← News Topics

The World’s Forests: Politics, Loss, and Promises

Day 3: Why Did Prince Charles Want a Rainforest Bond?

世界の森林:政治、喪失、そして約束 ― 第3日:チャールズ皇太子はなぜ熱帯雨林債券を望んだのか

Bond certificates and an open prospectus on a wooden desk with a globe paperweight, tropical rainforest soft-focus through a window behind

In 2009, Prince Charles visited Brazil with an idea that sounded more like a banker’s proposal than a royal speech. Investors would buy a rainforest bond, providing money up front. Wealthy governments would back the bond by guaranteeing repayment, making it safer for investors. They had a reason to take on that cost: protecting tropical forests would help limit climate change worldwide, while the money was needed immediately. The money raised—the proceeds—would help rainforest countries develop without destroying their forests. Why did he think protecting trees required a financial invention?

2009年、チャールズ皇太子は、王室の演説というより銀行家の提案のように聞こえるアイデアを携えてブラジルを訪問しました。投資家が熱帯雨林債券を買い、先に資金を出す。裕福な政府が返済を保証することでその債券を裏付け、投資家にとってより安全なものにする。政府がそのコストを引き受ける理由がありました。熱帯林を守ることは世界の気候変動を抑える助けになる一方で、そのお金はすぐに必要だったからです。調達された資金、つまり手取り金は、熱帯雨林を持つ国々が森を破壊せずに発展する助けになるはずでした。なぜ彼は、木を守ることに金融上の発明が必要だと考えたのでしょうか?

Two years earlier, Charles had established the Prince’s Rainforests Project. He saw an economic problem: clearing forest could generate income from beef, soy, or timber, while people around the world benefited from the forest without paying for it. His project explored how rainforest countries could receive money for keeping forests standing. The aim was to change the choices available to those countries, rather than simply urge them to cut fewer trees.

その2年前、チャールズは皇太子熱帯雨林プロジェクトを設立していました。彼は一つの経済的な問題を見ていました。森を切り開くことは牛肉、大豆、木材から収入を生みうる一方で、世界中の人々はその森から利益を受けながら、その対価を払っていない、という問題です。彼のプロジェクトは、熱帯雨林を持つ国々が森を立ったままにしておくことへの対価をどう受け取れるかを探りました。その目的は、単に木を伐るなと促すことではなく、それらの国に開かれている選択肢を変えることでした。

The proposed bond was meant to provide interim funding while governments negotiated longer-term climate agreements. Its money would support development plans, with payments linked to results. The proposal did not itself become a global forest payment system. But the problem it addressed remained: a forest could disappear while the world was still deciding how to pay for protecting it. In 2021, more than 140 countries promised to work together to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030.

提案された債券は、各国政府がより長期の気候合意を交渉しているあいだの暫定的な資金を提供することを意図していました。その資金は開発計画を支え、支払いは成果に結びつけることになっていました。この提案自体は、世界的な森林支払いの仕組みにはなりませんでした。しかし、それが扱った問題は残りました。世界が森を守るための支払い方をまだ決めているあいだに、森は消えてしまうかもしれない、という問題です。2021年には、140を超える国々が、2030年までに森林損失を止め、反転させるために協力すると約束しました。

In 2025, Brazil and its partners launched a different financial experiment: the Tropical Forests Forever Facility. It is designed to invest public and private money, then use some of the returns to make annual payments to countries for eligible tropical forests that remain standing. Charles’s bond proposal sought to raise money for more immediate support; this facility aims to provide payments year after year. As of 2026, it was still being set up, so its effect on forest loss had yet to be demonstrated.

2025年、ブラジルとそのパートナーは、別の金融実験を始めました。熱帯林永久基金(Tropical Forests Forever Facility)です。これは公的資金と民間資金を投資し、その収益の一部を使って、条件を満たし、立ったまま残っている熱帯林について、国々に毎年支払いを行うよう設計されています。チャールズの債券案は、より即時の支援のための資金調達を目指しました。一方、この基金は、毎年の支払いを提供することを目指しています。2026年時点では、まだ設立の途中だったため、森林損失への効果はまだ示されていませんでした。

The next question is where those payments will go. At least 20% must be allocated to Indigenous Peoples and local communities, many of whom are forest stewards. Yet receiving money and having secure land rights are different things. People need a meaningful say when decisions are made about the forests they use and protect.

次の問いは、それらの支払いがどこへ向かうかです。少なくとも20%は、先住民と地域社会に割り当てられなければなりません。その多くは森の守り手です。しかし、お金を受け取ることと、確かな土地の権利を持つことは別のことです。人々には、自分たちが使い、守っている森についての決定が行われるとき、意味のある発言権が必要です。

A prince’s proposed bond and a modern investment facility use different methods. Both confront the same uncomfortable fact: the world benefits from standing forests, but protecting them costs money in particular places. The new facility will be tested by what reaches those places—and by whether the people protecting the trees can shape what happens to their land.

皇太子が提案した債券と、現代の投資基金は、異なる方法を使います。どちらも、同じ居心地の悪い事実に向き合っています。世界は立っている森から恩恵を受けているが、それを守るには特定の場所でお金がかかる、という事実です。新しい基金は、何がそれらの場所に届くかによって、そして木を守る人々が自分たちの土地に何が起こるかを形づくれるかどうかによって、試されることになります。

Vocabulary

  1. bond — an investment in which an investor lends money and expects to be repaid, usually with interest. Example: The government issued a bond to raise money for a long-term project.
  2. back — to provide financial support or a promise of repayment. Example: Several governments agreed to back the proposed bond.
  3. proceeds — the money received from selling something or completing a financial transaction. Example: The proceeds from the bond would be used to support forest protection.
  4. interim — temporary; used until a more lasting arrangement is ready. Example: The project proposed interim funding while countries negotiated a longer-term agreement.
  5. returns — money earned from an investment. Example: Some of the fund’s investment returns could finance forest payments.
  6. eligible — meeting the conditions required to receive something or take part. Example: The payment would be based on the amount of eligible forest.
  7. allocated — officially set aside for a particular group or purpose. Example: Part of the funding must be allocated to local communities.
  8. stewards — people who care for and protect a place or resource. Example: The community has been a steward of the forest for generations.
  9. land rights — recognized rights to own, use, or control land. Example: Secure land rights can help communities protect their forests.

Comprehension Questions

  1. What was the purpose of the bond proposed by Prince Charles?
    1. To buy rainforest land for the British royal family.
    2. To raise money that could help rainforest countries develop while protecting forests.
    3. To pay investors with timber from protected forests.
    4. To replace all international climate agreements.

    チャールズ皇太子が提案した債券の目的は何でしたか?

  2. What economic problem did the Prince’s Rainforests Project address?
    1. Tropical forests produced too much timber for the market.
    2. Rainforest countries were prohibited from receiving foreign investment.
    3. Investors had stopped buying government bonds.
    4. Clearing forests could bring income, while many benefits of standing forests went unpaid.

    皇太子熱帯雨林プロジェクトが扱った経済的な問題は何でしたか?

  3. Why was the proposed bond described as a source of interim funding?
    1. It was intended to provide support while longer-term climate arrangements were being negotiated.
    2. It would pay communities for only one month.
    3. It would replace a climate agreement that had already been completed.
    4. Its money could be used only during a royal visit.

    提案された債券が暫定資金の源と説明されたのはなぜですか?

  4. How does the Tropical Forests Forever Facility plan to fund annual forest payments?
    1. By selling land to investors.
    2. By collecting fines under the Glasgow Declaration.
    3. By using some returns from invested public and private money.
    4. By requiring every visitor to pay to enter a rainforest.

    熱帯林永久基金は、毎年の森林への支払いをどのように賄う計画ですか?

  5. Why does the article distinguish payments from land rights?
    1. Land rights prevent communities from receiving money.
    2. A community may receive funding without gaining a meaningful say over decisions about its land.
    3. Forest payments automatically give communities legal ownership.
    4. Only governments can protect forests.

    記事が支払いと土地の権利を区別しているのはなぜですか?

Discussion Questions

  1. Why might Charles have turned to a bond instead of asking governments simply to promise stronger forest protection?

    チャールズが、政府に単により強い森林保護を約束するよう求めるのではなく、債券に目を向けたのはなぜでしょうか?

  2. What are the advantages and risks of using investment to provide long-term forest payments?

    投資を使って長期の森林への支払いを行うことの利点とリスクは何でしょうか?

  3. If payments go first to national governments, what would help ensure they reach the communities protecting forests?

    支払いがまず各国政府に渡る場合、森を守る共同体に届くことを確実にする助けになるのは何でしょうか?

  4. Can payments protect a forest when demand for beef, soy, and timber remains strong? What else would be needed?

    牛肉、大豆、木材への需要が強いままのとき、支払いは森を守れますか?ほかに何が必要でしょうか?

  5. How should the facility be evaluated after several years: by investment raised, payments delivered, community participation, forest loss, or a combination?

    数年後にこの基金を評価するとき、調達した投資額、届けられた支払い、共同体の参加、森林損失、それともそれらの組み合わせのどれで評価すべきでしょうか?

Speaking Practice

Could paying for standing forests make an international promise more effective?

立っている森に対して支払うことは、国際的な約束をより効果的にしうるでしょうか?

Speak for about one minute. Include:

約1分間話してください。次の点を含めてください。

  • why Prince Charles proposed a rainforest bond

    チャールズ皇太子が熱帯雨林債券を提案した理由

  • how the newer facility would work

    新しい基金がどのように機能するか

  • one important difference between the two ideas

    二つのアイデアの重要な違いの一つ

  • why payments to local communities matter

    地域社会への支払いが重要な理由