管制是中国碳定价的关键
中国国家主席习近平去年宣布了一项在2017年建立全国碳排放交易市场的计划。最近他们迎来了第一个关键节点，地方政府在上月底向国家发展改革委仓促的提交了拟被纳入碳排放总量控制的各行业企业名单，其中主要包括电力、冶炼、石油、化工、钢铁、航空类企业。按照计划，名单所列企业必须在今年6月底前提交基于设施级的历史碳排放数据。
尽管碳交易市场建立的根本目的是为了解决自然科学和伦理道德问题（编者注：气候变化，环境污染，当然在中国还包括节能减排和倒逼结构调整），中国投入大量资源和精力为碳排放数据的监测、报告和核查程序提供支持。但是我们应视同其他金融市场一样，还要关注碳交易市场基础设施的改进。对于这些纳入管制的企业（合规企业），碳价发现的基础设施、监管和机制，以及风险对冲能力亟需进一步得到加强和升级。
我将它们归结为以下三个“I”：
机构(INSTITUTIONS)
无论是在股票市场、碳交易市场或其他市场，强大、透明的金融体系是市场正常运作的核心。在一个生态体系中，当监管机构、交易所、金融中介和合规企业以发现碳价格和对冲风险为目的参与市场，该体系存在着制衡，那么市场功能才能更好地发挥作用。
随着公司层面风险意识的不断增强和内控体系的日益完善 制度能力的整体提升有助于有效碳定价以中国诸多的国有电力公司和钢铁公司为例，在过去的几年里，由于施行碳交易试点，他们不仅获得了宝贵的“总量管制和交易”（cap-and-trade system）的实践经验，也在尝试利用现有的以动力煤和铁矿石为标的的期货工具，以更好的管理其原料采购价格的波动风险。随着公司层面风险意识的不断增强和内控体系的日益完善，机构制度能力的整体提升更有助于有效的碳定价。
去年（2015）十二月，中国财政部发布了《商品期货套期业务会计处理暂行规定》，该规定于2016年1月1日正式生效。这一政策升级十分重要，它将使对冲工具的会计计量更紧密地反映工业企业的风险管理活动，并更符合国际会计标准。这也帮助扫清了工业企业，尤其是国有企业实现积极主动应用风险管理工具的一个关键性障碍。
在过去的几年我们还看到金融中介机构以快速的节奏提升公司治理，同时伴随透明度提升和通过IPO增强财务实力，这一趋势在国泰君安证券有限公司上市达到了极致，作为上海的大型经纪交易券商（投资银行），国泰君安去年6月于上交所成功上市并募资超过300亿人民币。
在发达国家中，大多数建立完善、业务规范的交易所都是公开上市公司，以便能在透明和竞争的环境中运作。又比如在印度，四年前印度大宗商品交易所（MCX）就已成为该国第一个上市的商品交易所。而在中国，由于受到监管机构管制，商品交易所的股份化问题仅是学术界热议的话题。
长远来看，包括碳在内的任何有效定价的大宗商品，最终都应要求交易所运营商以一个公开透明的竞争中实现交易，同时实现公司治理结构升级。
碳定价需要依从由各机构（包括合规企业、金融公司、专业的流动性提供商）创造的充足流动性来建立“远期曲线”首创（INITIATIVE）
什么时候进行第一笔交易会被认为操之过急？碳定价需要依从由各机构（包括合规企业、金融公司、专业的流动性提供商）创造的充足流动性来建立“远期曲线”，但不应有“零售商”。加州碳排放市场于2013年1月正式启动，但加州碳配额的首次中央清算的远期交易较启动时间早了16个月。
类比加州的案例，在中国现有的法律框架内，推出合规企业和金融机构的场内和场外碳衍生品交易以建立远期价格曲线并非不可行，即推出合法的第一笔交易，并不是鲁莽之举。
随着新市场的进化，机构需要在交易和持仓上发挥主导性作用。从现有的国内商品期货交易的经验来看，在中国这样一个“零售市场”环境下，过去几年来机构持仓似乎占据了越来越多的份额，这将是一个重要突破。
国际准入与链接
3年前，国内就已开始尝试推出本地原油期货合约，以帮助其石油公司更好地管理油价波动。在合同设计中有一个重要特点值得关注，即允许国际交易商直接交易合约。随后，中国在郑州PTA期货合约和大连铁矿石期货合约中分别做出尝试，主要通过遵照类似的模板以实现现有的期货合约“国际化”。
合格、有经验的海外投资者直接参与将有助于在中国碳市场实现更合理的碳定价毋庸置疑，碳是一个“全球化”的商品，因此合格、有经验的海外投资者直接参与，将有助于在中国碳市场实现更合理的碳定价。1848年美国芝加哥实现了第一个以小麦为标的资产的商品期货交易，在现在的美国或欧盟，已经有了一个长期平稳运行、久经检验、基础设施完善的用于价格发现的商品交易市场，而最难的工作在于“总量管制和交易”（cap-and-trade system）中如何确定总量。而中国面临的挑战是双倍的：不仅“总量”确认需要付出巨大的努力，该国的“交易”仍在发展中，自20年前至今“交易”仍是该国大宗商品市场发展的核心问题。
在成功持续实现碳定价上没有秘诀。有效管制是任何稳定运作的商品市场的基石，中国也不例外。
对于中国而言，成功管制会得到高回报。运作良好的国家碳市场，不仅以更低的成本交付可核证的减排量，而且还可以提升市场的基础设施以实现更高的运营标准。
作者：黄杰夫，（北京）独立顾问，国际排放权交易协会中国工作组联席主席
COMMENT: Governance is key for pricing carbon in ChinaCOMMENT: Governance is key for pricing carbon in China
By Jeff Huang, Beijing-based independent consultant and Co-chair of the International Emissions Trading Association’s China Working Group
President Xi Jinping last year announced a plan to launch China’s national carbon market in 2017. Now comes the first major deadline as local governments scrambled to submit, by the end of last month, to the national planning commission their lists of companies in sectors that are subject to carbon emission caps, including power, oil refining, petrochemicals, steel, and aviation.
By the end of June, historical emissions data at installation level for each company on the list must be submitted.
However, simultaneous attention needs to be paid to improving market infrastructure. Though carbon markets are intended to address scientific and moral issues, they are financial markets just the same.
The infrastructure, governance and rules for carbon price discovery and hedging activities must be further strengthened and upgraded for companies covered by the national CO2 cap, as China bolsters its emissions data monitoring, reporting and verifying procedures.
It all boils down to what I call the three “I”s.
INSTITUTIONS
Strong and transparent financial institutions are at the core of every properly functioning market, be it stocks, carbon or others. Markets function better when checks and balances exist in the eco-system of regulators, exchanges, financial intermediaries, and companies that use the marketplace for carbon price discovery and hedging purposes.
Many Chinese state-owned power and steel companies, for instance, spent the last few years not only gaining valuable hands-on experience with the cap-and-trade system in regional pilot programmes, but also trying at existing futures instruments in thermal coal and iron ore to better manage the price volatility of their raw material purchases. With improved risk culture company-wide and increasingly robust internal risk-control systems in place, strengthened institutional capacity lends itself to effective carbon pricing overall.
Last December, China’s Ministry of Finance published the “Interim Provision for Commodity Futures Hedge Accounting”, effective Jan. 1, 2016. This important update serves to make the accounting for hedges even more closely reflect industrial firms’ risk management activities, and more in line with international standards. This eliminates a key hurdle for more pro-active application of risk management tools by industrial firms, especially the state owned enterprises.
The last several years also witnessed a quickened pace by financial intermediaries in improving corporate governance with added transparency and financial strength by engaging in IPOs. This trend culminated with Guotai Junan Securities Ltd., the big Shanghai-based broker dealer, raising over 30 billion RMB through its IPO in Shanghai last June.
In developed countries, most established, regulated exchanges are publicly listed companies, operating in a transparent and competitive environment. In India, MCX became the first regulated commodity exchange to be publicly listed four years ago. Here in China, demutualisation of regulated commodity exchanges remains a discussion topic in academic circles.
In the longer term, effective pricing of any commodity, carbon included, would ultimately demand that exchange operators compete in an open and transparent way, with upgraded corporate governance structures.
INITIATIVE
When is “too soon” for a first trade? Pricing carbon entails building the “forward curve” with adequate liquidity from institutions – compliance entities, financial firms, and professional liquidity providers – no “retails”. The California emissions market officially started in January 2013, but the first centrally cleared forward trade of California carbon allowances was initiated 16 months prior.
It would not be too early, therefore, for capped companies and financial institutions in China to start working together towards building a carbon “forward curve” within the existing legal framework for both listed and over-the-counter derivatives trading, i.e., to launch a legitimate first trade.
As the new market evolves, institutions need to play a dominant role in terms of trading and open interests. This would be a complete break from the current commodity futures trading experience in China, which has been known as a retail market, even as institutions appeared to represent an increasing share of the open interests over the past few years.
INTERNATIONAL ACCESS AND LINKAGE
Three years ago, China started to explore launching a domestic crude oil futures contract to help its oil companies better manage oil price volatility. One key feature in designing the contract is to allow international traders direct access to trading the contracts. Since then, efforts have been under way to follow a similar template to “internationalise” the trading of the existing PTA futures contract in Zhengzhou and iron ore futures contracts in Dalian, respectively.
Carbon is a truly “global” commodity and direct access for qualified and experienced overseas participants would help the nascent carbon pricing efforts in the Chinese national scheme.
The first ever commodity futures trading in the US, wheat in this case, started in Chicago in 1848. In the US or EU, most hard work in launching a cap-and-trade scheme is focused on the “cap” part, while a long-running, battle-tested and regulated financial infrastructure for price discovery is already in place. In China, the challenges are doubled: monumental efforts are now under way with “cap” while “trade” is still evolving in a commodity market that started some 20 years ago.
No secret recipe exists for sustained success in pricing carbon. Good governance is the bedrock for any well-functioning commodity market. China would be no exception.
The stakes are high: a well-functioning national carbon market would not only deliver verifiable emissions reductions at lower cost, but also elevate domestic market infrastructure with higher operational standards.（IdeaCarbon提供翻译）