While forest and “green” bonds are traded today, our findings demonstrate that the return from an integrated portfolio that contains forest wood products (direct use) and ecosystem services (indirect uses) provides an investor with more investment choices.
A Comment on “Estimating Forest Sustainability Bond Prices for Natural Resource and Ecosystem Services Markets”
This paper introduces a sustainable forestry bond composed of wood products and ecosystem services and investigates the project-based financial performance, such as NPV, associated with this bond. . . . The paper tackles an interesting and relevant issue in today’s business environment.
Whether green bonds deliver a cheaper cost of capital to issuers than vanilla bonds has been a contentious issue since the start of the green bond market. Among green bond market participants, perspectives on a greenium rest on market positions. On the issuer side, green bond issuers claim to be beyond, and others claim to be at par. As the market has developed, commentary on the investment side has changed. Some investors are arguing that they are investing in green bonds at par with vanilla bonds, while others say that they give financial preference to green bonds.
The global transition toward a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy requires common, science-based frameworks against which governments, the private sector, and individuals can determine whether activities contribute meaningfully to that transition. Developing a standardized language for determining what activities contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation is a primary focus of international policymaking efforts to meet the Paris Agreement targets.