Does it work for conservation ? Our proposal is best suited for re/afforestation. The economics of the conservation is very different & the flow benefits are smaller. Maybe w/ blended finance. 6/6

How does this differ from other emerging nature-shares proposals? We do not count on the marketable nature benefits (logging etc) to be enough to support demand. These slns may be ok to finance transitions to regenerative ag in the Global North, not for forests in the South. 5/6

Our proposal spurred interesting conversations. Is it Art. 6 compatible ? Yes. Countries could use the market to buy nature shares that deliver carbon dividends for their NDCs. How do you ensure a liquid secondary mkt? Using the info generated during the primary mkt (see paper for details). 4/6

Jurisdictions (rather than project developers) are on the supply side. A larger size reduces leakage, monitoring costs, risks, etc. To create demand, we consider a mandate on pension funds to be Paris-and Montreal-aligned. The carbon and biodiversity dividends reduce the funds’ footprint. 3/6

We propose to view nature as equity which generates carbon and biodiversity dividends. Viewing nature as a risky asset recognizes its impermanence. Using dividends to distribute its benefits = doing so prudently. But it requires to rethink the value of a market and how we create & support it. 2/6

📘 Find the full Paris Report 3, a joint initiative by @cepr.org and Bruegel here: buff.ly/xYd7tPv

Edited by @jzettelmeyer.bsky.social, @pisaniferry.bsky.social & @wederdim.bsky.social