Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines the intersection of climate change and food security in Nigeria, highlighting how extreme weather, conflict, and poor infrastructure threaten agricultural productivity. It analyzes the alignment of the FMAFS Road Map, NATIP, and the NDC, while identifying critical gaps in budget utilization and policy coordination. The document advocates for a shift toward community-led, climate-smart agriculture and improved financial transparency to achieve long-term resilience.

The Climate Bonds’ Resilience Taxonomy (CBRT) is a classification system designed to help infrastructure issuers identify and certify investments that enhance climate resilience. It covers over 1,400 investments across seven themes, including health, agri-food, and energy systems. The taxonomy employs a tiered eligibility framework requiring a 'substantial contribution to resilience', 'no maladaptation risk', and 'Do No Significant Harm (DNSH)' to other sustainability goals. Investments are categorized as whitelisted (automatically aligned), subject to technical specifications (binary pass/fail checks), or requiring a process-based approach for flexible placeholders. The guide outlines two primary use cases: developing a project pipeline by filtering for material climate hazards and mapping existing projects to verify eligibility for thematic bonds. Currently in an interim phase, the CBRT is designed for interoperability with the EU Taxonomy, the MDB joint methodology, and the LAC Common Framework.

The report identifies a growing global landscape of over 60 sustainable finance taxonomies, noting high-level interoperability in classification structures and objectives but significant challenges at the granular criteria level. While development is accelerating, implementation remains in early stages, particularly in emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs). The Taxonomy Roadmap Initiative, launched at COP29, aims to address these gaps through three pillars: identifying core economic activities, developing common technical approaches, and formulating transition finance guidelines. To support these goals, the initiative is launching a set of tools at COP30, including a Sustainable Finance Taxonomy Mapper and Principles for Taxonomy Interoperability.

The Principles for Taxonomy Interoperability, published by the Climate Bonds Initiative as part of the Taxonomy Roadmap Initiative, provide a framework to make diverse national and regional sustainable finance taxonomies comparable. The document argues that while local priorities necessitate different criteria, interoperability—based on common language, structures, and scientific baselines—is essential for scaling private climate finance. It outlines seven principles covering foundation, design, use cases, coverage, complexity, market signaling, and international collaboration. Additionally, it provides guidance on core design pillars such as sector structure (based on ISIC), common environmental objectives, and transition approaches (binary, traffic light, or merged).

The report outlines seven principles for taxonomy interoperability to facilitate cross-border capital flows for sustainable finance. It emphasizes the use of common terminology, scientific baselines, and collaborative international efforts to align diverse national taxonomies without requiring them to be identical.

As of Q3 2025, the cumulative volume of aligned GSS+ debt reached USD 6.5 trillion. Green bonds remain the dominant theme, accounting for 64% of aligned volume in Q3 2025, while sustainability-labelled debt is gaining momentum. Non-financial and financial corporates were the most prolific issuers in the quarter, and supranationals remain the largest historical source of cumulative aligned volume.

The report identifies a conservative USD 4.4 trillion pipeline of creditworthy sustainable bonds from 12 climate-leader countries through 2035. It argues that global megatrends—such as electrification, urbanisation, and the rise of AI—will further accelerate this pipeline beyond current projections. The document also outlines policy levers, including taxonomies and monetary policy, that governments can use to channel capital into mitigation and resilience projects.

Global climate finance reached a record USD 1.9 trillion in 2023, driven by a 30% compound annual growth rate in private finance from 2018 to 2023. While mitigation finance dominates at 94% of total flows—primarily targeting energy systems and transport—adaptation finance decreased by 16% in 2023 to USD 65 billion. Significant regional disparities persist, with 79% of finance concentrated in East Asia and the Pacific, Western Europe, and the US and Canada. Despite growth, current investment levels remain three times lower than the most conservative estimates of global needs.

In 2024, IDFC members committed $173 billion in green finance, a 13% decrease from 2023, primarily driven by shifts in investment priorities among a few large institutions. Despite the overall decline, 14 of 23 responding members increased their commitments. Climate finance dominated at $167 billion, with mitigation ($140 billion) remaining the primary focus, while adaptation finance saw a 54% increase to $17 billion. Biodiversity finance totaled $8 billion. The report highlights the pivotal role of non-OECD institutions, which provided 72% of climate finance, and emphasizes the need to target underfunded sectors such as AFOLU, fisheries, and industry.

The report analyzes climate finance in Kenya's arid and semi-arid lands (ASAL), specifically in Turkana, Elgeyo Marakwet, Narok, and West Pokot. It finds a significant misalignment in funding, with over 60% of climate finance directed toward mitigation despite the high vulnerability of these regions to climate-induced droughts and floods. The study identifies severe funding gaps, where actual budgetary allocations for climate action in some counties are as low as 2% to 9% of estimated needs. Key barriers include weak institutional capacity, fragmented governance, and limited access to formal financial markets. The report recommends strengthening county-level technical skills, promoting innovative financing like green bonds and blended finance, and mainstreaming climate priorities into local budgeting to improve adaptation outcomes.

The document analyzes Nigeria's climate policy through four 'policy moments', highlighting a persistent struggle with institutional overlap and fragmented governance. It examines how internal competition between bodies like the National Council on Climate Change (NCCC) and the Office of the Special Presidential Envoy on Climate (OSPEC) dilutes Nigeria's international bargaining power. The paper also discusses the impact of global energy market shifts, the divestment of onshore assets by International Oil Companies (IOCs), and the challenges of removing fuel subsidies. It concludes that Nigeria must move away from transplanting foreign institutional models and instead develop a domestically driven, streamlined framework that integrates the petroleum sector into its climate goals.

Nigeria's climate agenda is hampered by overlapping institutions and a lack of elite consensus, which diminishes its bargaining power internationally. While the Tinubu administration has attempted to centralize governance through the Office of the Special Presidential Envoy on Climate (OSPEC) and the Presidential Climate Action Committee (PCAC), these moves risk further fragmentation by sidelining statutory bodies like the National Council on Climate Change (NCCC). Externally, Nigeria faces declining oil exports to China and India and increased competition from the US in European markets, intensifying the need for a successful energy transition. The report highlights a trend of International Oil Companies (IOCs) divesting from onshore assets due to regulatory instability, while noting that agile local firms are better positioned to navigate domestic complexities.

The document describes how securitization—pooling assets like loans into securities via special purpose vehicles—increases liquidity and capital recycling for low-carbon transportation, buildings, water, and renewable energy. It details commercial and public examples, the role of technical assistance, and the capacity requirements for issuers and regulators to scale these instruments.

The document outlines green bonds as fixed-income instruments for environmental projects, noting that energy and buildings each account for approximately 30% of recent allocations. It identifies institutional investors as the core demand source and highlights the role of Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) in providing cumulative issuances, such as the World Bank's over USD 200bn. The text details the issuance process, noting a typical 'greenium' of 2–5 bps and a timeline of 6–12 months for sovereign framework preparation.

ASEAN requires between $4 billion and $10.7 billion in smart grid investments to support its energy transition, depending on the chosen ambition level. The report outlines three investment pathways based on international benchmarks: a low-level distribution-focused approach ($4 billion), a medium-level renewable growth approach ($6.7 billion), and a high-level regional integration approach ($10.7 billion). While Singapore serves as a governance and technical model with its Grid 2.0 strategy and Digital Twin, most ASEAN nations will require a mix of blended finance, green bonds, and regulatory reforms to fund these upgrades, with the largest investment needs concentrated in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam.

The green bond market began in 2007 with the European Investment Bank and uses specific principles to ensure capital supports climate-aligned causes. As of June 2022, the Climate Bonds Initiative's Green Bond Database recorded over 10,000 green bonds with cumulative volumes of USD 1.9 trillion, though total issuance is higher as the database only includes Paris-aligned bonds meeting specific reporting standards.

The report provides a comprehensive overview of Brazil's sustainable debt market (VSS+) as of June 30, 2025, highlighting the dominance of green bonds and the role of non-financial corporations. It details the regulatory landscape, including the development of the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy (TSB), and identifies strategic investment opportunities across sectors such as agriculture, energy, and sanitation.

The report argues that rapid methane abatement is a priority for transition finance due to its immediate impact on limiting global warming to 1.5°C. It analyzes the current financing landscape, noting a significant gap between the USD 9.6bn in private methane finance (2021/2022) and the estimated USD 48bn to USD 100bn required annually by 2030. Through case studies of 20 corporates, the report finds that while oil and gas firms generally integrate methane abatement into short-term strategies, agrifood firms struggle with supply chain tracking and specific targets. To address this, the report promotes the use of Use of Proceeds (UOP) and sustainability-linked instruments guided by Climate Bonds and Methane Finance Working Group (MFWG) criteria to ensure investments contribute to decarbonization without locking in high-carbon assets.

The report examines the financing gap for methane abatement, noting that while significant investment opportunities exist, current funding is limited compared to the estimated $48 billion annual need by 2030. It analyzes the transition plans of 20 major companies, finding that oil and gas firms are more advanced in integrating methane targets than agri-food companies. The document promotes the use of Use of Proceeds (UoP) and Sustainability-Linked Bonds (SLB), supported by new standards from the Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) and the Methane Finance Working Group (MFWG), to avoid carbon lock-in and ensure scientific alignment with the 1.5°C goal.

Methane abatement is critical for near-term climate action, requiring a 45% reduction in global emissions by 2030. The report highlights that the energy sector has the highest technical abatement potential, while agriculture is dominated by behavioural change opportunities. It identifies five national sector archetypes—China's coal, India's smallholder agriculture, Brazil's livestock, Indonesia's waste, and O&G exporters—to provide scalable policy lessons. Significant financing gaps exist, with only USD 13.7bn tracked in 2021/22 against an estimated annual need of USD 48bn. The report advocates for methane-specific targets in NDCs, the use of satellite monitoring to close data gaps, and the implementation of import standards and carbon pricing to drive global supply chain reductions.