TRANSITION IN ACTION

Agri-foodPrepared by the Climate Bonds Initiative

This publication is funded in part by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
through The Finance Hub, which was created to advance sustainable financeIntroduction
Contents
Introduction 2
Key messages 3
2023 Labelled bonds 4
Sustainable financealong the supply chain 7
Scaling sustainable finance 14
Outlook 17

With the global population
projected to reach close toten billion by 2050, the agrifood sector has to expand.1
Balancing current and future
production with naturepreservation will be a major challenge as foodsecurity deteriorates due to limited availability ofland to cultivate, changing weather patterns andintensive farming, leading to soil degradation anddepleted groundwater. The Agriculture, Forestry
and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector is deeply
impacted by the climate and biodiversity crisis
but is also contributing approximately 30% of thetotal global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.2 Adequate financial mechanisms are
required to help farmers reverse the impact offood production on the environment and ensure
resilience to climate risks later.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) defines transition financeas the expenditure deployed by corporates
to implement their net-zero transition, in linewith the Paris Agreement goal to limit global
warming, and based on a credible corporate
climate transition plan.3 This report will use theterm climate transition finance to emphasise
the primary goal of reaching net zero.4 Climatetransition finance can be instrumental in
supporting the AFOLU sector to become part ofthe climate solution, improve food security, andraise the standard of living of millions of people.
The AFOLU sector has several specificities
that explain the slow uptake of climatetransition finance:• It comprises hundreds of millions of farms
that finance must reach to ensure a systemwide shift.5 There is insufficient funding goingtowards the sector in the first place.6• Levers to achieve the climate transition are
multiple and context specific, so that measuring
their impact can be challenging. The financial
sector needs more guidance on what a credible
transition for this sector looks like.
As observed by the International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), the sector has theunique potential to sequester more carbon
than it emits, reduce meaningful quantities
of carbon relatively cheaply, and provide raw
materials to enable mitigation within the othersectors.7 Investing in the climate transition of
the sector can deliver the multiple objectivesof climate mitigation, adaptation and resilience(A&R), biodiversity protection and restoration,and lifting millions of individuals out of poverty
but, as this report illustrates, this can only beachieved if all the objectives are tackled inparallel. Climate transition financing solutions
that focus exclusively on carbon reduction

Transition in action, Agri-food Climate Bonds Initiative

will not have the required effect. Impactful
investment must incorporate climate, green andsocial considerations, which is referred to assustainable finance.
Sustainable debt is already being used tosupport the AFOLU market transition but isbeing considered for other forms of financing
including those commonly used by the AFOLU
sector, irrespective of the size of the business. It
has been shown to deliver competitive pricing
and higher investor interest in the bond market
than vanilla bonds.8 These instruments are
increasingly encouraged by the financial system
as they constitute a tangible building block uponwhich banks themselves will transition to netzero financing.
In 2024, Climate Bonds Initiative (Climate Bonds)
will publish two new science-based Sector
Criteria: Agriculture Production and Deforestation
and Conversion Free Sourcing (DCF). Thesecan guide the structuring of climate transition
finance instruments in those sectors and enable
a commodity agnostic, global certification
scheme for entities, assets and debt instrumentsthat assures potential creditors of the issuer’s
financial project credibility.
This report presents what is observed alreadyin the AFOLU sustainable debt market andhighlights what should be added to drive
further system change.9 It then dives into how
corporates of all sizes along the supply chain
can use sustainable debt. It illustrates how thelatest international disclosure initiatives andguidance from Climate Bonds Sector Criteria
can be used, and in particular showcases
examples of metrics in addition to scope 3
GHG emissions that can be used for green andsustainable debt reporting or for sustainabilitylinked key performance indicators (KPIs). It
also outlines what is happening on the banking
side and the central role local banks can playin reaching farmers, making the transition
inclusive, and alleviating poverty.
The report focuses on crop and livestock
production and does not cover fishery and forestry.

2

Key messages
The transition is underway
The transition has started
and there is a growing
understanding of how todeliver it involving a wholeecosystem of start-ups to
support implementation.

Climate Bonds Sector
Criteria can definesustainable debt instruments
Non-financial corporate
entities and banks areencouraged to explore thelatest Climate Bonds Sector
Criteria as these establish
a robust categorisationof green activities and activities that should
be linked to monitoring metrics and better
capture the recommendations of the IPCC.

Farmers need accessto sustainable debt
Finance must flow to thefarmers; rather than pushthem further into debt itshould help lift them out ofpoverty and pay them for
the Nature-based Solutions(NbS) they are implementing. Direct payments
and sustainable supply chain finance, within
the supply chain or using local banks asintermediaries, must be scaled. Sustainablefinance at farm level must first and foremost
have a resilient, socio-economic, andenvironmental impact.

The loan market needs
greater transparency

Key performance indicators
must be material

Downstream, traders,manufacturers, and retailers
already use climate transition
finance via bilateral loans withbanks or by issuing bonds
bearing thematic labels. The
loan market would benefit from greater visibility
and transparency as most of the market cannot
currently be tracked.

Sustainability-linked
instrument KPIs and impact
reporting metrics shouldcapture the complexity ofthe sector in addition to theunderlying project natureand size, and not be restricted to scope 3 GHG
emissions. Various examples of alternative
KPIs for each actor along the value chain
are suggested in this report. In particular,
KPIs monitoring the scaling of sustainable
initiatives could be used.

Innovative financing
solutions are needed
Collaboration among all
stakeholders along the value
chain is key to avoid carbon
leakage, reducing costs, andaccelerating the transition.
The financial sector could
play a scaling role with a series of sustainabilitylinked or green cofinancing or cross value
chain solutions.
New Climate Bonds
Sector Criteria

Deforestation
and Conversion
Free Sourcing

Crops and livestock

Mitigation Criteria
Adaptation and Resilience
Scope

Partially, adaptation
measures are included
Deforestation and land
conversion free in supply
chain since 2020

All food commodities
produced on land(including livestock
and aquaculture)

In line with the IPCC
1.5°C pathways for theLand Use sector

In line with the IPCC
1.5°C pathways for theLand Use sector

New assets
Mitigation measures retrofits
Entity Certification
Pathway thresholds

Transition in action, Agri-food Climate Bonds Initiative3

2023 labelled bonds
Climate Bonds screening
Climate Bonds screens labelled debt forinclusion in its datasets. Presently there arethree screening methodologies:
1. The Green Bond Database Methodology
2. The Social and Sustainability Bond
Database Methodology
3. The Sustainability-Linked Bond (SLB)
Database Methodology
Green, social, and sustainability bonds
captured by Climate Bonds meeting therequirements outlined in Climate Bonds
screening methodology qualify for inclusionin the datasets and are classified as aligned.
Labelled bonds for which there is not enoughinformation to determine eligibility for
database inclusion are classified as pending
until sufficient disclosure is available todecide. Bonds failing to meet the requirementsof Climate Bonds screening methodology areclassified as non-aligned and are excluded
from the datasets.

The AFOLU sustainabledebt market
This research report is based on aligned deals
with any part of their UoP earmarked for AFOLU
projects, which include deals with sustainableagriculture or fishery, or forestry or landconservation/biodiversity listed among theireligible project categories.

Sovereigns are the largest sourceof AFOLU UoPVolume per issuer type

Green, social, and sustainability bonds
Cumulative USD billion as of 31 December 2023

4.4tn

Pending
79.8bnExcluded751.7bn

SLBs are assessed according to Climate
Bonds Sustainability-Linked Bond Database
Methodology, and classified according to fourlevels of alignment.10

3. Aligning: SLB targets cover all material
sources of emissions, are aligned with thepathway on a % reduction basis, and the issuer
has the basic tenets of a transition plan.

1. Fully aligned: SLB targets cover all material
sources of emissions and are aligned with therelevant pathway.

4. Not aligned: SLB targets fail to meet anyof the above criteria, or do not meet the otherrequirements detailed in the SLB Database
Methodology.

2. Strongly aligned: SLB targets cover allmaterial sources of emissions and will be alignedwith the relevant pathway by 2030.
SLBs
Cumulative USD billion
as of 31 December 2023

Fully aligned

Strongly aligned

Aligning

Not aligned

40.3bn

2.2bn

4.7bn

278.9bn

Agriculture and fishery production are an
infinitesimal fraction of the universe ofeligible activities
In 2023, Climate Bonds recorded volumes ofaligned green, social, and sustainability bonds of
USD871.9bn.11 Among those, volumes with UoPearmarked for sustainable financing frameworks
that include agriculture or fishery projects reached

Europe is the most prolific region
Volume per region
North America 2%
Supranational 7%
Africa >1%

Development Bank 11%

USD160bn. A further USD6.2bn in cumulative
volumes from issuers operating in the agri-foodsector were identified in SLBs, of which Climate
Bonds classified USD3.6bn as fully aligned.

Emerging market is an active
source of AFOLU use of proceeds
Separation EM/DM per volumeAsia-Pacific
19%

LAC
9%

Sovereign
58%

AlignedFinancial
Corporate
21%

Developed
Market59%

Emerging
Market41%

Europe63%
Non-Financial Corporate 1%
Local Government 3%
Government-Backed Entity 6%
Transition in action, Agri-food Climate Bonds Initiative4

Scaling is needed
In 2023, The International
Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD) estimatedthat USD400bn is needed
annually until 2030 in ruraldevelopment and across foodsystems. While substantial, the amount is not thatmaterial compared to the amount of financing
already going to the agri-food sector from bothpublic and private sources. The challenge facing
the transition of the sector is not primarily
driven by a lack of available financing at global
scale, but rather by a historical lack of efficientfinancial mechanisms to channel national andinternational capital towards the millions offarmers and Small and Medium Enterprises(SMEs) that need the financing. The current
figures suggest that much more needs to bedone, particularly in Africa.

Labelled bonds can support
the transition
Three types of instruments
emerge from the market
analysis and illustrate thepotential to deliver impact
at scale.12
1. UoP debt, with its clear requirement forproceeds to be used for financing social or green
activities, can support non-financial corporates
and sovereigns in financing their shift towards
sustainable production or procurement and ajust transition.
2. Green or sustainability deals priced byfinancial institutions are the most impactful
instruments as they link the international market
to small stakeholders. These instruments include:• Green loans to farmers or cooperatives andcredit unions;• Securitisation instruments, enabling theaggregation of loans or, although far lesscommon, aggregation of illiquid assets used
for supply chain financing (Agribusiness
Receivables Certificates are an example ofthese instruments used in Brazil).13,14,15,16
3. Sustainability-linked debt, which isincreasingly used by major agri-food companies
to finance their operations. When SLBs or
sustainability linked loans (SLLs) are issuedby companies that demonstrate credible andambitious transition plans, they are excellent
impact investing financing tools for bothinvestors and corporates.
The market, however, finances many more
instruments to facilitate international trade andsupply chains. Climate Bonds expects instruments
linked to sustainability credentials to grow and relyon sustainable finance frameworks establishedinitially for the bond and loan markets.

Financial institutions should
finance a wider range of
eligible projects
Of the 46 financial corporates
including sustainableagriculture and fisheryproduction as part of the UoP
eligible categories:• Approximately half listed
certified production as eligible, organic
being the most frequent and mainly used by
European banks;• Eight added to certified production a wide
range of eligible activities to encourage theshift to more sustainable agriculture practices(conservation farming, no till practices,
agro forestry etc.,). These more advanced
frameworks were mainly observed in emerging
markets (EM);• Projects to improve the supply chain werebarely seen (two banks);• Alternative protein was listed by one issuer.
The sustainability financing frameworks of banks
do not reflect the broad range of activities thatcan be financed to support the transition at thisstage, nor are they structured clearly enoughto capture the impact these investments canbring. Such frameworks should reflect thepriority actions highlighted by Planet Tracker:
traceability of the supply chain, a reduction infood loss and waste, cessation of deforestation,a reduction in methane emissions, a shift
to sustainable agriculture/aquaculture, andinvestment in alternative proteins.17 The Climate
Bonds Standard and suite of Sector Criteria
provide a global, coherent, cross sector transition

Agribusiness Receivables Certificates(CRA): CRAs were introduced in 2004 toallow credit receivables generated fromentities operating in agro-industrial chains
to be grouped into a single security andoffered to investors via the capital market.
They are seen as an alternative methodof financing for rural producers alongside
existing sources of credit offered by banks
and within the supply chain, potentiallyallowing them to get access to the national
and international investment market andcreating greater resilience to political andeconomic fluctuations.21

financing standard that informs banks on how
to set up frameworks and distinguish between
green lending and sustainability linked lending.
The most recent Sector Criteria cover Agriculture
Production and Deforestation and Conversion
Free (DCF) Sourcing, which complement existing
criteria also relevant to agri-food businesses on
Waste, Water Infrastructure, and Bioenergy. A last
criterion on Supply Chains will be developed by
the end of 2024.18,19
Section 3 will discuss how banks can accelerate
the transition in more detail.

Major non-financial corporate
entities must indicate stronger
commitments to sustainableproduction and procurement
The credibility of SLBs relies
on companies deriving atransparent and ambitioustransition plan.20 This candrive investor interest andintroduce financial benefits for
issuers. Climate Bonds analysed the transition
plans of SLB issuers against its Standard andcertain Sector Criteria that are key to thetransition of the whole sector. The analysis
does not aim to criticise current deals, given
each company starts from a different point andevolves at its own pace, but instead to informon specific features that should be included infuture deals to ensure impact.
Ten of the eleven SLB issuers in 2023 linked theirdeals to environmental performance (one issuer
did not disclose its KPIs).
KPI

Numberof issuers

GHG emissions

7

Food waste and renewableenergy in operations

1

Renewable installed capacity

1

Environmental, social, andgovernance (ESG) score

1

Robust green CRAs, a subset of green bonds,
focus on achieving environmental benefits
with the funding allocated to sustainableagriculture production. To be credible, theywould benefit from a mechanism to beverifiable. As this report highlights, the tools
and certification schemes already exist andjust need to be deployed.

Transition in action, Agri-food Climate Bonds Initiative

5

The results highlight several action points:• Companies are issuing SLBs without a strong
DCF commitment in place. No credible
decarbonisation strategy can ignore DCF
production and procurement.23• There is a recognition among the major
corporates that they need to engage with
farmers, whose transition to sustainable
practices requires financial support. Leading
companies have established various pilot
landscape-based projects worldwide but more
disclosure is needed to assess the impact ofthese initiatives and how they will be scaled.
This could be achieved via sustainable financeinstruments using common standards, which
will be explored further later in this report.
Hardly any companies had short-term targets
for scope 3, particularly when plans covered
only land use related emissions, when issuingtheir first SLB. This is understandable
considering the complexity of impacting
the supply chain but other metrics should
be deployed in sustainable financeinstruments to monitor short-term
corporate action.
• KPIs monitoring a company’s transition plancannot be limited to reducing the carbon
footprint which only decreases significantly atthe end of the transition journey of production
systems. Sustainable finance can be used forshort-, medium-, and long-term projects andbe applied to specific activities. A vast numberof metrics can be used to capture the impactof the financing, as the rest of this reportwill show. In addition, the transition of theagri-food sector goes beyond the mitigationof climate impact, and must also ensure
its resilience, reverse biodiversity loss, andimprove the living standards of millions offarmers. These objectives can be captured by
the metrics used in sustainable finance.

Criteria of transition plan key to transitioning the whole sector

The company has a company-wide commitment to achieve DCF
production and/or procurement for all high-risk commodity supply
chains.

Number of issuers
meeting the criteria
out of 11 issuers
7

Justification: Land Use Change (LUC) from deforestation or land use
conversion is the number one cause of carbon emissions by the agrifood sector. Isolated initiatives targeting a reduction in LUC intervening
in the production of some commodities in certain regions just shifts
the risk of LUC elsewhere.22 It is therefore paramount that the wholeagri-food sector commits to DCF procurement.
The company has set short-term (maximum five years)
decarbonisation targets for all scopes of GHG emissions.
Justification: the company can commit on a short timeframe, which isan indication of the degree of maturity of the transition plan.

The company offers support (training or/and financing) to smallholder
producers to help them enter responsible supply chains and/or
achieve compliance with company commitments.

Two had set shortterm but five had
medium-term (2030)
decarbonisation targets
which highlights thatthese companies havestarted planning.
7

Justification: the transition of the sector will not happen if the risk andcosts fall on the smallholders.

Transition in action, Agri-food Climate Bonds Initiative6

Sustainable finance along the supply chain
This report will explore how
sustainable finance canbe used along the supply
chain by producers, traders,manufacturers, and retailers,
excluding the input providers(for example fertiliser producers) whosetransition is driven by a completely different setof measures. The decarbonisation levers andmetrics identified upstream can and should be
used by the stakeholders downstream as thetransition is underpinned by strong collaboration
along the value chain. The report focuses on thelevers and KPIs specific to agri-food production
and traceability along the value chain. It is by nomeans exhaustive; it leverages existing disclosure
initiatives and is an invitation to develop a suiteof sustainable debt instruments that better
capture and monitor the transition of the sector.24

Sustainable financefor producers
Investment in sustainable agriculture production
has multiple impacts on GHG emission reduction,
food security, poverty alleviation, and resilience.
It is also strongly linked to investments in otherenvironmental services as farmers often deliver
both food production and nature conservation
or restoration services. Defining the activities that
qualify as green and quantifying their expected
impact is, however, challenging. Sustainableagriculture production is a context-dependent
system of multiple farming practices so finding
the correct trade-off between food security,
biodiversity, resilience, human health, socialand economic development, and water security
varies from field to field and takes time to
implement. Sustainable finance standards in the
sector must remain flexible enough to embrace
the differences, and allow producers the freedom
and time to develop the optimal approach. Any
financing must also be linked to safeguards
to avoid any unintended negative social orenvironmental consequences.

Use of Proceeds debt
Climate Bonds Agriculture Production Sector
Criteria acts as a guide for the green financing
frameworks of investors.
The new Criteria identified production that is freefrom land conversion or deforestation (DCF) as
the first precondition to green lending. The cutoff date for DCF should be no later than end of2020 to align with the Accountability framework
initiative (Afi) and 2010 for Climate Bonds
Certification. Once those requirements have beensatisfied, the Criteria identify three categories of
eligible agriculture practices:• Practices aiming to reduce GHG emissions,• Practices aiming to sequester carbon,• The Sector Criteria include the full list ofeligible practices, their definitions andadditional conditions that should be satisfied,in particular to ensure A&R of the production
system and that they do not cause significant
harm to other social or environmental features.
It also incorporates a certain number ofenabling activities.
One or more can be applied at a time andthe following focuses on the rationale forthe categorisation.

Agri ResourcesGroup S.A.
Agri Resources Group
S.A. (Agri Resources) is a
producer and processor offruit, vegetables, and spices,
headquartered in Luxembourg. The company
operates throughout the European and African
markets. In 2021, Agri Resources priced a
EUR40m sustainability bond to support thedevelopment of environmental and social
projects. The list of eligible projects included,
among others:• Development and certification of existing
landbanks, with KPIs to monitor progress,
such as number of certifications, number of
hectares (ha) covered by sustainable land
practices, and water resource management
practices etc.

Responsible Commodities Facility
The green CRAs priced by the Responsible
Commodities Facility (RCF) are an exampleof the direct financing of DCF farming by
European investors.29 In 2022, the RCF priced
USD11m of green CRAs. The proceeds wereused to finance loans to a selected number

Transition in action, Agri-food Climate Bonds Initiative• GHG emission reduction practices:
examples include 1) using on-farm organic
fertiliser to reduce N2O emissions, 2)conservation agriculture, 3) R&D on meatand dairy alternatives etc.25 Of note is thatthe list of activities includes only those withstrong scientific evidence of positive impact
on absolute GHG emissions reduction, as per
IPCC reports and the consensus reached by
global experts in the Climate Bonds Sector
Criteria Technical Working Group (TWG). In
particular, it excludes practices and systems,
such as better feeding practices in intensive
livestock operations, or new fossil fuels-based
N fertiliser application systems to increase
nitrogen use efficiency, which if applied may
improve emissions marginally but would
not lead to fundamental improvements
and could lead to locked-in emissions. The
levers identified by IPCC to reduce entericfermentation are not included in the green listat this stage as there is no scientific certainty
that they can bring about the shift to the level
required for rapid methane reduction.26 These
levers can however be financed throughsustainability-linked debt that would link theirfinancing to a commitment of absolute GHG
emissions reduction according to the 1.5°C
transition pathway.
• Creation of a traceability system for vanilla;
KPIs to monitor this included the numberof farmers trained, number of farmers
benefitting from incentives.
• Protection of residual forests located within
their plantation and agroforestry. KPIs include
the number of ha preserved and created.
As of mid-2023, the company’s sustainablefinance framework had mobilised 60% of thebond’s proceeds for the development andcertification of plantations, acquisition of land,
research and development (R&D), agroforestry,
and farmer training. The rationale for issuing asustainability bond was part of the business’s
financial strategy to secure an asset base byinvesting in land and equipment, building a
network with certifications to qualify products
for the EU, the USA, and Asian markets, andgeneral business growth.28

of soy farmers in the Cerrado, Brazil, whocommitted not to clear any new areas of native
vegetation. The monitoring and verificationof DCF production is done by an independent
monitoring firm through satellite images.
Crops are sold to soy traders and loans arerepaid at the end of the growing season.

7• Carbon sequestration practices: including
increasing organic soil carbon in grasslands
and croplands, restoration of agricultural land,
and agroforestry. These practices are outcome
based and technology agnostic. For example,
many of these practices could be includedin the broad terminology of ‘regenerative
agriculture’. However, as the definition of what
constitutes regenerative agriculture is notagreed, the criteria list a certain number ofagriculture practices. To ensure the material
impact of these practices, Climate Bonds
Sector Criteria for Certification specifies that
there should be a 20% carbon input increase
into the production system over 10 years,
maintained until 2050 or at least 20 years from
Certification date. This is to ensure that the
crucial mitigation lever of carbon sequestration
remains a realistic outcome in any given
system (i.e., without increased carbon input
into the system, net carbon sequestration
cannot be ensured). It is also relevant to notethat carbon sequestration practices should
prevent unintended consequences to thesurrounding environment and habitats. For
example, heavy use of chemical pesticides
and fossil fuel-based N fertilisers aiming toincrease carbon inputs (through increased
yields) might negate emissions savings andharm biodiversity and environmental health.
Ensuring farming practices have strong risk
assessment capabilities in place for minimisingharm to the surrounding environment will
be key to safeguarding (i.e., minimal use ofpesticides, low and efficient use of non-fossil
fuel-based fertilisers).
• Enabling and A&R activities: enabling
activities such as supply chain technology
tools to measure, verify, and report (MVR)
the implementation of the production shift,sourcing and use of renewable or clean
technologies etc., and A&R activities such as
water management (irrigation, water storage),eco-system-based adaptation approaches
such as agroecological approaches, on-farmdiversification etc.
Most eligible activities under a green framework
are not linked to a minimum improvement
quantitative criterion (e.g., % GHG improvement,
minimum surface covered) to reflect the fact that
producers typically experiment on a fraction of
the land and the correct mix of measures cantake many years to be reached. Even with local
technical support, the positive impact might takea few years to materialise. Similar considerations
apply when using green project finance to fundthe pilot programmes of larger corporates. This is
why the list of activities under a green label must
contain only those for which there is enoughevidence that the overall impact is positive.

The International Capital Markets Association(ICMA) recommends in its Green Bond Principles(GBP) that issuers of green instruments
should report the impact of the investment;a set of common measurements would also
facilitate aggregation of loans by financial
institutions. ICMA suggests a few impact
reporting metrics for biodiversity projects
and crop/livestock production. Building uponthese recommendations, the main disclosure
frameworks, and Climate Bonds new Sector
Criteria and market analysis, the following

list captures both the impact and degree ofadvancement of the transition at farm level. The
selection of the metrics is driven by the underlying
activities and is therefore context specific.
Other metrics exist for soil health and organic
matter, biodiversity, pesticide use, water quality,
but no standardised measurements exist andas the optimal choice of measures is context
specific, disclosing on each separately and only
using some of them to monitor impact should be
subject to caution. Various initiatives are ongoing

Table 1. Metrics at production stage
Suggested impact metrics

Comment

Metrics measuring the impact of new practices at production level
GHG absolute emission and absolutecarbon sequestration

Should follow the GHG protocol, in
absolute terms, separating emissions fromsequestration and for the three main gases
CO2, N2O and CH4Emission intensity by commodity production units

See section on sustainability-linked debt
(page 9)GHG emissions should be measured
separately for each commodity(CO2, N2O or CH4)

Replacement of feedstock reliant on long-haultransportation with sustainable on-farm sources/
local alternatives (% of total volume)

For sustainability-linked projects; it implies
increasing circularity locally by growing thefeed and using the manure of the feedstock
as fertiliser

Carbon stock

Should be maintained and will increaseover time until reaching its full potential

Reduction in net equivalent GHG emissions and
GHG emission intensity (per unit of output)

These metrics should not be used without
also monitoring the emission reduction ofCO2, N2O and CH4 separately

Water savings (e.g. m³/year)

From water management activities

Intensity and absolute metrics related
to water use efficiency

This is context specific

Percentage of food loss and total quantity produced
Increase production yields with adequate andefficient use of inputs

Context specific and depends on theoutcome sought. Year-on-year yield
increases are not to be expected fromthe start

Metrics monitoring the scaling of the practice implementation
Percentage of spatial footprint, if relevant, and total area(km2) that is rehabilitated for sustainable production

This applies to degraded land

Percentage of spatial footprint, if relevant, andtotal area (km2) in agricultural land set aside
for biodiversity conservation (e.g., rewilding,conversion of land along field edges to woodland)
Percentage of spatial footprint and total area (km2)
under management practices targeting improved
ecosystem services provision (e.g., pollination)
Percentage of spatial footprint and total area (km2)
under either a GHG reduction set of practices, or acarbon sequestration set of practices

Transition in action, Agri-food Climate Bonds Initiative8

to build a globally consistent framework forfarm-level metrics.27 There is sufficient scientificevidence to demonstrate that the practices
quoted above have a positive impact on theenvironment and therefore the reporting could
be qualitative for a period of time. Alternatively,organisations independently monitoring theongoing implementation of sustainable practiceand helping with the outputs of sustainable
activities can bring credibility. For example, theSAI platform, a precompetitive forum of agri-foodcorporates, has developed a system, the FSA,
to monitor farm progress toward sustainability,
which farmers can be verified against.

Sustainability linked debt
Sustainability-linked bonds
or loans are increasingly
being used by non-financial
corporates to implement
their transition strategies. As
the proceeds are for general
purposes, they are only regarded as impactful if
the KPIs reference a robust transition plan. These
instruments are particularly suited for protein
and dairy producers with high GHG emissions
who might not be yet on a 1.5°C aligned pathway
because qualifying green UoP is not required.
Climate Bonds’ new Sector Criteria suggests thepractices a producing company could implement
to target a robust and credible 1.5°C aligned
transition in line with the latest scientific evidence.
Some key elements of the criteria are highlighted
below and metrics to be used in a sustainabilitylinked debt financing framework are given in
Table 1. Essentially, the criteria stipulate that:• Producers transitioning to net zero should
first ensure no deforestation, no conversion,
no high-carbon loss with at the latest a cut-off
date by the end of 2020;• Direct emissions per commodity production unit
must be reduced, expressed in emission intensity,and cover the relevant GHG (CH4 from rice, manure
management and livestock, N2O from fertilisedsoils, etc.); netting with carbon sequestration
should not be deployed at this stage;• Input emissions (carbon intensive sources ofenergy etc.) should also be reduced;• Producers should work on sequestering carbon
as well as maintaining the carbon stock, aiming
to in-set their absolute emissions and reaching
net zero by 2050 or as soon as possible;• The overall GHG emissions should net GHG
emissions and GHG reduction and be kept inabsolute form to ensure emission reduction.
This metric could be used to monitor overall
carbon absolute emission reduction but
should not be the only one being used asalready mentioned; Climate Bonds Sector
Criteria gives emission intensity and pathway

Measurement, verification, and reporting
Various MVR technology
platforms have emerged
to allow farmers
to estimate theirenvironmental footprint
and are becoming
increasingly sophisticatedas a result of the vast amount of data
gathered.42 MVR platforms are a powerful tool
to scale sustainable finance by considerably
facilitating traceability and certification oftypes of production.

platform that aims to simplify digitalisationand traceability in agriculture by inviting
farmers to enter their crop-story and haveit blockchain recorded. The platform
delivers assisted guidance to farmers in theirsustainability journeys. Ucrop.it can also
incorporate any data or supporting evidence
that is required to accomplish any specific goal
into the Crop-story, whether this comes froman Earth Observation Solution with a certain
parameter of precision, a precision agriculture
software solution, or a verification scheme.

Ucrop.it, for instance, is a collaborative,
comprehensive but also agnostic MRVFriedlandCampina
FrieslandCampina isa multinational Dutchcooperative producing
and selling cow’s milk anddairy products. It is one of
the largest dairy cooperatives in the world,co-owned by just under 10000-member dairy
farms. In 2023, the company priced a EUR300m
SLB with four KPIs:
1. Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions (coverproduction of dairy products and transport,
exclude production of milk on farms) with a 2030
target to be reduced by 63% from a 2015 baseline,
2. A fraction (estimated to 78% of the total) ofscope 3 GHG emissions (production of milk on
member dairy farms) with a 2030 target to be
reduced by 33% from a 2016 baseline,
3. The ratio of packaging materials designed
to be recycled with a target of 95% by 2025
from a 2021 baseline at 90%,
4. The revenue from sustainable productswith a target of 74% by 2025 from a 2020
baseline at 70%.

by type of commodity production (a diverse setof crop and livestock commodities).
KPIs used for SLBs could include:• Those covered in the previous section,• Emission intensity from commodity
production units,• Other metrics capturing the scaling of theimplementation of new practices.
Climate Bonds new Criteria highlight theimportance of monitoring the gross emission
intensity of CH4 or N2O, when relevant, from
commodity production units. These are
more material GHG emission indicators forTransition in action, Agri-food Climate Bonds Initiative

FrieslandCampina built a transition plan to
net zero and explained which decarbonisation
levers it would deploy. For scope 3, due to its
own member farms, those included:• Land use conversion free feed production,• Breeding programmes and feed supplements,• Housing systems and manure management.
Issuing an SLB with a KPI on the most material
source of emissions, scope 3, and anchoring
the issuance to the company’s transition plan
gives transparency and credibility to the climatetransition debt instrument. The latest Climate
Bonds Sector Criteria highlight the necessity
to set different targets on the three main GHG
gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O) when those arematerial. Cutting CH4 and N2O emissions needs
to happen, independently from CO2 emissions,to ensure a 1.5°C aligned decarbonisation
pathway in line with IMP SP (the scenariothat ensures safeguarding biodiversity andsustainable development, while limiting thepressure on land from bioenergy production to
enable sufficient carbon sequestration in forest
land and forest and ecosystem restoration, in
addition to safeguarding food security).41

sustainability-linked instruments than total gross
GHG emission for certain commodities like dairy,
livestock, and crop producers using a material
amount of fertilisers.
The Sector Criteria also list systems and practices
that can be considered.
Choosing which KPIs would be mostappropriate for sustainability-linked debt
instruments depends on the issuer type,business, stage of transition, and on the
instrument (debt, loan, credit facility) and its
term; the core criteria being that the KPIs should
be fully anchored in the transition strategy of
the issuer and be externally verifiable.

9

By way of example, an SLL could be project level
and the KPIs could be linked to the monitoringof the implementation of a pilot project aiming
at shifting part of the production to moresustainable practices. These instruments would
however be impactful only if the entity wastransparent as to the role of the project in theoverall strategy of the entity.

Entity level certification:
an open door to climatetransition financing
Climate Bonds Standard
and Certification scheme isa labelling scheme for real
economy entities, assets, anddebt instruments. Climate
Bonds derives multisectoral scientificcriteria that guide entities in their transition
strategy to ensure it aligns with Paris
Agreement goal of limiting global warming
to 1.5°C. The Certified entity can then issue
any kind of debt instrument which can be
included in a portfolio aligned with thegoals of Paris Agreement because financial
institutions have the assurance that these
entities are genuinely contributing toaddressing climate change.

Finally, but most importantly, Climate Bonds
Sector Criteria have identified several categories
of production systems for which sustainabilitylinked and green finance should be facilitateduntil 2030 because:• They can improve resilience and bring multiple
co-benefits: agroecology, organic farming (withsome conditionality explained in the criteria),• In vulnerable contexts where low farm productivity
is common, significant investments are needed
to increase yields, crop production, and inputuse efficiency with sustainable practices.
Agroecology and organic farming systems
might not necessarily have a sole focus on
mitigation potential, yet they were identified
as having significant overall benefits to justify
facilitating their financing (as it was singled out
in the consensus reports by the IPCC latest 6thAssessment Report, 2023).30 Additional practices,
linked to regenerative agriculture, could be addedin the future if the underlying practices selected
can be defined and certified (as done under the
UoP proxies for green practices, which entities areencouraged to apply when setting their transition
pathways). A cut-off of 2030 was chosen to givetime for the GHG accounting tool to be widely
deployed in any market but at the same time tocapture the need to have organic producers orpractices operating under an agroecology model,
also reducing their emission post 2030. The reader
should refer to the Climate Bonds Standard v4 foradditional safeguarding measures.

Sustainable finance instruments
for trading companies• Monitoring the establishment of full traceability
and transparency in the supply chain,

According to Chaopeng
Hong et al., ‘27% of landuse emissions and 22% ofagricultural land are related toagricultural products ultimately
consumed in a different
region from where they were produced. Roughly
three-quarters of embodied emissions are fromland-use change, with the largest transfers fromlower-income countries such as Brazil, Indonesia,
and Argentina to more industrialised regions
such as Europe, the United States, and China.’31• Monitoring the establishment of DCF production
and contribution to the restoration effort,

By sourcing raw commodities and exportingthem worldwide, traders connect farmers to
the international market of food manufacturers
and retailers. They can have a material impact
on agricultural practices in each region andaccelerate the entire production system shift
through collaboration with aggregators andfarmers upstream.
Trading companies are already actively using
sustainable debt, especially SLLs or equivalent.
An impactful use of these instruments would
be to see the funding passed on to thefarmers through internal value chain financemechanisms, payments, or carbon insetting in
exchange for more sustainable practices.
The overarching indicator capturing theclimate mitigation effort of trading companies
is, following GHG protocol standards, scope 3
emissions from purchased products. However,other metrics are more suitable for monitoring
short-term change in production practices thattrading companies must support:

Wilmar International Limited
Wilmar International
Limited (Wilmar), is an
Asian agribusiness groupheadquartered in Singapore.
Wilmar’s business activities
include palm oil cultivation,oilseed crushing, edible oils refining, flour andrice milling, sugar milling and refining, and the
manufacture of various consumer products,
oleochemicals, biodiesels, and fertilisers.
While Wilmar has already implemented a
few measures to reduce GHG emissions, atransition plan is yet to be published so thecompany could be seen as barely starting
its transition journey. However, Wilmar‘stransition is primarily about ensuring DCF
sustainable procurement of raw materials,
which is why Wilmar joined forces with othermajor trading groups to initiate the transition
at production level. Wilmar is part of theTransition in action, Agri-food Climate Bonds Initiative• Developing fair and environmentally
sustainable agriculture practices.

Monitoring the traceability effort
In line with the Taskforce on Nature Related
Finance Disclosure (TNFD) LEAP approach, thefirst lever of transition is to locate the origin ofcommodities, which is a challenge for mosttrading companies purchasing from a multitudeof direct suppliers and indirect suppliers that havetheir own direct and indirect suppliers. Adding to
the complexity, various pilot projects aiming totackle deforestation and inequalities in emerging
markets highlighted the need to implement alandscape or jurisdictional approach that factors
in the social, economic, and environmental
specificities of a location to increase the chanceof permanent change.32,33 Widespread impact onfood security, farmer livelihood, and sustainable
land use will be reached if support goes to thefarmers, and addresses constraints such as accessto infrastructure, land ownership, public services,
and agricultural finance.34 A system-level change
towards sustainable production is far more
complex than any one company can manageand extensive collaboration among non-financial
and financial corporates, governments, andlocal communities is key to its achievement.35
The whole supply chain must set the same levelof demands to avoid carbon leakage. Various
non-governmental organisations and private
consulting organisations with local presence havestated their support of market requirements todevelop these approaches.36

Tropical Forest Alliance’s Agriculture sector
roadmap to 1.5°C, which aims to reduceland-use change in the supply chain, support
the transition to forest-positive land-use
management, and more broadly the whole
sector transformation. The Alliance has
defined metrics to monitor the progress madeby the companies.
As of end of December 2022, Wilmar had
priced SLLs with cumulative value of
USD2.2bn. No public information is available
on the exact nature of the KPIs and SPTs
deployed, which is a strong limitation of the
SLL market. Transparency of KPIs and SPTs
would facilitate the aggregation and potential
securitisation of these instruments and open
the road to having these instruments as UoP
for green bond financing sold to institutional
investors, thereby potentially attracting
cheaper funding and scaling.

10The Accountability Framework initiative (AFi)provides consensus-based principles andguidance to help companies and financial
institutions to set up supplier policy and goals,
act, monitor progress, and have these verified.37,38
The Implementation Reporting Framework is
one example of a tool that can be used to reportverified progress towards No Deforestation, No
Expansion on Peat, and No Exploitation (NDPE)
in alignment with AFi’s reporting guidance.39
Using this guidance and reporting tools, KPIs forsustainability-linked instruments can be derived
if there is a third-party certification. Alternatively,
green debt can be used to finance operating
expenditure (opex) on supply chain traceability
for sustainability purposes.40 The KPIs should
focus on the commodities that are the mostmaterial to the business.
The choice of KPIs depends on the level ofadvancement of the traceability, the scaleof the financed project, and the environmental
or social objectives.

Monitoring the DCF procurement effort
and investing in land restoration
The key indicator to ensure traceability andtransparency, and facilitate the deploymentof common sustainability monitoring tools forthe whole supply chain is the total production
area that has been geo localised (GPS polygon
mapped) in the company’s supply chain. Geo
localisation of the plots of land enables thetree cover to be monitored and facilitates thecertification and audit of farmers.
To reduce costs yet have an immediate
mitigation impact, companies might decide to
identify deforestation risk hotspots and focus
engagement effort with the suppliers at thehighest level of risk first. Similarly, the recent
European Union Deforestation Free regulation(EUDR) covers only the commodities most at
risk of deforestation and has criteria based ondue diligence requirements with more stringent
conditions for regions judged the most at risk.43

Table 2. KPIs typically used at trading company level and downstream
MetricComment

Traceability
Percentage of commodity volume purchased, sourced,
or used by the company that can be traced to the levelof 1) the production unit or 2) the sourcing area or 3) thelevel of country of origin
Supplier management
Number and percentage of farmers with land rights orland tenure documentation in direct supply chain

Absence of documents is a major
problem in some jurisdictions.

Number and percentage of farmers in the current
financial year enrolled in a form of financing with thesupport of the company
Number and percentage of farmers benefiting fromdirect extra financial support or training by the company
to implement sustainable practices
Percent volume of food lost from production site

This could address food loss
via investment in storage,
processing, transportation

DCF procurement
Total area (km2) and percentage of farm land that is GPS/
polygon mappedThis would typically apply to the direct
supply chain. Both metrics are needed
to capture the impact and the progress

Total volume of a certified DCF commodity purchased
over the total volume of that commodity purchased

Cut-off date to be specified andAFi suggests the end of 2020. This
indicator being relative, additional
metrics should be added to ensure
there is no increase in deforestationor conversion. The AFi suggests thefollowing two KPIs:

For direct suppliers: the extent (km2) of land change bytype of ecosystem and type of business activity since thecut-off date.
For indirect suppliers: the maximum deforestation orconversion (in km2) in supply shed, jurisdiction, or region
that could be attributable to expansion commodity
production in a company’s supply chain.
Supporting farmers in restoration projects

Relevant KPIs for sustainable finance aresummarised in Table 2.

Percentage of spatial footprint if relevant and total area(km2) that is rehabilitated for sustainable production

In parallel to halting deforestation, investment
in land restoration by downstream traders andcompanies is one of the most effective solutions
to land degradation and ensures sustainablesupply, whilst reviving rural economies andproducing tangible benefits for nature andthe climate. KPIs for restoration projects are
summarised in Table 2.44

Percentage of spatial footprint and total area (km2)
restored under natural and diverse vegetation andcorresponding area.52
Establishing certified sustainable agriculture practices
Percentage of spatial footprint if relevant and total area(km2) under a certified sustainable agriculture scheme.

Examples of certified sustainable
practices: Bonsucro, RPSO, Fairtrade,
Rainforest Alliance.

Percentage of total commodity volume undera certification scheme.

Specify the traceability model.
This relative metric should also be
supported by evidence that it is
not contributing to an increase in
deforestation or conversion.

Transition in action, Agri-food Climate Bonds Initiative11

Establishing certified sustainableagriculture practices

Sustainable finance for
manufacturers and retailers• Reducing food loss, one of the major sources of
GHG emissions,

There are multiple commodity specificcertification schemes with DCF standards. Market
leading schemes include the Roundtable on
Sustainable Palm Oil (RPSO), Roundtable on
Sustainable Soy Association, and Fairtrade.
These certification schemes can form the basis
for defining transition finance KPIs capturing
the shift to sustainable procurement of theunderlying commodities.

Opportunities for
manufacturers and retailers totransition include:• Supporting a shift in consumption on the
demand side,

The certification schemes typically focus on
one commodity, and the traceability of that
commodity in relation to a specific set ofenvironmental and social attributes. For instance,
among the pillars of the Bonsucro Standard,
which promotes sustainable sugar cane, aremeasures to ensure DCF production but also
GHG emission reductions and regenerative
agriculture measures such as pest, disease, weed,
and soil management, water stewardship plans,
water reduction, biodiversity monitoring andprotection etc.45
The number of certification schemes is
expanding, and some are government led(such as the Brazilian Embrapa Low Carbon
Soybean).46 To improve industry alignment, theSAI Platform has created the Farm Sustainability
Assessment (FSA) which provides a common
reference point for farm sustainability schemes aswell as a consistent approach to benchmarking
them.47 In parallel, the International Social andEnvironmental Accreditation and Labelling
Alliance (ISEAL) is developing a certification atlas,which would display the location of operations of
ISEAL members that have been certified againstsustainability standards.48 These initiatives
will considerably enhance the traceability andtransparency along the supply chain and thesustainability reporting of all downstream
stakeholders, including financial institutions.49,50
Climate Bonds has developed Agri-Food DCF
Sourcing Criteria for the certification of Agri-Food
Entities. Entities can be Certified if they have
implemented traceability and due diligencesystems in their agri-food supply chain under
the commitment of DCF Sourcing from 31 Dec
2020, in line with AFi guidance and mirroring
requirements from EUDR to facilitate consistency
across entities in the global agri-food sector.  

• Building stronger relations
with the supply chain andparticipation in the financingof the production shift,• Giving preference to procurementfrom local production.
The following metrics are in addition to those
proposed in the previous sections.

• Leveraging synergies between corporates
with overlapping or shared supply chains andcofinancing projects,51
MetricComment

Supplier engagement
Percentage of suppliers engaged on sustainability issues

As per CDP55

Percentage of procurement spend with specificsustainability criteria

As per CDP

Food loss
Total weight of food loss and percentage of food loss

See also Transition Plan Taskforce(TPT) guidance for the food andbeverage industry56

Carbon sequestration and scope 3 decarbonisation measures
Percentage of scope 3 reduction linked to carbon
sequestration/carbon insetting and total amount57

See also TPT

Percentage of scope 3 reduction linked to carbon
emission reduction measures (based on gross emission
and not after netting with carbon sequestration
measures) and total amount.

Climate Bonds latest Sector Criteria
As highlighted in section 1.1, carbon
sequestration at producer level
cannot replace other GHG directemission reduction.

Encouraging demand shift
Percentage and total number of products produced orsold that are plant based

Sustainable supply chain financeSupply chain finance (SCF)
refers to financing solutions
that help to optimise andbalance working capital
within supply chains. It
can notably improve thefinancial condition of weak suppliers within
the supply chain by leveraging the buyer’s

Transition in action, Agri-food Climate Bonds Initiativestronger credit rating. SCF integrates financial
flows with product and information flows
within supply chains, which in future could
also include supplier sustainability profiles andcommitments and link to financing terms. This
could be another route to scaling transition of
the supply chain.53,54

12

Sustainable finance instruments in action
Mars inc. (Mars) is an
American multinational
manufacturer ofconfectionery, pet food,and other products andservices. In 2023, Mars
issued two sustainability bonds for a totalof USD1bn with an extensive list of eligible
UoP categories aiming to decarbonise all
three scopes of emissions. It was the firstdeal from a corporate entity to capture
many of the levers needed to decarbonise
production.58 Among those measures were
the inclusion of Environmentally Sustainable
Management of Living Natural Resourcesand Land Use among the eligible project
categories which included:• Climate smart or regenerative
agriculture. Investments andexpenditures, including supplierdevelopment, project investment andresearch and development, towards
products, processes and technologies that
improve productivity and environmental
performance, in the following categories:
1. Carbon Efficient Farming.
Development of initiatives to enhance
agricultural management practices toreduce farm carbon emissions such as
those from energy use, fertilizers and field/
livestock emissions, including precision
fertiliser applications and alternate
wetting and drying practices;
2. Regenerative Agriculture.
Programmes to introduce and promote
regenerative farming practices aimed
at improving soil health and increasing
soil carbon such as no-till farming,
incorporating cover crops, more complex
crop rotation, and use of nitrogen fixing
plants and tree crops; and3. Climate Resilience. Initiatives
focused on ensuring the resilienceof agricultural systems to increasing
temperatures and increased variability
in precipitation patterns.

• DCF Supply Chains. Investments andexpenditures in projects and programmes
to increase transparency, mapping andtraceability of supply chains specifically forsoy, palm oil, cocoa, pulp and paper, and beef
with the goal of preventing deforestation in the
supply chain. Eligible expenditures include:
1. Education and awarenessprogrammes for farmers on agroforestry
and forest protection;
2. Satellite monitoring and associatedtraceability systems; and3. Supplier development investments suchas investments in information management
systems, training, and verification capacity.
• Development of more sustainable
ingredients. Expenditure related to theresearch, development, and acquisition costsof lower carbon and/or other sustainability
impacts (such as improved livelihoods), andraw materials (such as novel proteins).
The Carbon Sequestration category includes
investments and expenditure either directly or/with projects or in funds that develop and invest
in nature-based carbon sequestration projects
focused where positive environmental impacts
can be quantified. All such projects will bevalidated and any credit issuances verified underthird party registries such as Verra, Gold Standard
or ACB. Example projects may include:
1. Afforestation/reforestation,
2. Improved forest management, and3. Soil carbon sequestration.
Established farmers programmes such as
Shubh Mint (India), LEAP (Cote d’Ivoire), ACTIVE(Indonesia) and Livelihoods Funds for Family
Farming (L3F) are designed to put farmers andfarm workers on a path to sustainable living
incomes and wages.
The category of socioeconomic advancement
and empowerment includes:• Investments to fight child labour, support ethicalmigrant recruitment through coalitions etc.,• Investments and expenditures in thedevelopment, design, operation or maintenanceof facilities, systems or services that enhanceaccess to essential financial resources and training
programmes for financial competency etc.

The Mars framework also quotes a certain
number of metrics that could be used for
impact measurements. The framework is thefirst from a non-financial corporate to cover
many of the activities major manufacturers
should action to participate in system change:
DCF Supply Chains, alternative diet solutions,collaboration to improve farmers’ living
conditions, carbon sequestration practices
and carbon emission reduction practices. In
future issuance, Climate Bonds recommends
strengthening the following aspects:• The carbon sequestration category should
ensure all projects have a positive focus
on environmental impacts. Afforestation
tends to be monoculture plantations withuncertain positive impact.
• Carbon credits, when used as an additionalsource of income for farmers in payment
for eco services, could accelerate thetransition. Climate Bonds Standard
considers however that companies buying
carbon credits should not use them to offset
their own emissions or delay their own
decarbonisation measures.
• The standards for carbon credits or certified
agriculture practices used should be clearlystated. There are ongoing initiatives tofacilitate the benchmarking of standards andissuers should seek to facilitate the process.48• Greater clarity and transparency in themethod and the amount of CO2 and non-CO2
GHG emissions reduction. CH4 and N2O
are major GHG emissions from crop andlivestock production, and clear levers fortheir mitigation should be incorporated
in transition pathways in transparent andaccountable measures.
Carrefour is a French
multinational retailer,
which is actively financing
its activities through SLBs,
pricing five deals since 2022with cumulative volume of
EUR3.2bn. Carrefour’s SLB framework includes
four KPIs:
1. GHG emission scope 1 and 2,
2. GHG emission on partial scope 3,
3. Tonnes of packaging avoided,
4. Food waste generated in stores.
For each deal, the company is adjusting its
targets and KPI choices as it progresses on its
transition journey.

Transition in action, Agri-food Climate Bonds Initiative13

Scaling sustainable finance
Section 2 identified how emerging technologies
can proliferate the disclosure needed by financial
institutions and investors to deploy sustainablefinance at scale.

the ongoing effort of organising investments into
various categories of transition by distinguishingcompanies already aligned with 1.5°C from thosethat are aligning with that pathway.59

Local banks

Sustainable finance instruments must be
adapted to ensure incentives reach farmers andthe financing factors in the time needed to shift
the production system. Financing that helps thefarmer can take the form of:

Local banks have a pivotal
role in the growth of DCF
and sustainable commodity
production and restoration,
as they are in direct contact
with production units.
In response to the real economy sustainablefinancing needs, banks are developing sustainablefinance frameworks as internal guides to classify
green and social activities that can be financed
by sustainability-linked instruments. Theseframeworks specify a list of eligible activities being
financed under green loans and SLLs, including
credit facilities. These frameworks can also guidethe bank categorisation of its portfolios in stagesof climate transition, as part of a bank’s own
transition to net-zero economy financing. They
are being designed to consider local needs andbank client bases.
Climate Bond’s market analysis highlighted that
only a fraction of eligible activities are captured
by bank frameworks. In addition to listing
which activities can be considered as green
and separating them according to their main
contribution in terms of either emission reduction,
carbon sequestration, A&R, or enabling, thestrength of the new Climate Bonds Sector Criteria isthe distinction between activities and entities that
can and those that cannot be considered green
depending on whether they are on a pathwayaligned with 1.5°C. It clarifies how protein producers
should be categorised. More broadly, it facilitates

Banco de Bogota
Banco de Bogota issued
a USD230m sustainability
bond in 2023. The eligible
UoP included:• Certified production (list of eligible
certifications added);• Conversion of non-certified production tothird-party certified production;• Acquisition of equipment and otherinvestments that permit the eliminationof soil tillage;• Investments to promote the use ofnative or traditional crops, as well as
silvopastoral systems, if no conversion ofnatural land is involved and applicablecertifications is secured;• Extending the term of debt financing to factor
in the environmental response time,• Reducing the cost of credit,• Facilitating longer commercial offtakeagreements between producers and buyers,• Better terms for supply chain financing,60• Micro-finance,

Climate Bonds Agri-Food
Deforestation and Conversion Free
Sourcing Criteria
An entity level DCF certification would
considerably facilitate a bank’s commitment inensuring its financing supports DCF practices.
Climate Bonds newly released Agri-Food DCF
Sourcing Criteria can be used to certify any
entity within the food value chain, beyond
the point of agriculture production, thatis able to demonstrate that its sourcing ofcommodities is free from deforestation andconversion of natural ecosystems. It differsfrom existing certification schemes that arecommodity based and mostly regional inscope. It applies to all commodities that
individually contribute at least 1% of anentity’s total agri-food commodities spend.

• Insurance on more favourable terms.
Some of these sustainable debt or supply chain
financing instruments can be funded by UoPlabelled bonds by the lending bank, reducing risk
and increasing lending capacity. For instance:• In Brazil, credit receivables generated frombusinesses in agro-industrial chains can begrouped into a security (CRM) and resold in thecapital market.61• Microfinance is commonly quoted as a UoP
in social or sustainability bonds. Aligned
cumulative issuance of such bonds had reachedclose to USD100bn by the end of 2023, withmicro-finance projects covering all sectors.
• Green or sustainability bonds with underlying
loans UoP. This requires standardisation in
lending criteria and tagging to enable banks tomaximise the potential of their loan books.

• Investments to promote climate adaptation
measures such as silvopastoral systems,
vertical farming, rotational grazing, drought
resistant crops, forage crops, reductionof soil erosion, adoption of sustainableaquaculture techniques and reduction of
on-farm waste, if no conversion of naturalland is involved.
This example of a bank’s framework
illustrates the growing understanding of whatsustainable finance can include where thelocal context could inform on a subset ofpractices that should be prioritised. Climate
Bonds Sector Criteria list the practices
for which there is enough confidence in asustainable outcome.

Transition in action, Agri-food Climate Bonds Initiative

The preferential pricing obtained in someinstances through the issuance of labelled debt
can be then passed on to the producers.
Additional support might be needed (see page 16).
Regarding non-financial corporates, thefirst step for regional banks is to align andimplement anti-deforestation policies, DCF
financing, and then to further develop theircriteria for transition financing.62
Impact reporting of investment in the agri-foodsector by banks is still in its infancy but thetechnology exists to improve data collection andreporting and should be a priority for local banks.
Various private companies, banks included, aredeveloping digital applications that farmers canuse to input the perimeter of their land, land
rights, sustainable practices, and get training.
These applications can also serve as fintech
solutions for microfinance and supply chain
finance. These farm-level observations can be
aggregated into landscape-level observations to
inform sustainability strategies, environmental
foot printing, reporting, and target setting. By
aggregating the farmer or SME geolocalised
data to the landscape level, banks could build aseries of metrics monitoring the impact of theirportfolio. This data linked to satellite imagery andmachine learning can help to monitor carbon
stocks and sequestration, land conversion, andbe used to ensure certification of DCF activity
financing.63,64 Additional metrics on sustainable
practice might not initially fall under a production
certification scheme but other metrics could
be used to monitor progress, such as those
introduced in the previous sections.
The same portfolio impact metrics could be used
for labelled debt issuance and reporting.

14

Koltiva
Koltiva is a provider
a holistic end-to-end
technology and service
solutions that offers:70• Producer profiling and plot mapping,• Production traceability tools, LUC
mapping, and risk alerts,• Training,• Solutions for decarbonising andimplementing climate smart agriculture,• Fintech solutions to implement microfinance and insurance solutions.
Koltiva also facilitates the deployment ofverification schemes.

Standard CharteredStandard Chartered isa British multinationalbank with operations in
consumer, corporate andinstitutional banking, and treasury services.
Around 90% of its profits come from Asia,
Africa, and the Middle East.
Its latest green financing framework includes
various eligible UoP categories:71
Agricultural and aquaculture processes:• Improving the energy efficiency of irrigation.
• Investment in integrated cropland-livestock
forestry systems and agroforestry systems
targeted at smallholder farmers with sustainable
forestry management plans in place.
• Investments in improved farming techniquesand equipment which improve yields andreduce inputs such as water, pesticides, andfertilisers. Examples include promotion or
implementation of sustainable agricultural
techniques and practices including no-till
farming systems, soil recovery and restorationof degraded pasture, agricultural practices thatuse no synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, andcrop rotation for carbon sequestration andnitrogen accumulation purposes.
• Investments in vertical farming projects
powered by renewable energy sourcesor power sources with a carbon intensity
threshold of 100 gCO2e/kWh.

International banks

a major role to play in developing the offeringof sustainable trade finance but there is lack oftransparency on the amount currently financed
and the underlying principles.66,67

Regional and international
financial institutions are
increasingly factoring in climate
and nature risks and actioning
their transition plans. The 141
signatories of the Net-Zero
Banking Alliance (NZBA) have committed to
set targets to transition their operational andattributable greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions fromtheir lending and investment portfolios to alignwith pathways to net zero by 2050 or sooner. While
the agri-food sector is rarely one of the five priority
sectors chosen at the time of joining the NZBA, it isexpected to be included among the second set of
sectors covered. This should trigger an increasinglevel of engagement from banks on the transitionof their major agri-food clients.65

Regarding local peers, it is essential that thebanking industry sets and actions common DCF
policies to create best practice standards andavoid deforestation leaks. More broadly, banks
are expected to increasingly conduct more
rigorous assessments of each client’s transition
plan to ensure financing effectively contributes
to the decarbonisation of the economy.
The University of Cambridge Institute for
Sustainability Leadership has proposed building
a shared data vault gathering geolocalised
production data linked to financial transactions
which would considerably improve transparency
along the supply chain.68

International banks typically underwrite labelledbonds and SLBs, and lend green loans and SLLs
(including contingent facilities) to major corporate
institutions. More emphasis is needed to ensurethat KPIs are material and SPTs are sufficiently
ambitious to credibly scale the market, together
with strong corporate engagement to ensure
financing is reaching farmers. Banks also have

There is an ongoing discussion among NZBA
members on the choice of measures of thetechnological impact achieved by climate transition
finance, in addition to the metrics related to GHG
emissions. The agri-food sector would benefit fromestablishing a series of social and environmental
KPIs that encompass the multidimensional
characteristics of its sector transition.69• Investment in management and maintenanceof protected areas (national and regional naturalparks and other protected areas, including
coastal and marine ecosystems).

afforestation and reforestation, mangrove
conservation and replanting, restoration ofsalt marshes, peatland restoration.

Financing of products and associated activities
with certifications applicable to natural materials(list provided).
Investment in alternative proteins• R&D towards cultured meat.
• R&D and production of fermented meat withsignificantly lower GHG emissions compared toplant and animal production counterparts.
• R&D and production of plant-based protein with(i) evidence of life-cycle GHG emissions being
significantly lower than meat counterparts and(ii) production that procures raw materials fromcertified sustainable sources listed above.
Climate change adaptation
For example:• Use of climate resilient crops (e.g., drought
resistant seeds) and drip irrigation for
agricultural production systems, stormwater
storage, grain storage, soil rehabilitation,
climate resilient livestock infrastructure(e.g., cooling sheds, emergency shelters).
• Wildfire safety infrastructure and equipment
such as HD-cameras, weather stations, fire
resilient utility lines.
• Wild brush clearing, species diversification,transmigration of species more capable ofsurvival, nature-based solutions such as

Transition in action, Agri-food Climate Bonds Initiative

Activities which enhance food security• Investment in the manufacture, logistics,
provision and distribution of food andnutritional supplements in developing but
not high-income countries as per the UN
WESP report, where there is an explicit needto tackle food security or food loss that will beaffordable to all regardless of ability to pay.
• Investment in infrastructure such as warehouses
aimed at providing adequate storage, improved
food conservation or connectivity in thefood chain for reducing food loss.
• Goods which are Fairtrade certified.
• Support to smallholder farmers, including
equipment and facilities that help to prevent
food loss and waste, improve productivity, andincrease market access to smallholder producers.
Standard Chartered sustainable financeframework is one of the most detailed andholistic frameworks observed among the 2023
issuances. Future frameworks could include
loans for activities that need transitioning but
how these would be structured to be credible
enough for inclusion in bank sustainablefinance bond issuances has yet to be definedby sustainable finance standards. Climate
Bonds Standards and Sector Criteria can serve
as a benchmark for a set of minimum criteria,
strong enough to ensure credibility.

15

Figure 1: multi stakeholder sustainable financing model
Investors

UoP bond and SLB
Local growers
organisations/academic/
R&D/NGO/UoP bond and SLB
Value chain
agri-food companies

Government anddevelopment banks

UoP bonds
and loans
And SLL

International
financial
institutions

Services stack

Sustainable
practices

Establish
sustainable
practices

Certification anddata (MVR) providers

Data

Value chaininternal financeand production

Cooperatives
and equivalent

Payment
forservices

Local financial
institutions

Carboninsetting And
ecoservices

Value chain
Finance andsustainable debt

Producers of one jurisdiction/landscapeTowards a multi-stakeholder
sustainable financing modeland catalytic funding
Building on the previous workof CISL, the World Economic
Forum, and the previous
sections, a model for financing
the agri-food transition isdepicted in figure 1 andhighlights the flow of transition finance between
key stakeholders.72
Impactful transition at production level needsa landscape or jurisdictional approach thatincorporates a certain number of services for the
farmer that are compatible with one another.
These services include collaboration and training
with other growers, NGOs or academic partners,
a standard setter, a certification provider, a data
platform provider, and local financial services.
Some of these services can be developed byagritech and fintech companies.
In addition to receiving better terms for classicaldebt instruments and internal or external supply
chain finance directly linked to the productionof commodities, farmers might need upfront
payments or guarantees to cover their losses
during the first years of implementation. Bybuilding precompetitive collaborations between
the various actors along the value chain andCo-financing opportunities
The Africa Rural Climate Adaptation Finance
Mechanism (ARCAFIM) is a financing
programme being structured and launchedby the International Fund of Agriculture
Development (IFAD) to catalyse and scale
private sector climate change adaptation
financing targeting smallholders and ruralbusinesses in Africa.
ARCAFIM has two components: a loan facility,
and technical assistance (TA). The blended
finance loan facility leverages international
concessional capital to crowd-in local private
capital to finance climate change adaptation
investments. IFAD, on behalf of international
funders, namely the Green Climate FundTransition in action, Agri-food Climate Bonds Initiative

financial institutions, aggregative capital can cover
the costs, and risks can be shared and lowered forall. Some regions might need the involvement ofdevelopment banks and governments to provide
catalytic concessional and long-term investments.

(GCF), the Government of Finland, and theNordic Development Fund, will provide a loan of
USD90m to Equity Bank (Kenya) Limited (EBK),
the largest banking subsidiary of Equity Group
Holdings PLC, to fund part of the first-loss tranche
and the second-loss tranche of the loan facility.
EBK will on-lend loans from IFAD to Equity Bank
Uganda Limited, Equity Bank Rwanda PLC, andEquity Bank (Tanzania) Limited. Equity Groupwill contribute a matching amount of USD90m,
hence bringing the total financing available for
CCA loans to small producers and agri-MSMEs
in the four target countries to USD180m.73
In 2023, IFAD issued a USD123m sustainability
bond to finance its development projects
and programmes.

16

Development banks and governments must also
invest in infrastructure (irrigation technology,
storage facilities, telecommunications) to lower
food waste and alleviate poverty.
Sustainable finance is already actively used bythese institutions. By the end of 2023, Climate
Bonds had recorded 50 countries with sovereign
GSS+ deals in alignment with its methodology.
The cumulative volume of aligned sovereign
GSS+ deals was close to USD0.5tn. UoP
often include both nature conservation andagriculture. In 2023, development banks issued
USD24bn of UoP bonds in alignment Climate
Bonds database methodologies.
Ecosystem services and carbon credits havebeen advanced as an additional way tofinance the agricultural production shift andmore generally as a form of payment for theenvironmental services farmers participate inby maintaining natural habitat, reducing waterpollution and flooding, ensuring higher foodquality, and reducing emissions. Sustainablefinance can also be used to raise funds forecosystem conservation. In 2023, UoP bonds
with cumulative volume of USD250bn included
sustainable land management in their eligible
project categories.

AfricanDevelopment Bank

• Climate smart agriculture practices
and farm inputs,

In 2023, the African
Development Bank priced fourgreen bonds for a cumulative
sum of about USD500m. The
UoP eligible activities included, among others:• Increased food storage.

Agriculture• Certified agricultural practices such as
Global Good Agriculture Practices (GAP),UTZ (sustainable farming) or IFOAM(International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movements),

Biodiversity and ecosystems• Biosphere and ecosystemconservation projects,• Improvement of the resilience of ecosystems
and local populations,• Soil recovery and protection against erosion,• Coastal adaptation projects including
flood protection infrastructure andflood risk reduction.

• Sustainable agriculture practices
incentivising minimal or no use of synthetic
fertilisers and pesticides,

Malaysia’s sovereign
sustainability sukuk
In 2023, the government of
Malaysia issued a USD2.2bn
sustainability sukuk tosupport its achievement of the UN SDGs.
The UoP eligible project categories included
sustainable management of agriculture including:

Implementation of sustainableagriculture techniques which may include
remediation and restoration of degraded soil,
minimum or no use of synthetic fertilizer andpesticides, crop rotation, no-till farming, andprecision farming;
Sustainable agriculture production which may
include production of organic farming under
myOrganic and myGap.

Monitoring, control and surveillance forfisheries, mangroves, wetlands, forest coverand national parks. Automated weather
stations and systems;

OutlookThis report illustrates thatsustainable finance for the
AFOLU sector is already being
deployed by international
financial and non-financial
institutions. By facilitating thefinancing of both social and environmental projects,
sustainable finance is versatile enough to capture
the multifaceted financing needs of the sector.
The transition of the AFOLU sector is about
supporting strong collaboration among all
private stakeholders, both small and large, andjurisdictions to ensure a system-wide shift.

Farmers need incentives and support to shift
production practices. Understanding theirsocio-economic needs and building local
expertise in adequate sustainable practices
are the foundations which must underpin
impactful sustainable finance instruments. Local
institutions like banks, NGOs, or public services
and farmer representatives must collaborate to
identify the resulting financing needs. This setof local services can build the bridge between
sustainable finance that is at this stage deployedmainly by international stakeholders, and smallscale producers. Climate Bonds Sector Criteria

Transition in action, Agri-food Climate Bonds Initiativeon Agriculture Production and Deforestation
and Conversion Free (DCF) Sourcing facilitate
the transposition of local financing needs into aharmonised sustainable finance framework thatcan be understood by international stakeholders.
These criteria can be used for any commodity
production and any location, and they bringscientific rigor to the selection of practices
eligible for sustainable financing frameworks.

17

Endnotes
1. World bank , Agricultural and Food, 2023, Agriculture Overview:
Development news, research, data | World Bank
2. Agriculture Overview: Development news, research, data | World Bank
3. OECD Guidance on Transition finance, https://doi.
org/10.1787/7c68a1ee-en
4. Sustainable Finance, High level definition May 2020, https://www.icmagroup.org/assets/documents/Regulatory/Green-Bonds/
Sustainable-Finance-High-Level-Definitions-May-2020-051020.pdf
5. 570 millions according to S.Lowder and all, FOA, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.041
6. Making Climate finance work in agriculture, 2016,
World Bank Document
7. IPCC, 2022, IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf
8. Climate Bonds Initiative analyses the market of labelled bonds every
year and publishes a pricing paper. Reports | Climate Bonds Initiative
9. Climate Bonds monitors daily the whole global market of green,social, sustainability and sustainability linked market ( and all
additional sustainable label) and compares the issuances with amethodology adapted from the science backed criteria development.
10. Climate Bonds SLB Database Methodology, Sustainability-Linked
Bond Database Methodology | Climate Bonds Initiative
11. USD72.8bn were still pending by end of February 2024
12. Climate Bonds Initiative, Financing the corporate climatetransition with bonds, 2023 cbi_ebrd_gcf_corptrans_23_02g_a.pdf(climatebonds.net)
13. For an overview of financial instruments for the rural sector:
https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/financing-agricultureboost-opportunities-devloping-countries.pdf
14. See also ICMA answers on the use of green bond proceeds
and securitisation: Sustainable-Securitisation-QAs_CLEAN-andFINAL_2022-06-24-280622.pdf (icmagroup.org)
15. Agricultural value chain finance strategy and design,technical note, IFAD
16. Climate Bonds Initiative, Investment opportunities, agri-foodsector in Brazil investment_opportunity_report_brazil_.pdf(climatebonds.net)
17. Planet Tracker, Financial Markets Roadmap for Transforming the
Global Food System, 2023, Financial Markets Roadmap for Transforming
the Global Food System - Planet Tracker (planet-tracker.org)
18. Sector Criteria | Climate Bonds Initiative
19. A Criteria on fertiliser and on alternative protein are being
considered for 2025.
20. Climate Bonds Initiative, Financing the corporate climatetransition with bonds, 2023 cbi_ebrd_gcf_corptrans_23_02g_a.pdf(climatebonds.net)
21. Agribusiness receivables certificates- green CRAs, CRA_
Verde_08Dez2017_MIOLO_GRA╠üFICA_ingles.indd (panda.org)
22. IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf
23. To be published in 2024, Agriculture Criteria | Climate Bonds Initiative
24. Disclosure frameworks included in the study: TFND, ISSB, Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI), the accountability framework (Afi), CDP, theTransition Plan Taskforce recommendation on agri-food transition plan
25. Refer to IPCC AR6 Chapter 7 for further information on mitigation
activities and their estimated impact. Refer also to EU taxonomy
report technical annex
26. IPCC, AR6 Chapter 7
27. Global Farm Metric, Cool Farm Alliance

28. Agri resources group half year 2023 sustainability bond use ofproceeds report https://www.agri-resources.com/wp-content/
uploads/2023/09/Half-Year-2023-Agri-Resources-Group-SustainabilityBond-Use-of-Proceeds-Report.pdf
29. Cerrado Programme 1 - Sustainable Investment Management(sim.finance)
30. AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023 — IPCC
31. Land-use emissions embodied in international trade Chaopeng
Hong, Hongyan Zhao, Yue Qin, Jennifer A. Burney, Julia Pongratz, Kerstin
Hartung, Yu Liu, Frances C. Moore, Robert B. Jackson, Qiang Zhang, andSteven J. Davis Science 376 (6593), . DOI: 10.1126/science.abj1572
32. Jurisdictional Approaches 101 - JA Hub (jaresourcehub.org)
33. Traceability and transparency in supply chains for agricultural andforest commodities, World Resources Institute, 2023
34. Sustainable investment in Agriculture and Food system should
follow the Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture andFood Systems. Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture
and Food Systems (fao.org)
35. A Guide to Traceability A Practical Approach to Advance
Sustainability in Global Supply Chains, UN GLobal Compact 2014, A
Guide to Traceability: A Practical Approach to Advance Sustainability
in Global Supply Chains | UN Global Compact
36. One example of the services consulting companies in partnershipwith NGOS can provide: Proforest teams up with Daemeter andthe Rainforest Alliance - Proforest , IDC collaborates with various
stakeholders, IUCN derived a global standard for Nature-based
solutions (2020-020-En.pdf (iucn.org))
37. Access | Accountability Framework initiative - Accountability
Framework (accountability-framework.org)
38. AFI, common methodology for assessment of progress towards
deforestation and conversion free supply chains. Common_
Methodology_v2__Jan_2024_.pdf (accountability-framework.org)
39. How-to-use-IRF-and-AFi-2020-9.pdf (accountability-framework.org)
40. Climate Bonds Initiative Sector Criteria on supply chain isscheduled for 2024.
41. IPCC page 812, IMP SP pathway, 2022
42. See references at the end of the GHG protocol guidance for
agriculture, Microsoft Word - GHG Protocol Agricultural Guidance(April 25).docx
43. Regulation (EU) 2023/ of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market
and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products
associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing
Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 (europa.eu)
44. A guide to investing in landscape restoration to sustain agrifood
supply chain, the Food and Other Land Use coalition, IUCN, 2003
45. SCH_Bonsucro-Production-Standard-V5.2-July-2023-ENG.pdf
46. COMUNICADO-TEC-101-SBC-ingles.pdf (embrapa.br)
47. Documents – SAI Platform
48. Certification Atlas Project (arcgis.com)
49. Draft sector guidance - Food and agriculture – TNFD
50. Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures | TCFD)(fsb-tcfd.org)
51. An example of collaborative action, the supplier leadership on
climate transition, supplierloct.com
52. A guide to investing in landscape restoration to sustain agrifood
supply chains, The Food and Land Use Coalition, IUCN, 2023

53. E. Medina, F Caniato, A. Moretto, Framing sustainable supply chain
finance: how can supply chain sustainability practices and supply
chain finance solutions be integrated ? Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, 2023 statics.teams.cdn.office.net
54. Tackling the Scope 3 emissions puzzle - BNP Paribas CIB
55. Scoping out: tracking Nature across the supply chain, CDP 2023
56. Food and Beverage Sector Guidance | Transition Plan Taskforce(transitiontaskforce.net)
57. Carbon credit should leverage guidance by the Voluntary Carbon
Market Initiative (VCMI) or the Integrity Council for the Voluntary
Carbon Market (ICVCM).
58. https://www.mars.com/sites/g/files/dfsbuz106/files/2023-10/
Mars%20Sustainable%20Finance%20Framework%20March%20
2023_0.pdf
59. Scaling transition finance and real-economy decarbonization,
GFANZ, December 2023, Transition-Finance-and-Real-EconomyDecarbonization-December-2023.pdf (bbhub.io)
60. https://www.ifad.org/documents/38714170/39144386/
Agricultural+value+chain+finance+strategy+and+design.
pdf/1ae68ed6-4c3c-44f4-8958-436e469553bb
61. Climate Bonds Initiative, Brazil sustainable securitisation, cbi_bra_
sec_2022.pdf (climatebonds.net)
62. Banking Beyond Deforestation How the banking industry can help
halt and reverse deforestation, CISL
63. Satellite monitoring is reasonably efficient for certain culture
but not all. Refer to: Traceability and Transparency in Supply Chains
for Agricultural and Forest Commodities | World Resources Institute(wri.org)
64. Satellite imaging has a growing number of financial applications,
Spatial finance State and Trends of Spatial Finance 2023 - UK Centre
for Greening Finance and Investment (CGFI)
65. An additional initiatives from the investing community is the good
food finance framework , Good Food Finance Network – Bringing foodto the heart of the finance agenda.
66. How to embed sustainability mechanisms into transaction
banking - BNP Paribas CIB
67. Stepping up to finance the transition and global value chains BNP Paribas CIB
68. Banking beyond deforestation, University of Cambridge, institutefor sustainability leadership, 2021, Banking beyond deforestation |Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL)
69. Developing Metrics for Transition Finance, NZBA, December 2023
70. About Us | Koltiva
71. sustainability-bond-framework.pdf (sc.com)
72. 100 Million Farmers: Breakthrough models for financing asustainability transition, World Economic Forum, WEF_100_Million_
Farmers_2024.pdf (weforum.org)
73. ARCAFIM, 25f16070-70ca-29e1-e1d1-a469d4d85e4d (ifad.org)

Prepared by the Climate Bonds Initiative

Authors: Deepak Sharma and Sabine Laurent
Editorial support: Caroline Harrison and Stephanie Edghill
Design: Godfrey Design, Joel Milsted© Published by Climate Bonds Initiative, April 2024
www.climatebonds.net
Disclaimer: The information contained in this communication does not constitute investment advice in any form and the Climate Bonds Initiative is not an investment adviser. Any reference to a financialorganisation or debt instrument or investment product is for information purposes only. Links to external websites are for information purposes only. The Climate Bonds Initiative accepts no responsibility forcontent on external websites. The Climate Bonds Initiative is not endorsing, recommending or advising on the financial merits or otherwise of any debt instrument or investment product and no information
within this communication should be taken as such, nor should any information in this communication be relied upon in making any investment decision. Certification under the Climate Bond Standard
only reflects the climate attributes of the use of proceeds of a designated debt instrument. It does not reflect the credit worthiness of the designated debt instrument, nor its compliance with national orinternational laws. A decision to invest in anything is solely yours. The Climate Bonds Initiative accepts no liability of any kind, for any investment an individual or organisation makes, nor for any investment
made by third parties on behalf of an individual or organisation, based in whole or in part on any information contained within this, or any other Climate Bonds Initiative public communication.

Transition in action, Agri-food Climate Bonds Initiative18