That Boston University study that was quoted by the @ft last week can only be described as a joke. I just spent one hour looking at annual reports and the numbers don’t add up. They seem completely made up

At first glance there is something odd about the database. Ostensibly it’s about biodiversity and indigenous lands. Why are these metrics being used to measure Chinese financial presence?

This @Diplomat_APAC piece explains the problem or at least one of the problems. https://thediplomat.com/2020/12/chinas-policy-banks-are-lending-differently-not-less/

“Boston University dataset took a geospatial approach in examining China’s overseas development financing, focusing on biodiversity and indigenous lands. Loans not attached to a specific project with a geographic location relevant to biodiversity or indigenous lands are omitted.”

“The Boston University dataset lists only six projects in Kazakhstan from 2008 to 2019, totaling $5.7 billion. But the list of joint projects under the latest China-Kazakhstan bilateral agreement alone is 56 projects, totaling $24.52 billion.” What a complete joke

Use this database if you are writing about endangered species, but please not for other matters. Was not built for anything else