This fine and nuanced report by @catrineinhorn and @cflav is not a story of innovative finance triumphing in saving nature. It’ll be characterised that way, regardless. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/climate/Mexico-reef-climate-change.html

I don’t say this because of a broad or ideological objection to commodifying nature, but because I see no evidence that the private finance deal made anything better, or that it will do at scale & in future.

One argument for these arrangements is that they’ll pay out quickly. Yet the story indicates volunteers - many balancing it against their own much needed
paid work - were relied upon to do most of the urgent repair work, with an emergency cash transfer from an NGO.

It’s popular to say parametric insurance can be good for climate harms because it has meteorological triggers instead of damage-based payouts. But whose side of a bet about hurricanes would you rather take: the gov of Quintana Roo, or Swiss Re?

I’ve no idea if it would even be possible to find out, but it’d be interesting to see whether the policy is renewed and any changes in rates and terms.