Search Climate Insights Directory

The report assesses the nascent green bonds market in Africa, noting that while it is gaining traction as a tool for climate mitigation and adaptation, it remains underdeveloped. The market is currently dominated by a few states and represents less than 1% of global issuance volumes. Key barriers to growth include institutional incapacity, a lack of national frameworks, and low awareness, although prospects for expansion are high as more states plan issuances or develop national guidelines.

The report details the operational framework for mapping green finance in India, focusing exclusively on mitigation activities. It defines the scope of 'green finance' to include climate finance and environmental objectives like resource conservation, while explicitly excluding adaptation, biodiversity, and pollution abatement. The methodology describes the classification of sources (public, private, and international), the identification of financial instruments (grants, loans, and equity), and the sectoral coverage spanning power generation, energy efficiency, and sustainable transportation. It specifies the data sources used, including Union and State budgets, OECD databases, BNEF, and reports from Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs).

The document argues that public funds alone cannot meet Africa's growing energy demands, which require an estimated $120 billion annually until 2040. It advocates for 'green financing'—blending public, development, and private capital—to reduce investment risks and improve affordability. Using Kenya as a model, the brief details how instruments like Partial Risk Guarantees, concessional loans, and Feed-in Tariffs have facilitated large-scale wind and geothermal projects. It specifically encourages the European Union to leverage its development finance institutions to create risk-mitigation products and support local private sector partnerships to accelerate the continent's green transition.

The Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) has transitioned from using the term "brown finance" to "dirty finance" to describe investments that damage the environment. This change follows feedback that "brown" can be offensive to people of color, particularly given the disproportionate impact of climate change on marginalized communities. While CPI acknowledges that "dirty finance" may not be a perfect term and will continue to use technical language like "high-emissions finance" in formal documents, it believes "dirty finance" provides the strongest and most inclusive signal for general communications.

The report analyzes green finance in India for FY 2017-2018, finding that average annual flows of USD 19 billion are insufficient to meet national climate goals, representing only about 10% of the total requirement. Domestic private investors are the largest contributors, primarily funding renewable energy, while international public finance focuses heavily on sustainable transportation and solar projects. The study highlights a critical need for a harmonized green finance taxonomy and an integrated measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) system to address significant data gaps and transparency issues.

The report outlines a framework to evaluate whether green bonds in China provide real environmental impact and better financing terms compared to alternatives, noting that China's domestic green bond market grew from US$29 billion in 2016 to US$98 billion by April 2019.

Ascendas Real Estate Investment Trust issued a SGD100 million (USD103 million) senior unsecured green bond on August 26, 2020, with a 10-year tenor maturing in 2030. The bond was oversubscribed by 6.5 times and will be used to refinance 17 properties holding at least a BCA gold certification. The issuance was assured by EY and underwritten by OCBC Bank.

The report finds that tracked green finance in India averaged INR 124 thousand crores (USD 19 billion) per year for FY 2017-2018, representing only about 10% of the estimated annual requirement for climate action. Domestic private finance was the largest contributor, with the vast majority of funds flowing into renewable energy, specifically solar and wind power. While public finance increased due to government initiatives and the role of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), the report highlights significant data gaps and the need for a standardized green finance taxonomy and a national measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) system to scale investments.

The document argues that public funds alone cannot meet Africa's growing energy demands, which require an estimated $120 billion annual investment until 2040. It advocates for 'green financing'—blending public and private capital—to overcome high infrastructure costs and investment risks. Using Kenya's experience, the brief details how instruments like Partial Risk Guarantees, concessional loans, and Feed-in Tariffs have attracted private investment for wind, solar, and geothermal projects. It specifically recommends that the EU and development partners provide technical assistance and risk-mitigation products to create enabling environments for private sector energy investments across the continent.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, on behalf of the Life After Coal campaign and 350Africa.org, provides commentary on the National Treasury's 2020 Draft Technical Paper 'Financing a Sustainable Economy'. The submission argues that the Draft Paper focuses too heavily on voluntary disclosure rather than binding commitments and fails to align with the urgency of the climate crisis or South Africa's international obligations under the Paris Agreement.

The briefing advocates for using the European Green Deal as a blueprint for the EU's post-pandemic recovery, emphasizing that green investments can stimulate short-term economic activity while building long-term resilience. It calls for increased 2030 emission reduction targets, scaled-up green investments, and an integrated approach to clean energy, mobility, and industrial innovation. The document highlights the necessity of aligning financial flows with climate neutrality and accelerating the transition to a circular economy to ensure a sustainable and competitive industrial future for Europe.

The document argues that the European Green Deal can facilitate a transition to a climate-neutral economy while addressing the health and economic crises caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. It posits that green investments are a viable mechanism to generate employment and stimulate economic activity, thereby increasing long-term resilience.

The document argues for a 'One Health' approach to prevent future pandemics by protecting ecosystem integrity and stopping the illegal wildlife trade, noting that 70% of new emerging diseases are zoonotic. It advocates for systemic recovery strategies, including 'farm-to-fork' agricultural approaches and sustainable supply chains for commodities like coffee, cocoa, and cotton. The text emphasizes the need for 'do no harm' standards in recovery investments, the scaling of green finance—citing that mangrove investments can yield $7 in economic benefits for every dollar spent—and the alignment of biodiversity goals with the Paris Agreement's NDCs and the Convention on Biological Diversity's 2030 goals.

The report argues that current green finance in China focuses too narrowly on individual assets and lacks robust monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) to prove additionality. It proposes a 'deep green' finance framework designed to overcome structural barriers to sustainability, such as the economic dependency of Shanxi on coal and the systemic transmission and tariff constraints affecting Sichuan's hydroelectric resources. The author suggests four tests for deep green finance and six recommendations for policymakers to align finance, policy, and market design to accelerate a systemic low-carbon transition.

India faces significant climate vulnerability, with nearly 3% of its GDP at risk annually. To meet its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) goals, India requires $2.5 trillion in investments between 2016 and 2030, yet it is currently mobilizing less than 25% of this requirement. A primary barrier to scaling these investments is the lack of an agreed-upon definition of 'green finance,' leading to confusion and inconsistent reporting across the financial sector. The document proposes a combination of international practices, a principles-based approach (aligning with national goals and net carbon reduction), and a sectoral taxonomy to create a formal definition. Such a framework would enable better tracking of capital flows, mitigate greenwashing, and allow financial institutions to better assess climate-related physical and transition risks. The authors recommend forming a stakeholder task force to develop a comprehensive green finance roadmap that includes a common taxonomy, mandatory climate risk disclosures, and regulatory incentives to divert capital from carbon-intensive sectors.

The document argues that Canada's post-pandemic reconstruction offers a historic opportunity to pivot toward a low-carbon economy. It outlines seven specific principles, or 'green strings,' to guide bailouts, stimulus, and recovery measures. These include requiring companies to develop net-zero plans, prohibiting stock buybacks and dividends for aid recipients, and ensuring a just transition for workers in high-carbon sectors. The report emphasizes that green stimulus can create as many jobs as neutral measures and calls for increased transparency, equity for Indigenous peoples, and the protection of environmental regulations during the recovery phase.

The report analyzes the ECB's corporate asset purchase programs (CSPP and PEPP), finding that they provide significant financial support to companies active in coal, oil, and gas. It criticizes the ECB's lack of transparency regarding asset values and argues that the principle of 'market neutrality' creates an anti-climate bias by favoring carbon-intensive sectors. The author recommends that the ECB exclude fossil fuel companies without phase-out plans and align its monetary policy with the 1.5°C trajectory of the Paris Agreement.

The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) successfully raised 200 crore Indian rupees (INR) through municipal bonds in January 2019 to fund green projects, including waste management, water supply, and the cleaning of the Sabarmati River. The bonds were oversubscribed 5.42 times, receiving INR 1,085 crore in subscriptions from 19 institutions. This success is attributed to AMC's AA+ credit rating from CRISIL and India Ratings, reflecting strong financial health and operational efficiency. The document highlights the role of the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT) and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in incentivising and easing the rules for municipal bond issuance to support climate-resilient infrastructure.

The document examines the Green Transformation Fund (GTF), a $200 million initiative by Bangladesh Bank to reduce the environmental footprint of Bangladesh's garment and manufacturing industries by providing loans for green capital machinery.

A coalition of 92 organisations argues that BlackRock's role in developing ESG criteria for EU banking rules is compromised by its massive investments in fossil fuels and its history of lobbying against such regulations.