Connect with us

Economic

UN summit reaches historic agreement on biodiversity

Published

on

The UN’s COP15 biodiversity summit has reached an agreement to protect more of the planet’s land and oceans by 2030, despite a deep divide between rich and developing countries that has impeded UN negotiations on climate and nature.

In the early hours of Monday, a framework was signed by nearly 200 countries that will protect at least 30 percent of the world’s land, inland waters, coastal areas and oceans by 2030. Currently, 17 percent and 10 percent Land and sea areas are respectively under protection.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the deal, which was tabled at the two-week meeting, was a “roadmap for protecting and restoring nature” that complements the Paris climate agreement.

China’s environment minister and COP15 chair Huang Runqiu said Monday’s agreement marked a “historic moment” that “puts biodiversity on a path of recovery for all people.”

The summit was overseen by China and co-hosted by Canada after it was moved to Montreal due to a two-year delay due to Covid-19. But the last session of the United Nations to adopt the agreement ended with some tension as several African countries complained that it had been pushed through without discussion.

The DRC expressed its displeasure with the agreement, although it did not formally object. When Huang agreed to the agreement in the early hours of Monday without allowing further comment, Cameroon accused him of “force of hand” and Uganda called the measure a “fraud” and a “coup”. But COP15’s legal advisers said the process was “in accordance with the rules”.

“I have tried my best to present you a balanced package,” Huang said in a speech to the last session of the United Nations. After many years of difficult negotiations. . . There is no magic formula that will allow us all to be completely happy.”

Among the compromises reached was agreement on a new global biodiversity fund of $20 billion annually by 2025, and $30 billion annually by 2030, under the umbrella of the existing Global Environment Facility. This was well below the required complication. Japan and The European Union led the objections to a new biodiversity fund, citing existing environment funds.

The European Union has pledged €7 billion to conserve biodiversity between 2021 and 2027, but only a handful of its 27 member states have followed suit.

The final COP15 Convention on Biological Diversity also included efforts to eliminate this problem Subsidies for activities deemed harmful to naturewhile pledging to end at least $500 million a year in government subsidies to businesses such as farming and fishing.

Another important measure requires that companies assess and report their dependence on biodiversity.

While many participants welcomed the agreement as “historic,” criticism remained from some campaign groups about poor language and timelines for action.

“We are particularly concerned about weak language on species that will oblige countries to halt extinctions sometime before 2050, rather than 2030,” said the WWF.

The new framework will replace the so-called Aichi Biodiversity Targets, which were first set in 2010 and named after Japan’s Aichi Prefecture. None of these goals has been fully achieved.

The United States has also attracted criticism for not being a party to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, under which the Nature Summit was held, and attending only as an observer.

Canadian Environment Minister Stephen Gilbolt said the agreement showed that Canada and China were able to “put aside our differences to choose to work together.”

It is a “historic deal that should prompt China to embrace a greater role in advocating nature on the international stage,” said Li Xu, global policy advisor for Greenpeace China.

“The package is by no means flawless but this is not the end. By the next CBD Conference of the Parties in 2024, governments will have a lot of homework to turn these agreed targets into action at home.”

climate capital

Where climate change meets business, markets and politics. Find out about the Financial Times’ coverage here.

Curious about the Financial Times’ environmental sustainability commitments? Find out more about our science-based goals here


Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Economic

We need to pay more attention to skewed economic signals

Published

on

By

The writer is chair of Queen’s College, Cambridge and advisor to Allianz and Gramercy

Inflation was the dominant economic and financial issue of 2022 for most countries around the world, especially for advanced economies that have a consequential impact on the global economy and markets.

The effects have been seen in declining living standards, increasing inequality, increasing borrowing costs, stock and bond market losses, and occasional financial mishaps (fortunately small and so far contained).

In this new year, recession, both actual and feared, has joined inflation in the driving seat of the global economy and is likely to replace it. It’s a development that makes the global economy and investment portfolios subject to a wide range of possible outcomes — something that a growing number of bond investors seem to be aware of more than their equity counterparts.

International Monetary Fund iYou will likely review soon Her economic growth forecasts again, predicting that “a third of the world will be hit by recession this year”. What is particularly notable to me about these worsening global prospects is not only that the world’s three major economic regions – China, the European Union and the United States – are slowing down together, but also that this is happening for different reasons.

In China, a chaotic exit from the wrong Covid-19 policy is undermining demand and causing more supply disruptions. Such headwinds to domestic and global economic well-being will continue as long as China fails to improve the coverage and effectiveness of its vaccination efforts. The strength and sustainability of the subsequent recovery will also require that the country more vigorously renew a growth model that can no longer rely on greater globalization.

The European Union continues to deal with energy supply disruptions as the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues. Strengthening inventory management and reorientation of energy supplies is well advanced in many countries. However, it is not yet sufficient to lift immediate constraints on growth, let alone resolve long-term structural headwinds.

The United States has the least problematic view. The headwinds to growth are due to the Fed’s struggle to contain inflation after mischaracterizing rate increases as fleeting and then initially being too timid to adjust monetary policy.

The Fed’s shift to an aggressive front-load of interest rate hikes came too late to prevent the spread of inflation in the services sector and wages. As such, inflation is likely to remain stubborn at around 4 percent, be less sensitive to interest rate policies and expose the economy to greater risk for accidents from additional policy errors that undermine growth.

The uncertainties facing each of these three economic areas suggest that analysts should be more careful in reassuring us that recessionary pressures will be “short and shallow”. They need to be open, if only to avoid repeating the mistake of prematurely dismissing inflation as transient.

This is especially important because these diverse drivers of recessionary risk make financial fragility more threatening and policy shifts more difficult, including potentially Japan. Get out of interest rate control Policy. The range of possible outcomes is extraordinarily large.

On the one hand, a better policy response, including improving the supply response and protecting the most vulnerable populations, can counteract the global economic slowdown and, in the case of the United States, avert a recession.

On the other hand, additional policy errors and market turmoil can lead to self-reinforcing vicious cycles with rising inflation and rising interest rates, weakening credit and compressed earnings, and stressing market performance.

Judging by market prices, more bond investors are better understanding this, including by refusing to follow the Fed’s interest rate guidance this year. Instead of a sustainable path to higher rates for 2023, they believe recessionary pressures will lead to cuts later this year. If true, government bonds would provide the yield and potential for badly missed portfolio risk mitigation in 2022.

However, parts of the stock market is still weakly bearish pricing. Reconciling these different scenarios is more important than investors. Without better alignment within markets and with policy signals, the positive economic and financial outcomes we all desire will be no less likely. They will also be challenged by the risk of more unpleasant outcomes at a time of less economic and human resilience.

Source link

Continue Reading

Economic

Macro hedge funds end 2022 higher, investors say, while many others take big losses By Reuters

Published

on

By

© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: Traders work on the trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York City, US, January 5, 2023. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

By Svea Herbst Baylis

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Some hedge funds betting on macroeconomic trends have boasted of double and even triple-digit gains for 2022, while other high-profile companies that have long been on technology stocks have suffered heavy losses in volatile markets, investors said.

Rokos Capital, run by Chris Rokos and one of a handful of so-called global macro companies, gained 51% last year. Fund investors this week, who asked not to be identified, said Brevan Howard Asset Management, the company where Rokos once worked, posted a gain of 20.14% and Caxton Associates returned 16.73%.

Haider Capital Management’s Haider Jupiter Fund rose 193%, an investor said.

Data from hedge fund research showed that many macro managers have avoided crumbling stock markets that have been rocked by rapid interest rate increases and geopolitical turmoil, including the war in Ukraine, to rank among the best performers in the hedge fund industry. The company’s macro index rose 14.2% while the general index of hedge funds fell 4.25%, its first loss since 2018.

Equity hedge funds, where the bulk of the industry’s roughly $3.7 trillion in assets are invested, fared worse with a loss of 10.4%, according to HFR data. And while that beat the broader stock market’s loss of 19.4%, some high-profile funds posted even bigger losses.

Tiger Global Management lost 56% while Whale Rock Capital Management ended the year with a 43% loss and Maverick Capital lost 23%. Coatue Management ended 2022 with a loss of 19%.

But not all companies that bet on technology stocks suffered. John Thaler JAT Capital finished the year with a 3.7% gain after fees after a 33% increase in 2021 and a 46% gain in 2020.

Sculptor Capital Management (NYSE::), where founder Dan Och is fighting the company’s current CEO in court over his salary increase, posted a 13% drop.

David Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital, which bet that Elon Musk would be forced to buy Twitter, ended the year up 37% while Rick Sandler’s Eminence Capital rose 7%.

A number of so-called multi-manager companies where teams of portfolio managers bet on a variety of sectors also boast positive returns and have been able to deliver on their promise that hedge funds can deliver better returns in distressed markets.

Balyasny’s Atlas Fund (NYSE: Enhanced) gained 9.7%, while Point72 Asset Management gained 10%. Millennium Management gained 12% while Carlson Capital ended the year with a 7% gain.

Representatives for the companies either did not respond to requests for comment or declined to comment.

Source link

Continue Reading

Economic

German automakers point to easing supply chain problems

Published

on

By

Sales at BMW and Mercedes-Benz jumped in the final months of 2022 as the German premium auto brands indicated supply chain problems plaguing the industry were abating.

Automakers around the world have experienced parts shortages since the pandemic, especially semiconductors, leaving many of them with large fleets of incomplete vehicles that can’t be delivered to customers.

BMW and Mercedes each said their full-year vehicle deliveries fell last year by 4.8 percent and 1 percent, respectively, due to Suppliers Bottlenecks as well as lockdowns in China and the war in Ukraine.

But supply pressures eased in the last quarter of the year, as BMW recorded a 10.6 percent jump in sales, with 651,798 vehicles delivered, and Mercedes fulfilling 540,800 orders, up 17 percent from the same period in 2022.

BMW He said the main effects of supply chain bottlenecks and continued lockdowns were felt in the first six months of the year, adding that “sales were steadily picking up in the second half.”

Mercedes boss Ula Kallenius told the Financial Times last week that the list of problems in the auto supply chain was declining, but added that long waits for cars would continue into 2023.

“One chip is enough to be vital [ . . .] Missing, and then you can’t finish the car, even if you have everything else.

Both brands recorded strong sales growth electric car. Mercedes, which last week announced a plan to build 10,000 charging docks, said EV shipments grew 124 percent to 117,800 last year compared with its predecessor.

Similarly, BMW reported strong growth in electric vehicle sales, with deliveries of fully electric vehicles doubling last year to 215,755.

Analysts at Bank of America said that sales of electric vehicles, including hybrid cars, reached a historic peak last November, with 1.1 million units sold. They attributed this largely to the upcoming phase-out of customer subsidies in Germany.

Participate in Mercedes BMW and BMW prices held steady Tuesday morning as investors priced in an image of an improving showing.

Rolls-Royce, a subsidiary of BMW, announced Monday that sales have hit a 119-year record, driven by strong demand in the United States, its largest market.

The luxury brand has been largely unaffected by the semiconductor pressure, mainly because it makes relatively few compounds and therefore needs fewer chips.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending