Our forecasts

Sustainability

Article tags:
  • Sustainability

ESG Economist - Carbon offsets: To Tree or Not to Tree?

UN Climate Change has a workstream on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries or REDD+. Countries have established the REDD+ framework to protect forests as part of the Paris Agreement [1]. Various companies have certified carbon standards programs to drive finance towards activities that reduce and remove emissions, improve livelihoods and protect nature. Moreover, there is a voluntary market that sells carbon credits to buyers that try to offset the carbon emissions that will take longer to reduce. One of the focus areas of these offsets is planting trees. On 26 June 2024, we published an ESG Economist – Could carbon sequestration technologies help to reach net zero? [2]. One of the biological carbon sequestration technologies is planting trees (afforestation and reforestation). Afforestation is converting long-time non-forested land into forest. Obviously, the intention of these initiatives is good. Generally, it is assumed that deforestation leads to higher global mean temperatures and that forestation will limit the increase of global mean temperature. But as often is the case we need to ask ourselves if all relevant aspects are considered and whether they have the desired effect. This report focuses on that question. We start with the possible climate effects of planting or removing trees. These effects are important to consider when certain carbon offset products are considered. Then we show the results of scientific research. We end with a conclusion.

Georgette Boele

Pioneering economics with financial transaction data

Flagship Publications

Article tags:
  • Sustainability

ESG Strategist - How exposed are companies and banks to biodiversity risks?

Biodiversity stands for biological diversity. The loss of biodiversity translates into the loss of services provided by ecosystems to the real economy. There are two types of risks associated with biodiversity: physical and transitions risks. Physical risks stem from the loss of biodiversity (for instance, disappearance of animal pollinators, like bees), and transition risks stem from regulations/policies introduced by regulators to mitigate biodiversity loss (such as the introduction of a tax on fertilizers or the implementation of Natura 2000). Physical risks are captured by how much a sector depends on biodiversity (e.g. agriculture depends a lot on animal pollinators, like bees). And transition risks are captured by how much a sector impacts biodiversity (i.e. the more damage a firm causes, the more likely it is to be hit by policies acting against it). The ENCORE database provides qualitative assessments for each sector and sub-sector on their exposure to biodiversity risks and we use these to calculate quantitative biodiversity sector exposure scores. As per existing regulation, banks are required to report their loan book exposure per sector, according to the NACE categorisation. Hence, by combining banks’ loan book exposure per sector and sector scores on biodiversity dependence and impact, we were able to calculate individual banks’ exposure to biodiversity loss risks. Furthermore, we used Natural Language Processing to assess a bank’s awareness of its balance sheet exposure to biodiversity risks.

Marta Teixeira

Stay informed