Search Climate Insights Directory

As of September 30, 2022, the cumulative issuance of GSS+ bonds exceeded $3.5 trillion, with green bonds surpassing $2 trillion. While the market saw a decline in Q3 2022 compared to previous periods due to geopolitical and macroeconomic factors, green bonds remained the dominant type, accounting for 52% of issuance year-to-date. International organizations are the largest issuers, and the market is heavily concentrated in Euro, US Dollar, and RMB denominations. A dedicated section highlights the Middle East and Africa market, which has reached $33.3 billion in cumulative issuance, characterized by a high proportion of green bonds and sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs).

By 30 September 2022, cumulative global GSS+ debt topped USD3.5 trillion, with green bonds surpassing the USD2 trillion milestone. While Q3 2022 saw a decline in issuance volumes due to geopolitical and macroeconomic factors, the market remains dominated by EUR, USD, and CNY denominations. In the Middle East and Africa (MEA), the GSS+ market has reached USD33.2 billion, characterized by a high proportion of sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) compared to the global average, reflecting the region's concentration of hard-to-abate sectors.

IDFC members reported a record $224 billion in green finance commitments in 2021, with climate finance accounting for 95% of the total. Mitigation finance reached $186.6 billion, while adaptation finance decreased by 24% to $20.9 billion. Biodiversity finance grew by 31% to $18.4 billion. The majority of climate finance was provided by non-OECD institutions and directed toward the East Asia and Pacific region.

The report argues that India's buildings sector must adopt an integrative whole-system approach to address both embodied and operational emissions. It highlights that building operations account for about a third of India's energy use, and without intervention, energy consumption could triple by 2050. The proposed framework prioritises reducing energy needs through passive design, serving those needs with super-efficient equipment, and transitioning to clean energy procurement and demand flexibility. Key recommendations include government mandates for net-zero public buildings, the adoption of carbon accounting for corporations, and the implementation of building performance standards to ensure actual operational efficiency.

The document evaluates the IMF's updated surveillance practices by analyzing recent reports for Indonesia and South Africa. While it notes a 'sea change' in the IMF's willingness to integrate climate issues—such as endorsing carbon taxes and green financing—it argues that the organization continues to prioritize steep fiscal consolidation and austerity. This focus on budget deficit ceilings is seen as a threat to the funding required for climate adaptation and mitigation. The authors highlight significant 'blind spots,' including the failure to fully account for the long-term fiscal risks of stranded fossil fuel assets and the potential for carbon-intensive exports to decline as trade partners decarbonize. The report concludes that while there is 'cautious optimism' due to more sophisticated analytical work, the IMF's advice remains insufficient for achieving a socially-just green transition.

The report argues that current climate finance is woefully inadequate to meet Paris Agreement goals, with developing countries alone requiring $4.3 trillion for 2030 commitments. It outlines a three-stage framework—planning, implementation, and monitoring—and details a variety of fiscal and policy instruments to align public spending, increase public funding, and mobilize private capital.

The report outlines the Green Guarantee Company's (GGC) framework for integrating gender equality and women's empowerment into its credit guarantee operations for green bonds and loans. It assesses gender vulnerabilities in five key sectors—energy, transport, buildings/cities, health/food/water security, and infrastructure—and provides high-level profiles for eight target countries. The document details a seven-step Transaction Selection Process (TSP) designed to ensure that guaranteed projects are gender-responsive, including rigorous due diligence, remediation strategies, and the use of a multidisciplinary 'line of defence' consisting of internal and external gender specialists.

The Green Guarantee Company (GGC), managed by the Development Guarantee Group (DGG) and accredited by MUFG Bank, Ltd., seeks USD 82.5 million in equity from the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to create a guarantee vehicle. GGC aims to leverage its capital 10x to provide up to USD 4 billion in guarantees for green bonds and loans in developing countries, specifically targeting those with sub-investment grade ratings to attract global institutional investors. The programme focuses on five GCF result areas: energy generation and access, low-emission transport, buildings/cities/industries/appliances, health/food/water security, and infrastructure/built environment. It targets a mitigation impact of 74.6 million tCO2e and reaches approximately 36.9 million beneficiaries over a 20-year lifespan. The proposal includes a detailed Transaction Selection Process (TSP) to ensure climate impact and a comprehensive Gender Action Plan to promote equality and women's empowerment in the supported projects.

The document argues that while the costs of climate action are high, the costs of inaction are higher, noting that physical climate risk has already increased the cost of capital for V20 countries by USD62bn over 10 years. It proposes a three-pillar policy framework: providing clarity on green investments via taxonomies, tilting investment toward green opportunities through de-risking and carbon pricing, and building green investment pipelines. Key mechanisms suggested include the use of junior capital by development finance institutions to mobilize private investment, the removal of fossil fuel subsidies, and the implementation of carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs). The summary concludes with a list of 101 specific policy ideas across sectors including energy, transport, and agriculture to be detailed in a full report.

The report applies the AIIB-Amundi Climate Change Investment Framework (CCIF) to evaluate climate-related financial risks and opportunities across sectors, companies, and debt issuers. The analysis reveals a strong focus on climate mitigation and greenhouse gas measurement, but a significant deficiency in climate adaptation planning and implementation. Notably, no analyzed company performed well across all three CCIF objectives: mitigation, adaptation, and financial contribution.

The document details the criteria and multi-step screening process for the CBI Green Bond Database, emphasizing self-labeling, public disclosure, and alignment with the Climate Bonds Taxonomy and Sector Criteria. It defines eligible assets across energy, transport, water, waste, land use, and industry, while explicitly excluding fossil fuel-related activities. The methodology also addresses the treatment of adaptation and resilience measures, R&D expenditures, and the relationship between the database and the formal CBI Certification Scheme.

The report finds that public financial institutions are lagging behind private counterparts in setting credible climate targets. While some Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) show leadership, national and subnational development banks, as well as institutions in non-OECD countries, have very few Paris-aligned or net-zero commitments. Key barriers include a lack of government guidance and insufficient accountability mechanisms within global coalitions.

In 2019/2020, Nigeria received an average of USD 1.9 billion annually in climate finance, representing only 11% of the USD 17.7 billion needed annually for its conditional NDC. Public finance dominated at 77% of total flows, primarily delivered as concessional debt. Mitigation finance (USD 1.1 billion) outweighed adaptation finance (USD 663 million), despite high vulnerability to climate shocks. Energy systems received the most investment, particularly solar, while sectors like waste and industrial processes remained severely underfunded. The report highlights a significant contradiction between climate finance flows and continued heavy investment in fossil fuels, noting one LNG project alone received USD 2.77 billion. Key barriers include limited private sector mobilization, capacity constraints in GHG reporting, and a lack of national climate budget tagging.

The Kenya Green Bond Programme (2017-2021) focused on developing the green bond market in Kenya through policy reform, capacity building, and the creation of supportive regulatory frameworks. Key outcomes include the development of NSE Green Bond Listing Rules, the passage of tax incentives by parliament, and the mobilization of GBP 64.95 million in private finance for climate purposes, including Kenya's first green bond. The programme also trained over 20,000 bank employees via e-learning and provided training to 16 Kenyan verifiers.

The Nigeria Green Bond Programme, running from January 2018 to March 2023, focused on developing Nigeria's green bond market through guidelines, verifier training, and investment pipelines. Key achievements include the issuance of ₦32.83 billion in corporate green bonds and ₦25.69 billion in sovereign green bonds, with support provided to five issuers and 928 capital markets beneficiaries.

The SADC Green Bonds Programme, running from April 2021 to March 2024, seeks to accelerate the use of green bonds for climate finance in SADC member countries. Key achievements include the launch of the SADC Green and Sustainable Bond guidelines in April 2022, the revision of the Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange rules in Tanzania, and the issuance of a MUR 500 million green bond by Cim Financial Services Limited in Mauritius.

In 2019/2020, Nigeria received an average of USD 1.9 billion annually in climate finance, representing only 11% of the USD 17.7 billion needed to meet its conditional NDC target. Public finance dominated the landscape, accounting for 77% of flows, primarily through concessional debt. Mitigation finance (USD 1.1 billion) outweighed adaptation finance (USD 663 million), despite the country's high vulnerability to climate risks. Energy systems received the largest share of investment (41%), with a strong focus on solar technologies, while sectors like waste and industrial processes remained severely underfunded. The report highlights a significant contradiction between climate finance goals and continued heavy investment in fossil fuels, noting that a single LNG project received USD 2.77 billion—more than the total tracked climate finance for the period.

The document finds that Sweden's five largest banks have limited alignment with the Paris Agreement, having facilitated approximately USD 150 billion to high-emitting 'brown' sectors since 2016. While 'green' investments have increased, they remain significantly lower than 'brown' and 'grey' flows. The authors argue that a lack of granular data and standardized definitions hinders transparency, recommending the adoption of International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) standards and EU-level regulations to better track the transition to a low-emission economy.

The study finds limited alignment with the Paris Agreement, as financing to high-emitting 'brown' sectors generally increased in volume since 2016, while 'green' investments remained marginal in absolute terms.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) Secretariat and Accreditation Panel (AP) assessed PT Sarana Multi Infrastruktur (PT SMI) for re-accreditation and a scope upgrade. PT SMI demonstrated significant growth in climate financing, increasing its portfolio to USD 976 million by 2021 and committing to phase out fossil fuel financing. The AP recommends re-accreditation with an upgraded scope to include medium-sized projects, equity and guarantees, and high-risk (Category A/I-1) environmental and social (E&S) projects, subject to specific conditions regarding its grievance redress mechanism and external E&S auditing.