Search Climate Insights Directory

oekom research conducted a limited assurance review of SNCF Réseau's Green Bond Programme and found no evidence of non-conformance with the Climate Bond Standard Version 2.0 and the Low Carbon Land Transport eligibility criteria. The verification covered the selection of projects, internal processes and controls, and reporting requirements. SNCF Réseau intends to use the bond to (re-)finance low carbon rail transportation, with expected net proceeds between EUR 0.5 billion and 1 billion against forecasted financing requirements of approximately EUR 2.8 billion for 2016. The report confirms that SNCF Réseau has established processes for project eligibility, tracking of proceeds via an internal IT system, and plans for periodic assurance engagements.

The Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme Assurance Framework outlines the role of Approved Verifiers in certifying bonds as 'low carbon and climate resilient'. It defines a two-phase certification process—pre-issuance and post-issuance—and sets strict competence, insurance, and performance standards for verifiers. Oversight is managed by the Climate Bonds Standard Secretariat, with final certification and verifier approval decisions made by the Climate Bonds Standard Board.

The report outlines the roles of China and the UK in the green bond market and proposes a cooperation plan to overcome global challenges such as the lack of standardized green definitions and insufficient project pipelines. It highlights the UK's position as a global green finance hub and China's role as a major growth driver, suggesting that bilateral efforts in cross-border issuance, research, and standard-setting can benefit the global energy transition.

The report outlines a strategic framework for UK-China cooperation to expand the global green bond market, identifying key challenges such as the lack of bankable projects and non-harmonised standards. It proposes specific actions, including scaling cross-border issuance, creating joint research programs between the Bank of England and the People's Bank of China, and developing globally harmonised green definitions. The document also highlights the role of the Climate Bonds Standard and Certification Scheme in providing the trust and assurance necessary for institutional investors to mobilise capital for low-carbon and climate-resilient infrastructure.

The report identifies a significant gap between Mexico's current climate-aligned bond issuance and the investment required to meet its emissions targets, while outlining opportunities across energy, transport, buildings, and water sectors.

The report identifies a significant gap between Mexico's climate goals and its current green bond issuance, which stood at US $1.3bn in 2016. It highlights substantial investment needs, particularly in energy (US $5bn annually) and transport (US $12bn for multimodal projects), and argues that mobilizing private institutional capital through green bonds is essential to meet these targets.

The paper assesses the alignment of Chinese green bond guidelines—primarily those from the People's Bank of China (PBoC)—with international practices. It finds strong alignment in the management of proceeds and reporting, but identifies significant divergence in green definitions, particularly regarding the inclusion of fossil fuel projects. The authors recommend adopting a scientific framework for project criteria, implementing a third-party certification model with approved verifiers, and standardising environmental impact reporting to reduce transaction costs for international investors.

The green bond market experienced substantial growth in 2016, with issuance on track to double from 2015 levels, driven largely by China and other emerging markets. While mitigation projects in clean energy and energy efficiency receive the majority of capital, adaptation financing is increasing, particularly through US municipalities. The private sector now accounts for 66% of issuance. To meet Paris Agreement targets, the report advocates for governments to develop green investment pipelines and implement five key actions: issuing demonstration bonds, applying green standards, enabling domestic verifiers, providing market infrastructure, and promoting international collaboration.

The Climate Bonds Initiative argues that the EU must go beyond supporting market guidelines to actively scale the green bond market. It recommends using the Capital Markets Union framework to increase issuance volume, provide credit enhancement via the European Fund for Strategic Investments, and develop 'green securitisation' to aggregate small-scale low-carbon assets. The document emphasizes that institutional investor demand is high but requires financially competitive products and clear standards, such as the Climate Bonds Standard, to ensure transparency and discoverability.

In Q1 2015, 44 green bonds totaling $7.2 billion were issued. The market showed signs of maturation through the use of 11 different currencies and credit ratings ranging from AAA to B-. India emerged as a key player with its first corporate green bonds from Yes Bank, while US municipal bonds grew in the water and green building sectors, though often lacking independent verification. Development banks remained leaders, accounting for approximately 46.2% of issuance. Renewable energy, green buildings, and water were the primary funding targets. Investors showed strong demand, evidenced by oversubscription and the formation of dedicated green bond funds and investor expectation statements to combat 'greenwashing'.

The report identifies barriers preventing institutional investors from allocating capital to climate-friendly assets and proposes a two-tiered action plan for EU policymakers. Short-term actions focus on increasing the volume and discoverability of assets through green bonds, credit enhancements, and securitisation. Medium-to-long-term actions aim to shift the decision-making frameworks of investors by lengthening investment horizons, improving stewardship, and mainstreaming carbon risk accounting.

The document explains that green bonds are fixed-income instruments where proceeds are earmarked for projects with environmental benefits, such as renewable energy and energy efficiency. It details four main types of green bonds—'use of proceeds' bonds, revenue bonds, project bonds, and securitized bonds—and notes that the majority are 'use of proceeds' bonds backed by the issuer's entire balance sheet. The market grew significantly from $11bn in 2013 to $36.6bn by the end of 2014, with major issuers including the European Investment Bank and the World Bank. While the 'Green Bond Principles' provide best practice guidelines, the document highlights a lack of universal definitions for 'green' projects, a gap the Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) is addressing with sector-specific standards. For investors, green bonds offer a way to meet ESG objectives without necessarily taking on additional project-specific risk, though the secondary market remains thin due to a 'buy-and-hold' investor base.

The report identifies 'green shoots of recovery' in securitisation markets, particularly through increased residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) in the UK and trade finance securitisations. While investor demand is returning, the report argues that supply is constrained by heavy government intervention (such as by the ECB and US federal agencies) and stringent new regulations like Basel III and Solvency II. The author suggests that the normalisation of these markets is vital for climate finance, as 95% of project finance globally comes from bank lending, and securitisation allows banks to recycle limited capital to fund renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.

The document argues that the transition to a low-carbon economy requires massive annual investments—estimated at $1 trillion to $1.3 trillion—that must come primarily from the private sector's $75 trillion in institutional assets. It identifies a gap between the high capital expenditure needs of climate-resilient infrastructure and the risk appetite of bond investors, who demand large-scale, investment-grade deals. To bridge this, the author proposes aggregating small projects into larger offerings, using public sector risk-sharing (such as guarantees and regulatory support), and establishing standardized screening tools like the Climate Bonds Standards. The plan also calls for 'greening' development banks, providing tax incentives, and creating a 'green growth' economic narrative to overcome political inertia and the influence of the fossil fuel lobby.

The document provides a detailed mapping between the Climate Bonds Buildings Standard and the EU Taxonomy, specifically for building acquisition, new construction, and renovation. It concludes that Climate Bonds requirements are often a "Higher standard" than the EU Taxonomy, particularly regarding operational performance verification and emission reductions. The guide also details how Climate Bonds' DNSH requirements align with EU legislation for climate adaptation, water protection, circular economy, and pollution control.

In 2014, the labeled green bond market grew more than threefold to reach 366 billion USD, issued by 73 entities. International financial institutions remained the leaders, accounting for 44% of the market, with the European Investment Bank (EIB) as the largest issuer at 5.6 billion USD. The market saw significant diversification through corporate issuances totaling 12 billion USD, including a 3.4 billion USD issuance by GDF Suez, and the introduction of green asset-backed securities by Toyota. Municipal bonds also contributed, with US and Canadian provinces and cities like Gothenburg and Johannesburg participating. The total market size, including unlabeled green project bonds and ABS, is estimated between 38 billion and 39 billion USD, with a projection of 100 billion USD by the end of 2015.

The document provides a practical framework for issuing green bonds, emphasizing that the 'green' status depends on the underlying assets rather than the issuer. It details a five-step workflow: identifying eligible green projects, obtaining independent verification, establishing tracking and reporting systems, executing the bond issuance, and providing annual reports on the use of proceeds. The guide also categorizes different types of green bonds—such as project-based, asset-backed securitisation, and general-purpose green bonds—and lists eligible sectors including renewable energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable water management.

The green bond market experienced rapid growth between 2013 and 2016, with total emissions reaching USD 81 billion in 2016. The market is increasingly dominated by the private sector, with corporate and bank emissions rising from less than 1% in 2010 to 66% in 2016. While mitigation projects—specifically clean energy, energy efficiency, and low-carbon transport—receive approximately 75% of funds, financing for adaptation grew from less than 1% in 2011 to 5% of total emissions, driven largely by US municipalities. China emerged as a leading market, projecting to be the largest globally. To support the Paris Agreement, the Climate Bonds Initiative targets annual green bond emissions of USD 1 trillion by 2020. The document recommends that governments implement national capital mobilization plans, apply international standards like the Green Bond Principles and Climate Bonds Standard, and develop national verifier networks to reduce market friction and prevent greenwashing.

The report argues that a rapid transition to a 1.5°C pathway is more economically beneficial than a slow one, as renewable energy costs are now lower than fossil fuels. It proposes three policy pillars—speed, steering, and simplification—to mobilize private capital and align economic development with climate goals. Key recommendations include establishing national carbon budgets, mandating transition plan disclosures, reforming carbon pricing, and utilizing blended finance and guarantees to reduce risks for investors, particularly in emerging markets.

The report examines the role of European Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) in bridging the global climate investment gap, which is estimated between USD 2.5 trillion and USD 4 trillion annually. It highlights the significant financing power of EU Member State public development banks, whose assets were estimated at EUR 3.2 trillion in 2020, and emphasizes the need for large-scale private capital mobilisation, particularly in emerging markets. The document notes a lack of standardized metrics and data regarding the efficacy of mobilisation tools, which hinders comparison across DFIs. It also positions the role of developed market DFIs within the context of the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) to be adopted at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan.