratcheted up by next year.
Over 500,000 people marched through the centre of Madrid this month, joined by young climate activist Greta Thunberg, to demand quicker action to tackle climate change, yet many have been left frustrated by the lack of urgency that has characterised this year’s climate conference. Madrid has been dominated by disagreements over carbon emissions trading (where more polluting countries can purchase the right to pollute from countries that have not yet reached their emission limits – seen by many as deeply unfair and a false solution to the climate crisis) and an international push to have rich countries pay poorer countries for “loss and damage” associated with irreversible climate change impacts.
Next year, the spotlight is expected to shine on the thorny issue of how to pay for climate damage, and how to mobilise the trillions needed for international climate financing programmes.
Financing needs to tackle the climate crisis are estimated in the trillions worldwide, and are especially high in the poorest countries and those particularly vulnerable to climate change, such as small island states. The UN estimates a US$ 3 trillion annual shortfall in investments needed to meet internationally-agreed climate and sustainable development goals.
A decade ago, industrialised countries pledged to jointly mobilise US$ 100 billion annually in climate finance by 2020 to address their needs. Yet only US$ 71 billion was raised in 2017, mostly from public sector aid budgets (and with most provided as loans). There is a consensus that more resources need to be mobilised from private markets for climate-friendly investments and to support a “just transition” to net-zero.
This is where our work to promote Scotland as a leading international centre for ethical and responsible finance comes in. The climate emergency has underscored the importance – indeed urgency – of building a financial system that has better outcomes for people and planet at its heart. Our work at the Global Ethical Finance Initiative (GEFI) headquartered in Edinburgh, builds on Scotland’s proud heritage in ethical finance and financial services, to convene the world’s foremost political, business and civic leaders to define and shape the transition to a sustainable financial system.
Within the financial services sector, interest has increased significantly over recent years in the ways it can – and should – look beyond short-term profit and shareholder value towards how it can drive positive social, economic and environmental impact. Increasingly, investors and consumers want to be more thoughtful about the impact their money can make on the world. This has led to a plethora of new initiatives and financial products, such as ethical investment funds, sustainability bonds (where the proceeds are exclusively applied to finance green or social projects), and the development of UN-led Principles for Responsible Investment. Globally, the impact investment market is increasingly popular and is now estimated at over US$502 billion (impact investments are those that seek a positive social and environmental impact in addition to a financial return).
At this year’s climate conference, the European Union unveiled its “Green New Deal” intended to transform Europe’s economy and eliminate its contributions to climate change by 2050. Scotland is even more ambitious: this year it adopted landmark legislation to become a net zero society by 2045, and to reduce emissions by 75% by 2030. Delivering a green transformation that will support employment creation, build skills, boost wages and trigger technological advances will require building a new generation of infrastructure and industries. In addition to well-planned public expenditure that can crowd-in private investment, banks will need to ensure they are able to provide the kinds of financing needed to support this transformation. Aligning their business strategies with society’s goals will in turn will help them leverage new business opportunities and remain competitive with the emergence of the sustainable development economy.
Our view is that finance can be a positive force for change. As we enter a “decade of action” on climate and sustainable development, COP26 in Glasgow in 2020 provides an opportunity for Scotland to showcase the important work it is doing to accelerate the transformation towards a more socially responsible and inclusive financial system – one that serves both people and planet.
By Gail Hurley: Senior Consultant, Global Ethical Finance Initiative (GEFI)
Gail was formerly a Senior Advisor to the UN
Follow on Twitter: @gailmlhurley
Follow GEFI on Twitter: @Finance4Change
Round Table Explores Innovations in Social and Blended Finance
The 19th Round Table discussion continued the series of topics on the social impact sector and focused on recent developments in social impact investment and philanthropy. The underlying theme of the discussion was to understand how these can form part of blended finance supporting partnerships between investors and the public and third sectors addressing specific social needs.
Jonathan Flory (Director, Social Finance) started off by discussing the concept of social investment in the wider context of impact investing. Founded in 2007, Social Finance is a non-profit organisation working in the social impact arena, famously known for developing the first Social Impact Bond (SIB) in the UK. While the market for social investment is fluid, it forms part of a growing market of nearly USD 228 billion in impact assets and a larger movement in which governments, corporations, fund managers, investors and individuals are increasingly focusing their attention on achieving positive social outcomes by means of their investments. While social investment means different things to different people, unlike other investment approaches it focuses on addressing pressing social issues. As a UK term, it describes investments that intentionally target specific social objectives along with a financial return and measure the achievement of both.
While the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 clearly signalled the importance of social value in public procurement, a range of motivations continue to exist on the investor side. While international investment giants such as UBS support the “doing well by doing good” theory of impact investing, suggesting that financial returns do not have to be traded off against social objectives, they also recognise the need for softer, philanthropic capital. Given the spectrum of investors’ expectations, it is essential to align the interests of organisations with expectations of investors, but in many cases for a partnership to work there is a need for some element of soft capital in the overall funding structure.
Partnerships can play an important role in scaling up impact. A good example of this is the Positive Families Partnership, a London-based programme seeking to divert adolescents from entering the care system. The partnership brings together central government, local authorities, funders, and programme delivery partners. It applies the blended finance model and mixes grant and investment funding. Following a successful pilot by Essex County Council, the partnership model has been adopted by 5 other boroughs in London and now looks likely to be expanded to include all London boroughs.
The key challenge is putting the partnership together. For partnerships and blended finance to work, there must be a place where funders feel safe to partner. Potential solutions include building a new brand for the partnership, forming a joint venture or an innovative funding structure. The latter is particularly effective in bringing together investors with different financial needs and social objectives as the funding is often structured in tiers. An example is the Arts Impact Fund blending public, private and charitable funding in which the junior tier with first loss is provided by the Arts Council.
Social Finance is optimistic about future developments in social investment. It sees a lot of potential in improving financial inclusion by expanding affordable credit and social housing. In terms of partnership structures, more cross-developmental cooperation is on the way with funds pooled from separate budgets. There is a clear trend in themed funding, in which partners group around themes, which gives the partnership a clear focus.
Jonathan’s presentation was followed by a talk by Kenneth Ferguson, the Director of the Robertson Trust, and Christine Walker, their Head of Social Impact, who presented their innovative model of a public-third sector partnership. The Robertson Trust is a well-established organisation in Scotland with a 6o-year history of improving social outcomes for individuals and communities. It operates by means of providing grants to other charitable bodies and over the course of its history has awarded £250m to 467 organisations.
Back in 2012, the Robertson trust wrestled with the issues of sustainability and scalability of the impactful work charities were delivering. There were very few innovative financing models in Scotland. The Scottish government’s attempt to set up public-private partnerships (PPP) contained no obligation on the public sector to sustain a project while the Robertson Trust believed in the need for systemic change and moving away from high cost reactive services towards lower cost preventative models. They were eager to develop models that would expand impact to the national scale, achieving systems change on the one hand, and providing charities with much needed long-term funding on the other.
Their Social Bridging Finance concept aims to support this through the development of a contract with the public sector. The model has elements of both SIBs and PPPs, but is grant-funded. It is used to sustain projects that have already proved their effectiveness. The strength of its programme is its simplicity. The standard contract is only 10 pages long and contains a maximum of 3 success criteria. The crucial part of the process is defining the success criteria and making sure they are clear, measurable and meaningful. The success criteria are assessed at the outset by a third sector organisation in consultation with the public sector body, which creates a dynamic discussion between the two sides. TSDGe contract is signed, the Robertson Trust then fund the demonstration period, which usually lasts around 2 years. If the success criteria are met, the public body ensures the continuity of funding thereafter. This gives the charity the certainty of stable funding and for the public body it de-risks change. If the project is not successful, there is no obligation on anyone to pay back the funds. This way the Robertson Trust assumes the financial risk by providing the bridging finance to facilitate the switch to a low cost preventative model.
An example of the model is MCR Pathways, one of Scotland's biggest PPP agreements, which aims to widen opportunities for Glasgow’s most disadvantaged young people by offering a school-based mentoring and employability programme. The Robertson Trust initially supported the project by funding the demonstration period, but the premature success of the programme allowed it to expand quickly to include 200 schools across Scotland. Importantly, the model has brought in systemic change. “This model has allowed us to create a new approach which is now business as usual”, said Maureen McKenna, Executive Director of Education Services, Glasgow City Council.
A lively question and answer session followed, in which participants shared their impressions of the results achieved by the Robertson Trust. It is important to have an organisation which takes the initiative and brokers the connection between the third sector and public bodies. There was a shared concern that some investors in the impact investment landscape have high expectations in terms of the financial return, which was thought to be inappropriate in the context of funding public services. It is believed to be of the reasons why the SIB model was not fully embraced in Scotland due to some of the ethical considerations involved. Jonathan stressed that social impact requires thinking about how to support vulnerable groups of people. Impact investing is about creating value as opposed to extracting value, and it does not always imply cashable savings; rather is about spending money better and in a more productive way.
However, given the genuine interest among mainstream banks increasingly seeking to put money where it is most impactful, how can we capitalise on institutional capital in attaining compliance with the SDGs? Kenneth believes that achieving scale is not possible for any one organisation and there is a spectrum, in which every organisation involved can contribute in its unique way. The Robertson Trust currently assumes the “risk bit” and their role is to participate in the early stages of a project to demonstrate its effectiveness while capital markets can bring the project to scale. For the model to work, though, there should be more discussion about making sure philanthropic funds are available.
While both organisations attempt to scale impact, there are some differences in their approaches. While the Robertson Trust suggests that scale should be achieved in cooperation with the public sector, Social Finance aims to do so by bringing in new capital and new players. However, both organisations continue to share common aspirations to achieve social change and there are already some early examples of their models converging.
EFRT on Social and Blended Finance Slides - June 2019
UN PRB Insights: The Spirit of Responsibility
The Spirit of Responsibility
The UN PRBs, unlike the UN PRIs and more like the SDGs, are expressed with proper and specific nouns first before any statement such as “we will…”. This gives it universal gravitas, and freedom to be applied in every way possible and every way that becomes possible. Given this property, the UN PRBs are relatively ageless to the UN PRIs. Here are the principles briefly reintroduced with their expansive character supported by extracts from the principles documentation issued publicly so far.
We find that a major challenge will be to understand metrics and apply frameworks and collect data that are not only standardized and normalized across banks for better assessment but also equally weighted on each SDG. Much of the supporting information provided by the UNEP FI so far is climate change heavy and cannot granulate completely how to quantify the principles’ universal and multifaceted character.
Principle 1 (Alignment) beyond alignment with global goals attempts to ensure improvement continues indefinitely by recommending that targets should “exceed mere alignment with the SDGs, the Paris Climate Agreement and other relevant national, regional or international frameworks.” There are standards such as the yet to be released ISO14097 relating to climate change that will be necessary for signatories to make progress addressing issues adverse to the SDGs embedded in their business practices.- Principle 2 (Impact) encourages growth into new sectors or client segments to increase positive impact as well as invest in technology and innovation for better outcomes. Banks will need to think about forward looking scenario-based assessments of risks and opportunities. Again an approach and methodology to do this in the area of climate change is provided by the Task Force on Climate related Financial Disclosure (TCFD). The PI Impact Radar can help identify impact across the greater sustainability spectrum. Banks are encouraged to “provide remediation for adverse impacts, which the enterprise has caused or contributed to.”
- Principle 3 (Clients & Customers) suggests mapping clients by sector to identify their impacts on the SDGs and to play a role to support their management. It covers the integration of sustainability questions in onboarding and know your customer procedures and creating a “race to the top among clients” by giving incentives to the sustainable ones. Again the use of technology is encouraged to innovate and offer better suited products to a better understood client base in line with the global goals.
- Principle 4 (Stakeholders) highlights the need to build relationships across the supply chain, contractual (e.g. employees and suppliers) and non-contractual (e.g. trade unions and governments), in different dosages to enable a bank to “deliver more that it could by working on its own”. It also calls for signatories to “proactively advocate for sustainable regulations and frameworks.” and to address “affected” stakeholders defined as those affected by a bank’s indirect impacts (e.g. wildlife) via NGOs. Once again, the use of technology for engagement is advocated.
- Principle 5 (Governance and Target Setting) is more like two principles in one. The first being governance and culture, suggesting sustainability be shifted to the core of governance. Staff should integrate this into daily work practices, decisions and reward schemes and senior management need to communicate the company’s vision and mission in tune with its sustainability targets. The second being target setting, highlighting the need to set ambitious targets in line with one or more goals at a timescale in sync with that of the goals or, even better, earlier.
- Principle 6 (Transparency and Accountability) draws on the need for accountability for a bank’s actions and its positive or negative impact on the global goals. 14 months after signing and annually after that, members will need to include UN PRB implementation data in their public reporting. It refers to frameworks that can be used, giving evidence that a guidance on assessing climate related risk will be released in May 2019. There will be two methods by which an external review process could be conducted: third party assurance or a defined scope review. The latter being where an accredited review partner only uses public information to assess whether a set of criteria are met by the bank.
