Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor

Doublethink: Norway’s Pension Fund to stop investing oil profits in climate change and deforestation

Posted on 29 November 20126 October 2016

DoublethinkNorway is by far the biggest donor to REDD initiatives around the world, with two billion dollar deals, one in Brazil and one in Indonesia. But Norway’s Pension Fund invests way more in companies responsible for rainforest destruction.

In October 2011, Rainforest Foundation Norway and Environmental Investigation Agency wrote to Norway’s Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, about the deforestation caused by some of the companies in which the Pension Fund invests. In March 2012, Rainforest Foundation Norway and Friends of the Earth Norway published a report titled “Beauty and the Beast”, highlighting the contradictions in Norway’s investments.

The Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) is responsible for investing the assets of the US$650 billion Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global. In September 2012, NBIM produced a report titled “NBIM investor expectations: Climate change risk management”, which includes the following statement:

NBIM expects companies to manage risk associated with the causes and impacts of climate change resulting from greenhouse gas emissions and tropical deforestation. Our expectations are directed at companies with operations or value chains in sectors and regions materially exposed to such risk.

The report notes that “there is overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change threatens long-term financial returns”.

This is an important acknowledgement from NBIM that investing in companies that destroy rainforests is a problem. Rainforest Foundation Norway welcomed the change. In a statement, Lars Løvold, director of Rainforest Foundation Norway, said,

“This decision is a turnaround from the Norwegian government and an important step forward in the battle to save the world’s rainforests. Companies responsible for deforestation now get a message from one of the world’s largest investors that it is unacceptable to continue destroying rainforests for profit.”

In its Investor Expectations report, the NBIM states that,

When assessing companies that are exposed to risks related to tropical deforestation, NBIM considers the following questions:
 

  • Does the company disclose information on its tropical forest footprint, how it monitors its impact on tropical forests over time, and its assessment of whether it poses a risk to its business operations?
  •  

  • Has the company, or its suppliers, committed to achieve compliance with international standards for sustainable production of agricultural commodities, or sustainable forest management?
  •  

  • Does the company report on the implementation of its commitments to reduce tropical deforestation?

What happens next will be interesting. The NBIM does not specify which international standards companies should commit to achieving. Neither is there any deadline set for actually achieving these standards.

The NBIM expects companies “to identify material risks, define an optimal mitigation strategy and take action to implement that strategy”. Companies are to “disclose sufficient information demonstrating an effective approach to climate change risk, including risk related to tropical deforestation”.

Here’s a list of the Pension Fund’s top ten largest investments, as of 30 September 2012:

Norwegian Pension Fund Top Ten

In fourth place on the Pension Fund top ten list, is HSBC, the UK banking and financial services company. Norway’s Pension Fund has US$4.3 billion invested in HSBC. In June 2012, a report by a US Senate committee found that HSBC provided a conduit for “drug kingpins and rogue nations”. Earlier this month, Global Witness released a report that details how HSBC has bankrolled logging companies operating in Sarawak. The companies have caused “widespread environmental destruction and human rights abuses”, despite HSBC’s sustainability policies. HSBC earned about US$130 million in the process.

This top ten also includes a total of US$14.3 billion invested in oil and gas companies. REDD-Monitor looks forward to seeing how Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp, BG Group and BP explain to the Pension Fund their approach to climate change risk. Of course, since the money in Norway’s Pension Fund comes largely from the country’s oil profits, Norway is itself already greatly increasing climate change risk.

Mark Curtis’ 2010 report about Norway’s foreign and development policy, is titled “Doublethink”, a term from George Orwell’s book, 1984. Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time. “Norwegian ministers seem to think that they can have a large oil industry and lead the fight against climate change,” Curtis writes.
 


Full Disclosure: REDD-Monitor has received funding from Rainforest Foundation Norway. Click here for all of REDD-Monitor’s funding sources.
 

Leave a Reply

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

SUBSCRIBE!

Recent themes
30x30
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

Recent Comments

  • Ben on Response from Kurt Kaiser, Director of Compass Carbon: “Your article was of great concern to us”. And some questions for Kaiser from REDD-Monitor
  • James Mewa Kamaya on Papua New Guinea’s Forest Authority cancels Mayur Resources’ Kamula Doso REDD project
  • Benedikt von Butler on Switzerland’s offsetting deal with Peru excludes REDD. It will still not reduce emissions
  • Chris Ibe on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow
  • Xindia on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow

Recent Posts

  • REDD-Monitor is moving to Substack
  • REDD Project in Brazil Nut concessions in Madre de Dios, Peru finally started paying communities a decade after the project started. “I’m still lacking money,” says one community member
  • REDD-Monitor’s top ten posts in 2022
  • The harsh reality of 30×30: The EU is keen to allow extractivism in the 30×30 target – but not Indigenous Peoples’ territories
  • Human rights abuses against Indigenous Peoples and the proposed “30×30” target

Recent Comments

  • Ben on Response from Kurt Kaiser, Director of Compass Carbon: “Your article was of great concern to us”. And some questions for Kaiser from REDD-Monitor
  • James Mewa Kamaya on Papua New Guinea’s Forest Authority cancels Mayur Resources’ Kamula Doso REDD project
  • Benedikt von Butler on Switzerland’s offsetting deal with Peru excludes REDD. It will still not reduce emissions
  • Chris Ibe on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow
  • Xindia on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow

Issues and Organisations

30x30 AB 32 Andes Amazon Boiler rooms California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Cryptocurrency Deforestation EcoPlanet Bamboo Evictions FCPF Financing REDD Fossil fuels FSC Green Climate Fund Greenpeace Guest post Human rights ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer The Nature Conservancy UN-REDD UNFCCC Verra World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region Costa Rica DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Gabon Germany Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Luxembourg Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Netherlands Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Republic of Congo Sierra Leone Spain Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA West Papua
©2025 REDD-Monitor | Powered by SuperbThemes!