Insurance companies want big increase in govt disaster mitigation spending
Australia’s biggest insurers want the government to revisit the plans to dramatically increase natural disaster prevention spending, which the commission believes will save billions in post-catastrophe clean-ups.
As the damage wrought by Cyclone Debbie continues to mount, Insurance Australia Group and Suncorp have hit back at politicians’ accusations companies are “stingy” with claims, and have called on the government to adopt the recommendation it commit to an annual $200 million spend on mitigation. The proposal, part of the Productivity Commission Inquiry into Natural Disaster Funding Arrangements, was rejected by the government two days before Christmas last year, after it sat on the report for two years.
“There is overwhelming evidence that shows the economic and social impact savings which upfront mitigation funding could achieve and this is being ignored,” IAG chief executive Peter Harmer told The Weekend Australian.
“The government response in late December …. was disappointing and did not go far enough, particularly in the area of funding for disaster resilience and mitigation.
“We have been advocating for some time that there needs to be a different approach to natural disaster funding, with more focus on mitigation, to avoid some of the impacts we are seeing.”
As of yesterday, insurers had received nearly 47,000 claims from Queensland and NSW policyholders for insured losses stretching to $413m. It is estimated losses will break $1 billion.
The federal government invests about $50m a year on adaptation funding but spends more than $500m on average on post-disaster relief and recovery.
The Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience said spending $250m a year on preventive infrastructure, such as flood levees, would slash recovery costs in half and generate savings of more than $12bn by 2050.
“The recommendations of the review included significantly reducing recovery funding provided to states, while increasing mitigation funding over time,” a government spokeswoman said……. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/insurers-call-for-disaster-mitigation-increase/news-story/acf1ecfd783c1422864a4c7ad21908a3
ESG investors turn to green bonds
Green is the new black: ESG investors turn to green bonds to meet mandates, SMH, Myriam Robin, 9 Apr 17
As the billions of dollars in ethical and environmental funds swell, Australian corporates and governments are issuing increasing amounts of “green bonds” to access the cash.
Green bonds function just like normal corporate or government bonds, but the issuer has to promise to use the funds to fund some type of environmentally beneficial development. This investment doesn’t have to sustain a commercial rate of return itself – if the bond is instead underwritten by the total balance sheet of the issuer, it shares the issuers’ credit rating. Because of this, green bonds typically have identical yields to equivalent regular bonds.
Between 2014 and 2016, the total amount of money put in funds with some social or green investment principles grew from $US148 billion to $US516 billion across Australia and New Zealand, according to the Global Sustainable Investment Review, released in March.
Most of this growth, the report stated, came from professionally managed funds choosing to incorporate such principles into their main funds. Funds specifically targeting green or social impact investors amount to 3.8 per cent of Australia’s total professional managed assets market, up from 2.5 per cent in 2014.
The style of investments by such funds is changing in a way that shows increasing demand for green bonds. In Canada and Europe, the only two regions for which asset allocations were available to the Global Sustainable Investment Review report, a majority (64.4 per cent) of such funds were invested into green bonds – a rapid reversal of the dominant trend in 2014 when equities dominated.
The surging investment in green bonds, the review suggested, could reflect rising environmental concerns. According to Bank of America Merrill Lynch, $US90 billion of green bonds were issued in 2016, taking the total market past $US200 billion in early 2017. $US19 billion in green bonds were issued globally in the first two months of this year. At the end of February, $US2.3 billion in green bonds had been issued so far in Australia.
Australian governments and banks have led the way in green bond investments – their issuances have been oversubscribed, showing heavy local demand for the products. In a $300 million NAB green bond raising in December 2014, 54 per cent of the bond distribution went to fund managers, with another 30 per cent being purchased by institutions and pension funds.
HSBC’s Violeta Jovanoska, director of debt capital markets in its Sydney office, was involved in the first corporate green bond issue in Australia, a Euro-donominated bond issued by Stockland Trust Management in November 2014, as well as the NAB bond, which HSBC was a joint bookrunner on.
She said corporates were turning to green bonds as a way to access this swelling pool of money placed in funds with an environmental, social or governance mandate. As many investment managers have signed up to responsible investment or climate change agreements, green bonds are a way to meet that commitment………..
The lack of regulation around green bonds has meant some critics dismiss the area as “greenwash” marketing – an environmental sheen on what is essentially a regular corporate bond. It’s hard to say whether green bonds allow new green projects to be completed or if organisations are using them just to easily fund the more environmentally friendly parts of their investment agenda, with the green bond money going towards projects they would have funded anyway. Companies don’t have to turn green in any significant way to issue a green bond……http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/green-is-the-new-black-esg-investors-turn-to-green-bonds-to-meet-mandates-20170404-gvd2v6.html
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 