International Platform on Sustainable Finance

Common Ground Taxonomy – Climate

Change Mitigation

Instruction report

IPSF Taxonomy Working Group

Co-chaired by the EU and China
 Disclaimer

The present report represents a technical work between the EU and China taxonomies
within the scope of the instruction report with no legal effect and is not formally
endorsed by IPSF member jurisdictions. The result does not create either a ‘common’
or ‘single’ taxonomy or a standard that is mandatory for IPSF member jurisdictions. It
takes due note of the fact that the EU Taxonomy Climate Delegated Act is still subject
to scrutiny at EU co-legislator level, and does not pre-empt any discussion or decision
that could be made in this context.
The table annexed to this report is published for open feedback from 4 November 2021
until 14 January 2022.
Acknowledgements
This report was produced by the IPSF Taxonomy Working Group, co-chaired by Mr Marcel
Haag for the European Commission and Dr Ma Jun for the People’s Bank of China. It was written
by the IPSF Technical Expert Group with valuable inputs by IPSF members and observers. The
IPSF Secretariat is particularly grateful for the invaluable contributions of Sean Kidney, Bridget
Boulle, and Wenhong Xie (Climate Bonds Initiative), Wenqin Lu (China Energy Conservation and
Environmental Protection Group), and Dr Bolu Wang (Tsinghua National Institute of Financial
Research).

3
Contents

1. Executive summary............................................................................................. 6
2. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 9
2.1. Background and Objectives ......................................................................................... 9
2.1.1. Brief introduction of IPSF’s Taxonomy Work ............................................................................ 9
2.1.2. The Common Ground Taxonomy (CGT): purpose, objectives and users............................ 9
2.1.3. Contribution of the CGT to global comparability and interoperability of sustainable
finance standards ....................................................................................................................................... 11
2.2. Overarching comparison of the EU and China taxonomies ................................... 11
2.2.1. History of development process ............................................................................................... 11
2.2.2. Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 13
2.2.3. Scope ........................................................................................................................................... 15
2.2.4. Approaches to defining alignment /eligibility .......................................................................... 17
2.2.5. Legal framework ......................................................................................................................... 18
2.2.6. Classification framework ............................................................................................................ 18
3. Common Ground Taxonomy Methodology ................................................... 23
3.1. Scope of analysis ......................................................................................................... 23
3.1.1. Objectives and screening criteria ............................................................................................. 23
3.1.2. Priority sectors ............................................................................................................................ 24
3.2. Section mapping .......................................................................................................... 24
3.2.1. Mapping against ISIC as a neutral code ................................................................................. 24
3.2.2. Challenges and solutions found: codes mapped against multiple activities, activities
without a code etc. ..................................................................................................................................... 25
3.3. Scenario analysis methodology ................................................................................. 25
3.3.1. Description of approach: what is a scenario analysis methodology and why was it used?
....................................................................................................................................................... 25
3.3.2. Scenario description ................................................................................................................... 25
3.4. Structure of CGT Climate ............................................................................................ 27
4. Overview of the Common Ground Taxonomy ............................................... 29
4.1. Overview of alignment across sectors ...................................................................... 29
4.2. Do No Significant Harm ............................................................................................... 29
4.3. Minimum Safeguard ..................................................................................................... 29
4.4. Climate change adaptation-related activities ........................................................... 30
5. Usability .............................................................................................................. 31
5.1. Challenges and potential solutions to ensuring usability for analysis ................. 31
6. Future considerations ...................................................................................... 32
6.1. Pathway to include areas not currently included in CGT........................................ 32
6.2. Options to incorporate other jurisdictions ............................................................... 32

4
6.3. Reflection of Taxonomy principles outlined by the IPSF-UNDESA input paper to
the G20 Sustainable Finance Working Group ................................................................. 33

5
1. Executive summary
In July 2020, the EU and China initiated a Working Group on taxonomies with the objectives to
undertake a comprehensive assessment of the existing taxonomies for environmentally sustainable
investments, including identifying the commonalities and differences in their respective approaches
and outcomes.

The Common Ground Taxonomy (CGT) is a milestone work resulting from an in-depth
comparison exercise that puts forward areas of commonality and differences between the EU and
China’s green taxonomies. This first publication covers the initial phase of work which will be
expanded over time.

The scope covers substantial contribution criteria for climate change mitigation, whilst other
environmental objectives are not covered at this stage. Considering the difference of the
environmental legislation system by different jurisdictions, other eligibility features such as Do No
Significant Harm were not covered within scope of the first phase.

The Common Ground Taxonomy is… The Common Ground Taxonomy is not…
 An analysis on approaches of the EU - A legal documentation by the EU and
taxonomy and China taxonomy, and the China which entails
methodology for comparing and requirement/obligation for either
identifying commonalities and differences jurisdiction to change their taxonomy.
between some features of the two
taxonomies
 An evolving tool that may help different - A single taxonomy or exclusive definition
actors to understand the types of activities of environmentally sustainable economic
that could be covered under the respective activities covering all environmental
taxonomies within the scope of the objectives, such as biodiversity, pollution
comparison exercise prevention, etc.
 A technical document for voluntary - Covering all eligibility features or all
reference by interested parties within the activities in the EU and China taxonomies
limits of the scope of the comparison as explained in the instruction report.
exercise
 An analytical tool or reference for other - A proposal for international standards or
jurisdictions to consider when developing legal document that imposes any global
their own taxonomies standard on other jurisdictions.

The CGT can be used to improve the comparability and future interoperability of taxonomies
around the world. Hence, it intends to provide more clarity and transparency about the
commonalities and differences between approaches and eventually lower the trans-boundary cost
of green investments and scale up the mobilization of green capital internationally. It also provides
a solid methodology on the basis of which other taxonomies can be compared in the future.

The methodology underpinning the CGT is a key part of the value of this work. The first stage
involved (1) extract climate change mitigation activities from the China Taxonomy, (2) mapping of
all activities in both taxonomies to a neutral code so that they could be more easily compared. The
International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) was used as the

6
international reference classification. (3) selection of priority sectors which would significantly
contribute to carbon emission reduction or sequestration.

The second stage involved evaluating the detailed description and technical screening criteria for
each line to ascribe each line with a scenario based on their overlap as follows:

 Scenario 1: Areas with clear overlaps covers activities which have overlaps and can be
considered comparable within the scope/for the purpose of the CGT report.
 Scenario 2: EU criteria are more stringent and/or detailed was assigned to activities
where the EU screening criteria were either narrower in scope or more stringent and/or
detailed than Chinese criteria. In this case, the EU criteria were described in the CGT in
greater detail.
 Scenario 3: China criteria are more stringent and/or detailed was assigned to activities
where the China criteria were either narrower in scope or more stringent and/or detailed
than EU criteria. In this case, the China criteria were described in the CGT in greater detail.
 Scenario 4: Identifiable overlap was assigned to activities that have some alignment in
scope of activities, and could be defined by utilising both sets of eligibility criteria.
 Scenario 5/6: Unclear overlap or obvious differentiation: Scenario 5 was assigned to
activities that were very difficult to map in the other taxonomy. Scenario 6 was assigned to
activities where there was obvious differentiation.

The Common Ground Taxonomy analysed 79 activities across six sectors in the International
Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC), Rev. 4:

 Agriculture, forestry and fishing

 Manufacturing
 Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply
 Water supply; sewage, waste management and remediation activities
 Construction
 Transportation and Storage

These are detailed in the document as followed:

CGT number and Each activity in the CGT is numbered according to its headline sector e.g. A1.1 is
activity name Afforestation which is the first activity under the Agriculture and Forestry sector.

Name of activity – China or EU nomenclature is used depending on the scenario (e.g.

for Scenario 2 activities, generally EU nomenclature is used)

Description Description of what is covered under the activity- China or EU nomenclature is used
depending on the scenario (e.g. for Scenario 2 activities, generally EU nomenclature is
used)
Substantial Scope of activity
contribution criteria Description of Technical screening criteria
Additional notes Provides reference numbers within the associated activities in the EU and/or China
Taxonomy.
Overlap scenario Provide the scenario ascribed during the research

Future considerations

This first phase of the CGT presents a detailed analysis of the EU and China Taxonomies. Other
areas missing could be incorporated into future work. This includes:

7
  Additional sectors such as like services and ICT
 Additional environmental objectives as they are agreed within the EU process.
 Transition considerations as the EU and China taxonomies and taxonomies from other
jurisdictions evolve to include more transition considerations.
 New areas of alignment in existing activities where mapping alignment was challenging,
there is potential to do more research work to understand possible commonalities.
 Other eligibility features such as DNSH and minimum safeguards could be brought in to
strengthen the comparison and interoperability between jurisdictions.
 Other jurisdictions will be brought in as their taxonomies are finalised

An important part of future work is that it dovetails with the work of the G20 Sustainable Finance
Working Group (SFWG). At the request of G20 SFWG, the IPSF and the United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) issued an input paper on which provides a
mapping and analysis of existing – under development – taxonomies.1 This paper sets out the
following 7 high level principles for jurisdictions and markets for the development of coherent
approaches to identify and align investments with sustainability goals.

This work and the forthcoming Roadmap of the G20 will also guide the work of the IPSF and the
CGT work going forward as it looks to include more jurisdictions and further enhance
interoperability around the world.

1
Improving compatibility of approaches to identify, verify and align investments to sustainability goals (IPSF-UNDESA input paper for the G20 SFWG)
https://g20sfwg.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/G20-SFWG-DESA-and-IPSF-input-paper.pdf

8
2. Introduction
2.1. Background and Objectives
2.1.1. Brief introduction of IPSF’s Taxonomy Work

The International Platform on Sustainable Finance (IPSF) is a multilateral forum that aims to enable
exchange of practices and increase international cooperation on sustainable finance related
matters. This in turn contributes to scaling up the mobilisation of private capital towards
environmentally sustainable investments. Part of this work focusses on deepening cooperation on
the development of “sustainable taxonomies” around the world and to help to mitigate
fragmentation of global green/sustainability definitions as far as possible. Over twenty jurisdictions
around the world have developed or are in the process of developing national or regional
sustainable taxonomies (see Annex) 2 . Of these jurisdictions, China and the EU adopted their
respective taxonomies into legislative frameworks.

In July 2020, the EU and China have initiated a Working Group on taxonomies (hereafter referred
to as the “WG”) co-chaired by both jurisdictions and open to all IPSF members and observers. The
WG’s objectives are to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the existing taxonomies for
environmentally sustainable activities, including identifying the commonalities and differences in
their respective approaches and outcomes. This work has become known as the IPSF “Common
Ground Taxonomy”.

2.1.2. The Common Ground Taxonomy (CGT): purpose, objectives and users

What is the Common Ground Taxonomy?

The Common Ground Taxonomy (CGT) is a report resulting from an in-depth comparison exercise
that puts forward areas of commonality between the EU and China’s taxonomies. This first
publication covers the initial phase of work which will be expanded over time (see Chapter 7).

It covers only areas that are in the current scope of both taxonomies, in terms of objectives,
eligibility criteria, activities and thresholds – i.e., if there are activities, objectives or eligibility criteria
covered by the EU but not China (and vice versa), they are not part of the CGT. To determine
eligibility criteria for each activity, it puts forward the criteria that are compliant in both jurisdictions
– usually this means referring to the jurisdiction with narrower scope or more stringent/more
detailed criteria although in some cases, criteria are the same (and therefore directly eligible) or in
others both sets of criteria should be used.

The CGT does not entail any legal implications in either jurisdiction. It only covers climate change
mitigation objective of the EU taxonomy and activities considered making substantial contribution
to the said objective. Thus, the detailed activities referenced in the CGT table accompanying this
report should not be considered as automatically aligned with the EU taxonomy, as certain eligibility
criteria of the EU taxonomy, such as the Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) criteria and the minimum
social safeguards, are not considered by this report. The CGT does not yet cover the climate
change adaptation objective of the existing EU Climate Delegate Act. The EU taxonomy will adopt
criteria for the remaining four environmental objectives in 2022 and continue to be developed
thereafter.

2
Ibid.

9
However, the report is a key milestone which provides the first comprehensive activity-by-activity
mapping and comparison of the EU and China taxonomies, including relevant technical screening
criteria. It creates a methodology, detailed in Chapter 3, which is a milestone achievement in terms
of ensuring the comparability and interoperability of taxonomies across jurisdictions, in line with
the Roadmap of the G20 Sustainable Finance Working Group (SFWG).

Purpose of the CGT work

The CGT can be used to improve the comparability and interoperability of taxonomies around the
world. Hence, intends to provide more clarity and transparency about the commonalities and
differences between approaches and potentially contribute to the analysis to lower the trans-
boundary cost of sustainable investments and scale up the mobilization of sustainable capital
internationally. It also provides a solid methodology on the basis of which other taxonomies can be
compared in the future.

It comes at a critical moment when taxonomies are being developed by a growing number of
countries and regions around the world and the debate in different international fora is becoming
more and more important in order to avoid unnecessary fragmentation and confusion in the market.

To this end, it does not necessarily mean that taxonomies have to be identical but rather that they
are developed based on common sustainability objectives and principles and using a common
language making them more comparable and interoperable. This comes across clearly in the high-
level principles put forward by the IPSF UNDESA Input paper to the G20.3

For instance, the aforementioned input paper points out the common features identified in existing
taxonomies such as: (1) Granular and clear, (2) Publicly available, and (3) Science-based.

Better comparability and interoperability are core enablers of international finance globally – if
taxonomies are comparable and interoperable, they can help to reduce transaction costs by
avoiding unnecessary duplication of verifications, by increasing market confidence, reduce market
segmentation, and help to facilitate cross border green capital flows.

By highlighting major areas of commonality between the EU and China taxonomies, the CGT will
be a crucial step in the process of analysis on how to increase interoperability and it could also be
used as a starting point for analysis for other jurisdictions to consider when developing their own
taxonomies with common features as described above. The CGT aim is to ultimately help facilitate
greater global interoperability and the flow of green finance.

Potential benefits

The findings of this comparison exercise are limited only to some features of the EU and China
taxonomies and have no legal value. On this assumption, they may inform a variety of actors,
including:

 Green bond issuers and verifiers;

 Entities trying to assess the alignment of their business with low carbon economy objectives;

3
Ibid.

10
  Banks and financial institutions in aligning their activities with low carbon economy
objectives
 Research and academia etc.
 Development finance institutions and reporting entities interested in market comparisons
with the Common Principles for Climate Mitigation Finance Tracking (2015 updated in
2021)4 and international definitions of Climate Finance.
 Jurisdictions such as national governments or regional bodies looking for analysis to
develop their own taxonomy;
 International standard setting bodies considering the CGT as a reference for working on
other sustainable finance standards.

2.1.3. Contribution of the CGT to global comparability and interoperability of

sustainable finance standards

A green taxonomy is an important building block of a sustainable financial system. It is a tool to

help to direct flows of capital to green, sustainable projects. However, enabling the flow of capital
into green, sustainable projects around the world requires interoperability. If interoperable,
taxonomies can help investors’ direct capital across borders more easily, for instance by reducing
the costs of verifications/due diligence. Further, given that taxonomies can support other tools such
as benchmarks and labels, the interoperability of taxonomies is conducive to creating better
consistency across the range of tools in the market.

The CGT is expected to play a pivotal role in increasing comparability of sustainable finance
taxonomies and definitions of green, sustainable activities globally, with a view to future
interoperability in line with the G20 SFWG indications. This is a role it will play both within the IPSF
membership and beyond.

In particular, the G20 SFWG is looking into ways to improve global comparability and
interoperability of approaches to align investments to sustainability goals including taxonomies.
The recently released paper by IPSF and UNDESA have informed the G20 SFWG work and seeks
to promote common principles to improve consistency in sustainable investment approaches5. As
part of this work, they have made a number of recommendations to facilitate the interoperability
across approaches and tools for identifying, verifying and aligning investments with sustainability
goals, including the:

“Voluntary adoption of common taxonomies or existing taxonomies to facilitate cross-border

sustainable financial flows. For jurisdictions that choose to implement a taxonomy, adoption of
common taxonomies would help mutually identify common criteria and support cross-border green
capital flows. Jurisdictions or markets that do not have the resources or need to develop their own
taxonomies can also choose to adopt an existing taxonomy.”

IPSF has played a key role as knowledge partner of the alignment topic in the G20 SFWG through
the input paper with UN DESA. The development of the CGT is another demonstration project for
this effort.

4
MDB/IDFC, Common Principles, 2021 ( https://www.eib.org/attachments/documents/mdb_idfc_mitigation_common_principles_en.pdf)
5
Improving compatibility of approaches to identify, verify and align investments to sustainability goals (IPSF-UNDESA input paper for the G20 SFWG)
(https://g20sfwg.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/G20-SFWG-DESA-and-IPSF-input-paper.pdf)

11
2.2. Overarching comparison of the EU and China taxonomies
2.2.1. History of development process

The European Union

In December 2016, the European Commission established the High-Level Expert Group on
Sustainable Finance (HLEG) to help develop an overarching and comprehensive EU roadmap on
sustainable finance. The HLEG process culminated in the publication of the report Financing a
Sustainable European Economy in January 2018 6 which, among others, recommended
‘establishing an EU sustainability taxonomy’ as a priority action.

In March 2018, the European Commission adopted the Action Plan on Financing Sustainable
Growth 7 , outlining a comprehensive EU-level strategy to mobilise private capital towards
sustainable investment, enhance transparency and manage risks of climate change and
environmental degradation. Based on ten detailed actions in the Action Plan, the European
Commission proposed in May 2018, among other legislative initiatives, to create an EU Taxonomy
of green, sustainable activities (hereafter referred to as the EU Taxonomy).

This led to the establishment of the EU Technical Expert Group (EU TEG) consisting of 35
members and observers from civil society, academia, business and the finance sector, to develop
inter alia a list of economic activities and environmental performance requirements for the EU
Taxonomy to help to achieve the EU’s climate goals and SDGs.

In respect of the EU Taxonomy proposal, the TEG mission was to advise the Commission on the
screening criteria on economic activities to identify whether they make a substantial contribution to
climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation.

6
Final Report 2018 by the High-Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance, (https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/180131-sustainable-finance-final-report_en.pdf)
7S
ee factsheet: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/200108-financing-sustainable-growth-factsheet_en.pdf

12
In March 2020, the EU TEG officially released several reports,8 which included the Final Report on
Taxonomy9 and its Technical Annex10.

On 18 June 2020, the EU co-legislators (the European Parliament and the Council) adopted the
legislative framework for developing the EU Taxonomy (EU Taxonomy Regulation) which was
published in the Official Journal of the European Union, entering into force on 12 July 2020. The
advice from the EU TEG informed the Commission Climate Delegated Act (level 2 legislation),
adopted on 4 June 2021, defining the technical screening criteria for some prioritised economic
activities to meet the taxonomy eligibility requirements for climate change mitigation and climate
change adaptation objectives.

In October 2020, the EU Platform on Sustainable Finance (the “Platform”), was established to
continue the work of the EU TEG whose mandate ended in September 2020 11 . Among other
tasks12, in the coming months, the Platform will advise the Commission on the technical screening
criteria on the environmental objectives beyond climate, and inform the development of the
delegate acts for these remaining objectives.

The EU Taxonomy is deemed to be one of the biggest strides in helping the financial system
reorient capital towards a low-carbon climate resilient economy, in line with the Paris Agreement
(see further details in the section 3.1.1).

China

China’s government reshuffled the country’s financial regulatory structure in 2018, which then
consisted of one central bank (the People's Bank of China -PBOC) and three committees (the China
Banking Regulatory Commission -CBRC; the China Insurance Regulatory Commission- CIRC; and
the China Securities Regulatory Commission –CSRC), overseeing commercial banks, insurance
companies, and capital market participants, respectively. CBRC and CIRC merged to form the
China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission (CBIRC), relinquishing some rule-making
and macro-prudential powers to the PBOC central bank relative to its predecessors CBRC and
CIRC. Another reason for the establishment of the CBIRC was to better coordinate the regulatory
activity of both the CBRC and CIRC, as banks in China become more diversified in their business
operations. Meanwhile, China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) holds a
role to take charge in the overall management of investment, work with other agencies to decide
the government’s mandate in approving investment projects, and formulate the catalogue for
government-approved fixed investment projects, and promote the implementation of sustainable
development strategies.

8
Technical expert group on sustainable finance website (https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/sustainable-finance-technical-expert-group_en). In its Annex
III, the HLEG-Report included draft Mitigation Criteria proposed by the European Investment Bank (EIB), integrated and agreed by the HLEG. EIB’s proposal
reflected the conclusions of a “White Paper on the Need for a Common Language in Green Finance” co-authored by the China Green Finance Committee
and the EIB. The document mapped the China Green Bond Endorsed Project Catalogue of 2015, using the Green Bond Principles of the International Capital
Markets Association (objectives) and the MDB-IDFC Common Principles for Climate Mitigation Finance Tracking (categories) as “Rosetta stone”.
9
Taxonomy: Final report of the Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance,March 2020
(https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/200309-sustainable-finance-teg-final-report-
taxonomy_en.pdf)
10
Updated methodology & Updated Technical Screening Criteria, March 2020
(https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/200309-sustainable-finance-teg-final-report-taxonomy-
annexes_en.pdf)
11
Second extension of the mandate of the Technical expert group on sustainable finance (TEG)
(https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/191219-sustainable-finance-teg-extension_en.pdf)

12
Frequently asked questions Commission Platformon Sustainable Finance
(https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/201001-sustainable-finance-platform-faq_en.pdf)

13
Therefore, the “green” reform of China’s financial system is co-supervised by these government
ministries from different perspective and coordinated at different paces. In 2012, the CBIRC began
to use a green credit statistical form to collect data of loans related to environmental protection and
circular economic activities to monitor the environmental and social risks of bank loans. In 2015, to
scale up and populate green finance products, the PBOC published the first version of Green Bond
Endorsed Projects Catalogue (2015) along with its green financial bond issuance management
regulation. In 2019, the NDRC published the Green Industry Guiding Catalogue (2019), which aims
to clarify the scope of green industrial actions throughout the entire economy. Based on the industry
catalogue together with its associated technical criteria instruction document, the relevant agencies
are able to formulate policies regarding investment, pricing, budgets and taxation to facilitate the
development of green industries. In 2020, the PBOC built its own green statistic system based on
the NDRC catalogue to collect data on green loans from 24 major Chinese banks. The CBIRC’s
green credit statistical form has been updated recently, which differs slightly from the industry
catalogue.

On 21 April 2021, in an effort to coordinate green definitions among the financial regulators, the
PBOC, together with NDRC and CSRC, jointly released the amended version of the Green Bond
Endorsed Projects Catalogue (2021 Edition) 13 . This represents another major development in
China’s effort to unify its domestic green definitions. The consolidation of the multiple pre-existing
green bond catalogues means that going forward, the identification of the “green” attributes of all
bonds will be based on the criteria of the updated and domestically harmonized catalogue,
regardless of their type or the market in which they are issued.

The Green Bond Endorsed Project Catalogue (2021 Edition) represents the most up-to-date,
unified and clear green definitions at the activity and project level in China. therefore, recommends
that the Green Bond Endorsed Projects Catalogue (2021 Edition) (hereafter referred to as the
China Taxonomy for brevity) be used as China’s equivalent to the EU Taxonomy for the purposes
of comparison in this report.

2.2.2. Objectives

The EU Taxonomy has six environmental objectives stated below of which the European
Commission has to date adopted technical screening criteria for substantial contribution to the first
two on climate change mitigation and adaptation. Technical screening criteria for the four remaining
environmental objectives are currently under development for some prioritised activities and will be
published in 2022.Articles 10 – 15 of the EU Taxonomy Regulation define the concept of substantial
contribution as it relates to each of the environmental objectives. These are broadly summarised
as follows:

1. climate change mitigation: an activity that contributes substantially to the stabilisation of

GHGs at a level which prevents dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system consistent with the long-term temperature goal of in line with the Paris Agreement
through either the avoidance, reduction of GHG or the increase of GHG removals.
2. climate change adaptation: solutions that substantially reduce the risk of adverse impact of
the current/future climate on an economic activity, or substantially reduce that adverse
impact without increasing adverse risks and impacts for people, nature or assets.
3. sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources: an activity that contributes
substantially to achieving the good environmental status of surface water, groundwater or

13
Green Bond Endorsed Projects Catalogue (2021 Edition) (http://www.pbc.gov.cn/goutongjiaoliu/113456/113469/4342400/2021091617180089879.pdf)

14
 marine waters or preventing the deterioration of bodies of water (surface, ground, marine)
that already have good status.
4. transition to a circular economy: an activity uses resources in a more efficient way,
increases durability and life/use of products, increases recyclability and the use of
secondary raw materials, reduces substantially hazardous content and minimises waste
disposal.
5. pollution prevention and control: an activity that is substantially preventing/reducing
pollutants to air/water/land, or improving air/water/soil quality, or cleaning-up pollutants.
6. protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems: an activity that contributes
substantially to protecting, conserving or restoring biodiversity or to achieving the good
condition of ecosystems, or to protecting ecosystems that are already in good condition.

China’s green taxonomy refers to financial services provided for economic activities that are
supportive of environment improvement, climate change response and more efficient resource
utilization. These economic activities include the financing, operations and risk management for
projects in areas such as environmental protection, energy savings, clean energy, green
transportation, and green buildings. Therefore, the environmental objective of China’s green
taxonomy are environmental improvement, climate change response and more efficient resource
utilization.

While the environmental goals of the EU and China Taxonomies can be broadly mapped against
each other at a high level in the figure below, there may be differences at a more granular level.

EU Objectives14 China Objectives15

Climate change mitigation
Climate change response
Climate change adaptation
The sustainable use and protection of water and marine
resources
Environmental improvement (pollution control and
The protection and restoration of biodiversity and
ecological conservation)
ecosystems

The transition to a circular economy More efficient resource utilization ( circular economy,
Pollution prevention and control waste recycling and pollution prevention)

2.2.3. Scope

The EU and Chinese taxonomies apply to different categories of users.

The EU Taxonomy is a list of activities which can be used by any type of entity. There are however
legally required applications of the EU Taxonomy as follows16:

1. EU Member States and the European Union when they set out any public measures,
standards and labels;
2. Financial Market participants17 that make available sustainable financial products; and

14
EU Taxonomy Regulation
15
Guidelines for Establishing the Green Financial System (2016), Article 1
16
Regulation (EU) 2020/852 , Article 1
17
Financial market participants include: banks, insurance companies that provide Insurance Based Investment Product (IBIP), alternative investment fund
managers, investment management companies that provide portfolio management, organizations that provide occupational retirement or pension products,
private equity and venture capital fund management companies, qualified social enterprise fund management companies, Undertaking for Collective
Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS), index funds

15
 3. Large companies 18 (over 500 employees) under the Non-financial Reporting Directive
(NFRD). This includes:

o Non-Financial undertakings, reporting KPIs on their Turnover, Capex & Opex related
to taxonomy-aligned activities; and
o Financial undertakings (large banks, asset managers, investment firms and
insurance/reinsurance undertakings), disclosing their KPIs (specified in an additional
regulatory act) stemming from taxonomy-aligned activities

Link to label/standards

Currently, the EU Taxonomy and its disclosure requirements are not mandatory for all green bond
issuers. However, the European Commission, in July 2021, put forth a legislative proposal for a
voluntary EU Green Bond Standard under which issuers would be required to allocate 100% of the
funds (proceeds) raised by their bond to economic activities that meet the EU Taxonomy
requirements.

The China Taxonomy is mandatory for all green bond issuers including all financial institutions,
corporations and state-owned enterprises, third-party appraisal agencies, and regulatory
agencies.19 The purpose is to clearly define projects eligible for green bonds, lower the possibility
of greenwashing (non-green project financing through green bonds), improve the credibility and
promote the reputation of green bonds, further regulate the domestic green bond market, and direct
funds towards green enterprises, assets and projects. Issuers must use the China Taxonomy to
ensure that a green bond target project has strong environmental benefits.

Disclosure obligations

In the EU, Taxonomy disclosure requirements apply to two different types of actors: financial market
participants and large companies (including financial and non-financial undertakings).

In accordance with articles 5 to 7 of the EU Taxonomy Regulation, as of mid-2022 for climate

objectives, all financial market participants, when they market a product as “environmentally
sustainable” or “promoting environmental characteristics”, must disclose:

1) the information on the taxonomy environmental objective(s) to which the investment underlying
the financial product contributes; and
2) a description of how and to what extent the underlying investments are in economic activities
that qualify as environmentally sustainable under the EU taxonomy.

If the product is not marketed as one of the above categories, the financial market participant should
indicate that ‘the investments underlying this financial product do not take into account the EU
criteria for environmentally sustainable economic activities.’

Large companies are defined as those with over 500 employees who are already required to provide a non-financial statement under the EU Non-Financial
18

Reporting Directive (NFRD).

19
In line with the PBOC Announcement [2015] No. 39 and the Guiding Opinions of the China Securities Regulatory Commission on Supporting the
Development of Green Bonds

16
Following article 8 of the EU Taxonomy Regulation large non-financial undertakings under the
scope of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive must disclose, progressively as of 2022 for climate
objectives:

1) Proportion of green, sustainable activities in turnover, and

2) Proportion of green, sustainable activities in capital expenditure or operating costs.

Financial institutions and companies must complete the disclosure of information on the other four
environmental objectives as of the start of 2023.

The China Taxonomy is mainly used by financial institutions and corporations for the issuance of
green bonds in the Chinese onshore markets, and the disclosure requirements for different types
of green bonds are listed in the table below:
Demonstration of Green Financial Bond Green Enterprise Green Corporate Green Debt
compliance in China’s Bond Bond Financing
Green Bonds Market20 Instrument

Supervisor PBOC NDRC CSRC NAFMII

Document that determines China Taxonomy (2021)
the eligibility of green
projects
Management of Proceeds Dedicated account Unspecified Dedicated Dedicated account
account
Project Evaluation and Third-party Assessment and Third-party Third-party
Assessment verification Approval by verification verification
encouraged NDRC encouraged encouraged

Information Disclosure Quarterly disclosure Unspecified Annual Annual disclosure;

and annual reporting disclosure publicly report
on use of proceeds changes to use of
(to PBOC) proceeds

2.2.4. Approaches to defining alignment /eligibility

Under the EU Taxonomy, an activity is “taxonomy-eligible” if it has been included into a Delegated
Act with Technical Screening Criteria set for that activity. It means the activity is “in-scope” of the
Taxonomy.

Taxonomy alignment, to be reported as Green, is a three-step process:

1. The activity must make a ‘substantial contribution’ to at least one of six environmental
objectives. Substantial contribution as it applies to each of the objectives is defined in
articles 10-15 of the regulation and the Technical Screening Criteria are clearly identified

20
Work cited include CBI, China Green Bond Market, 2018 (https://www.climatebonds.net/files/reports/china-sotm_cbi_ccdc_final_en260219.pdf), Hao
Zhang, Regulating Green Bonds in the People’s Republic of China: Definitional Divergence and Implications for Policy Making, 2020,
(https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/562076/adbi-wp1072.pdf), Escalante and alii, MRV System Design: Recommendations for Chinese Green
Bonds, 2020 (https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/MRV-System-Design-Recommendations-for-Green-Bonds-in-China.pdf)

17
 in the Delegated Acts that accompany the regulation – for the moment only on the first 2
environmental Objectives, Climate Change Mitigation and Climate Change Adaptation;
2. In the same time, an aligned economic activity must cause no significant harm to any of the
other five environmental objectives, aligning with the Do No Significant Harm (DNSH)
Technical Screening criteria defined in the complementary Delegated Act, for the moment
only showcasing these criteria for activities making a substantial contribution to the first 2
environmental objectives;
3. Finally, it must meet minimum safeguards, defined in Article 18 of the EU Taxonomy
regulation require to ensure the activity alignment with the OECD Guidelines for
Multinational Enterprises and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,
including the principles and rights set out in the eight fundamental conventions identified in
the Declaration of the International Labour Organisation on Fundamental Principles and
Rights at Work and the International Bill of Human Rights

Substantial contribution to climate change mitigation as defined in Article 10 is “where that activity
contributes substantially to the stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at
a level which prevents dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system consistent
with the long-term temperature goal of the Paris Agreement through the avoidance or reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions or the increase of greenhouse gas removals, including through process
innovations or product innovations”.

Additionally, an economic activity for which there is no technologically and economically feasible
low-carbon alternative shall qualify as contributing substantially to climate change mitigation where
it supports the transition to a climate-neutral economy consistent with a pathway to limit the
temperature increase to 1,5 0C above pre-industrial levels, including by phasing out greenhouse
gas emissions, in particular emissions from solid fossil fuels, and where that activity: (a) has
greenhouse gas emission levels that correspond to the best performance in the sector or industry;
(b) does not hamper the development and deployment of low-carbon alternatives; and (c) does not
lead to a lock-in of carbon-intensive assets, considering the economic lifetime of those assets. (the
so-called “Transitional” activities).

Substantial contribution is further defined by the Technical Screening Criteria, which are the central
feature of the Taxonomy and contained in the EU Taxonomy Climate Delegated Act and what are
used for comparison in the CGT presented below.

Note that steps 2 and 3 above are note within the scope of the CGT as presented in this document.

EU Taxonomy process for identification of a green activity

18
China

The China Taxonomy presents a detailed ‘white list’ of eligible economic activities and projects
under various sectors and subsectors. It is explicit about best available low-emission and clean
production technological solutions on the domestic market hence not ‘technology neutral’. Activities
can be eligible only if the activity has been included in the list.

Activities that are included in the China Taxonomy if they have been assessed to meet the following
criteria:

1. Serve one or more of the three environmental objectives

2. Align with the requirements listed in the explanatory notes of the Green Industry Guiding
Catalogue (2019 Edition) and the corresponding “instructions/conditions” of the China
Taxonomy.
3. Adhere to a set of science-based and consistent measures
4. Respect China’s present stage of development
5. Comply with relevant safety, environmental protection and quality regulations and policies.
And policy documents and standard specification referred to in the taxonomy are the latest
version and within the valid period

2.2.5. Legal framework

The document setting up the principles of the EU Taxonomy Regulation (or Level 1 text) was
published on 18 June 2020 and took effect 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the
EU (OJ). The Taxonomy Regulation empowers the European Commission to adopt the following
‘Delegated Acts’ (or Level 2 regulations) that would provide the detailed requirements:

 A first Delegated Act, formally adopted on 4 June 2021 for scrutiny by the co-legislators:
technical screening criteria for identifying some priority activities making substantial
contribution to climate objectives.
 A second delegated act for the remaining objectives (objectives 3-6) will be published in
2022.
 Further Delegated Acts will add additional sectors and criteria going forward.
 An additional Delegated Act adopted on 6 July 2021 supplementing Article 8 of the
Taxonomy Regulation, which details the disclosure requirements for large companies with
regard to the EU Taxonomy.

The PBoC, NDRC, and the CSRC jointly released the "Green Bond Endorsed Projects Catalogue
(2021 Edition)" - referred to in this document as the China Taxonomy. It came into effect nationwide
on July 01, 2021. It works together with the information disclosure and green bond issuance
guidelines21,22, 23published by the three jurisdictions to enable healthy growth of China’s green bond
market.

21
Latham & Watkins LLP, China’s Securities Regulator Issues New Green Bond Guidelines, 2017 (https://www.latham.london/2017/04/chinas-securities-
regulator-issues-new-green-bond-
guidelines/#:~:text=The%20China%20Securities%20Regulatory%20Commission%20%28CSRC%29%20released%20new,Initiative%20considered%20did%
20not%20qualify%20as%20green%20bonds%29)
22
China Issues First Operating Guidance for Green Bond Evaluation Agencies https://www.senecaesg.com/blog/china-issues-first-operating-guidance-for-
green-bond-evaluation-agencies/
23
Seneca, Green Finance Platform, Green Bond Guidelines Issued by China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), 2016
(https://www.greenfinanceplatform.org/policies-and-regulations/green-bond-guidelines-issued-chinas-national-development-and-reform)

19
2.2.6. Classification framework

The European Union

The EU Taxonomy is largely based on the NACE (Nomenclature statistique des Activités
économiques dans la Communauté européenne)24, classification system as follows:
1. Forestry 1.1. Afforestation
1.2. Rehabilitation and restoration of forests, including reforestation and natural forest
regeneration after an extreme event
1.3. Forest management
1.4. Conservation forestry
2. Environmental 2.1. Restoration of wetlands
protection and
restoration
activities
3. Manufacturing 3.1. Manufacture of renewable energy technologies
3.2. Manufacture of equipment for the production and use of hydrogen
3.3. Manufacture of low carbon technologies for transport
3.4. Manufacture of batteries
3.5. Manufacture of energy efficiency equipment for buildings
3.6. Manufacture of other low carbon technologies
3.7. Manufacture of cement
3.8. Manufacture of aluminium
3.9. Manufacture of iron and steel
3.10. Manufacture of hydrogen
3.11. Manufacture of carbon black
3.12. Manufacture of soda ash
3.13. Manufacture of chlorine
3.14. Manufacture of organic basic chemicals
3.15. Manufacture of anhydrous ammonia
3.16. Manufacture of nitric acid
3.17. Manufacture of plastics in primary form
4. Energy 4.1. Electricity generation using solar photovoltaic technology
4.2. Electricity generation using concentrated solar power (CSP) technology
4.3. Electricity generation from wind power
4.4. Electricity generation from ocean energy technologies
4.5. Electricity generation from hydropower
4.6. Electricity generation from geothermal energy
4.7. Electricity generation from renewable non-fossil gaseous and liquid fuels
4.8. Electricity generation from bioenergy
4.9. Transmission and distribution of electricity
4.10. Storage of electricity
4.11. Storage of thermal energy
4.12. Storage of hydrogen
4.13. Manufacture of biogas and biofuels for use in transport and of bioliquids
4.14. Transmission and distribution networks for renewable and low-carbon gases
4.15. District heating/cooling distribution
4.16. Installation and operation of electric heat pumps
4.17. Cogeneration of heat/cool and power from solar energy
4.18. Cogeneration of heat/cool and power from geothermal energy
4.19. Cogeneration of heat/cool and power from renewable non-fossil gaseous and liquid fuels
4.20. Cogeneration of heat/cool and power from bioenergy
4.21. Production of heat/cool from solar thermal heating

24
Although EU Taxonomy is based largely on NACE, there is no possibility of directly using single NACE codes in all cases. Many activities cut across several
NACE codes, some NACE codes have multiple activities under them and some, such as building construction, are actually applicable across almost any NACE
codes sector. ( ref also later in section 3.2.2 - suggest to make a cross-reference). Some mitigation activities have no NACE codes.

20
 4.22. Production of heat/cool from geothermal energy
4.23. Production of heat/cool from renewable non-fossil gaseous and liquid fuels
4.24. Production of heat/cool from bioenergy
4.25. Production of heat/cool using waste heat
5. Water supply, 5.1. Construction, extension and operation of water collection, treatment and supply systems
sewerage, waste 5.2. Renewal of water collection, treatment and supply systems
management and 5.3. Construction, extension and operation of waste water collection and treatment
remediation 5.4. Renewal of waste water collection and treatment
5.5. Collection and transport of non-hazardous waste in source segregated fractions
5.6. Anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge
5.7. Anaerobic digestion of bio-waste
5.8. Composting of bio-waste
5.9. Material recovery from non-hazardous waste
5.10. Landfill gas capture and utilisation
5.11. Transport of CO2
5.12. Underground permanent geological storage of CO2
6. Transport 6.1. Passenger interurban rail transport
6.2. Freight rail transport
6.3. Urban and suburban transport, road passenger transport
6.4. Operation of personal mobility devices, cycle logistics
6.5. Transport by motorbikes, passenger cars and light commercial vehicles
6.6. Freight transport services by road
6.7. Inland passenger water transport
6.8. Inland freight water transport
6.9. Retrofitting of inland water passenger and freight transport
6.10. Sea and coastal freight water transport, vessels for port operations and auxiliary activities
6.11. Sea and coastal passenger water transport
6.12. Retrofitting of sea and coastal freight and passenger water transport
6.13. Infrastructure for personal mobility, cycle logistics
6.14. Infrastructure for rail transport
6.15. Infrastructure enabling low-carbon road transport and public transport
6.16. Infrastructure enabling low carbon water transport
6.17. Low carbon airport infrastructure
7. Construction 7.1. Construction of new buildings
and real estate 7.2. Renovation of existing buildings
activities 7.3. Installation, maintenance and repair of energy efficiency equipment
7.4. Installation, maintenance and repair of charging stations for electric vehicles in buildings
(and parking spaces attached to buildings)
7.5. Installation, maintenance and repair of instruments and devices for measuring, regulation
and controlling energy performance of buildings
7.6. Installation, maintenance and repair of renewable energy technologies
7.7. Acquisition and ownership of buildings
8. Information and 8.1. Data processing, hosting and related activities
communication 8.2. Data-driven solutions for GHG emissions reductions
9. Professional, 9.1. Close to market research, development and innovation
scientific and 9.2. Research, development and innovation for direct air capture of CO2
technical activities 9.3. Professional services related to energy performance of buildings

China

The China Taxonomy (2021) has a four-level classification structure and includes six Categories
and 204 activities in total.

Six categories Sector classification Sector Program

specification

21
 1. Energy-saving and 1.1 Energy-efficiency improvement 14 items 62
Environmental Protection 1.2 Sustainable building programs
Industry 1.3 Pollution prevention
1.4 Water Conservation and
Unconventional Water Resources
1.5 Comprehensive utilization of resources
1.6 Green transportation
2. Clean Production Industry 2.1. Pollution prevention and treatment 8 items 19
2.2 Green agriculture programs
2.3 Comprehensive utilization of resources
2.4 Water saving, and efficient use of non-
conventional water resources
3. Clean Energy Industry 3.1 Energy efficiency improvement 4 items 26
3.2 Clean Energy programs
4. Ecology and Environment- 4.1 Ecological Agriculture 5 items 28
related sector 4.2 Ecological protection and construction programs
5. Sustainable Upgrade of 5.1 Energy efficiency improvement 11 items 38
Infrastructure 5.2 Sustainable buildings programs
5.3 Pollution prevention
5.4 Water Saving and Non-conventional
Water Resources
5.6 Ecological Protection and Construction
6. Green Services 6.1 Consultancy 6 items 31
6.2 Operation Management Services programs
6.3 Audit, Inspection and Evaluation of
Projects
6.4 Monitoring and Detection
6.5 Promotion and Certification of Technical
Products

For each activity, the classification structure of the China Taxonomy takes a ‘while list’ approach
and is not linked directly to China’s industrial classifications system. An example is provided as
below.

Category Sector Sector Program Description/Condition

classification specification
1. Energy- 1.2 1.2.1 Green 1.2.1.1 Manufacturing and consumption of
saving and Sustainable Building Manufacturing green building materials/products
Environmental building Materials of Green including energy-saving wall materials,
Protection Building thermal insulation materials for exterior
Industry Materials walls, energy-saving glass, prefabricated
building components, ready-mixed
concrete, ready-mixed mortar, etc. The
properties of products and technical
specifications should meet national and
industrial relevant technical
requirements for green building
materials/products. Glass products for
exterior walls shall reduce light pollution
and urban heat island effect.

22
3. Common Ground Taxonomy
Methodology
3.1. Scope of analysis

3.1.1. Objectives and screening criteria

The European Union

From the EU perspective, this initial analysis of the CGT covers the climate mitigation objective
and all corresponding technical screening criteria to analyse substantial contribution. The analysis
looked in detail at each of the technical screening criteria for each line and, where relevant, other
applicable EU regulation.

It does not cover the Adaptation objective, the Do No Significant Harm and the Minimum Social
Safeguards- see Chapter 6 for some discussion

China

The activities specified in the China taxonomy targets all of its three environmental objectives, but
are not mapped to corresponding objectives like in the EU Taxonomy. Given the need to assess
both taxonomies, the climate change objective was most comprehensively covered as this mapped
to the EU objective of climate change mitigation.

The China Taxonomy covers four levels of granularity as well as a description for each. the
requirements listed in the explanatory notes of the Green Industry Guiding Catalogue (2019
Edition)25 and the corresponding “instructions/conditions” of the China Taxonomy26 were analysed
against the EU activity description and technical screening criteria. These relevant regulations and
codes in China which were analysed on a best-efforts basis to understand the comparability in
some detail.

25
2019 Green Industry Guiding Catalogue (http://www.cnstandards.net/index.php/2019-green-industry-guiding-catalogue/)
26
Green Bond Endorsed Projects Catalogue, 2021 Edition (http://www.pbc.gov.cn/goutongjiaoliu/113456/113469/4342400/2021091617180089879.pdf)

23
 3.1.2. Priority sectors
Prior to analysis, an analysis was carried out to identify the highest impact sectors, based on
emission levels, to focus on for the first iteration of the CGT.
ISIC Level 1 EU Taxonomy Level 1 China Priority
A. Agriculture forestry and 4. Ecology and Environment-related
1. Forestry High priority
fishing sector
1. Energy Saving and Environmental
Prioritise some
C. Manufacturing 3. Manufacturing Protection Industry
sub-sectors
3. Clean Energy Industry
3. Clean Energy Industry
D. Electricity, gas, steam
4. Energy 5. Sustainable Upgrade of High priority
and air conditioning supply
Infrastructure
5. Water supply, Waste = high
E. Water supply; sewerage 1. Energy Saving and Environmental
sewerage, waste priority
waste management and Protection Industry
management and Water = low
remediation activities 2. Clean Production Industry
remediation. priority
1. Energy Saving and Environmental
7. Construction and real Protection Industry
F. Construction High priority
estate activities. 5. Sustainable Upgrade of
Infrastructure

H. Transportation and 5. Sustainable Upgrade of

6. Transport High priority
storage Infrastructure

J. Information and 8. Information and

6. Green Services Not included
communication communication.

M. Professional scientific 9. Professional, scientific

6. Green Services Not included
and technical activities and technical activities

2.Environmental
protection and restoration Not included
activities.

24
3.2. Section mapping

3.2.1. Mapping against ISIC as a neutral code

The International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) is the
international reference classification. A majority of countries around the world have used ISIC as
their national activity classification or derived from ISIC.

The statistical classification of economic activities used in the EU called NACE (Nomenclature
statistique des Activités économiques dans la Communauté européenne), is derived from ISIC (the
United Nations’ International Standard Industrial Classification) of all Economic Activities. The
Industrial Classification for National Economic Activities (ICNEA 2017) of China is also derived from
the UN ISIC Rev.4. with additional details at lower levels.

The reference to a common classification system allowed the comparison of taxonomies based on
a neutral code rather than taking one taxonomy to compare the other. It also helped to group
activities in a neutral way when there were differences between the scope of the activities in the
two taxonomies. For example, many construction activities could be classified within the
construction headlines sector or within the individual sectors that they relate to (e.g. construction
of waste treatment facilities) – wherever possible, it is referred to ISIC for this grouping.

3.2.2. Challenges and solutions found: codes mapped against multiple

activities, activities without a code etc.

While useful, in many sectors and activities, ISIC (Rev 4.) is not sufficiently granular to capture all
the detailed mapping and comparison that is required. This is particularly the case for emerging
potentially scalable technologies, such as hydrogen or carbon capture, utilisation and storage
(CCUS). Industrial activities are intended to cover economic activities rather than environmental
objectives which means that, for example, “Electric power generation, transmission and
distribution” is the most granular level of detail available within ISIC for electricity generation but
the type of fuel that is used is not covered.

For this reason, the mapping, while following ISIC at the Section and Division levels, also goes
beyond ISIC as depicted in the image below.

There were also some areas like Carbon Capture that do not fit into an ISIC classification
framework. These were put under ‘Other’ at the end.

ISIC Section ISIC Division Group Class Beyond ISIC

D, Electricity, 35, Electricity, 351, Electric power 3510,Electric  Electricity generation from ocean
gas, steam gas, steam and generation, power generation, energy technologies
and air air conditioning transmission and transmission and  Electricity generation from
conditioning supply distribution distribution hydropower
supply  Electricity generation using solar
photovoltaic technology

25
 A, Agriculture, 02,Forestry and 021,Silviculture 0210,Silviculture  Afforestation
forestry and logging and other forestry and other forestry  Forest Management
fishing activities activities  Rehabilitation and restoration of
forests

3.3. Scenario analysis methodology

3.3.1. Description of approach: what is a scenario analysis methodology and

why was it used?

Once the mapping complete, the detailed description and technical screening criteria for each line
were compared to ascribe each line with a scenario based on their characteristics in terms of
comparability.

This methodology allowed us analyse without requiring either taxonomy to change and without
requiring either taxonomy to accept other standards or laws as equivalent to their own criteria.

This was a core underpinning of the CGT – that the common ground is based on what currently
exists rather than how further common ground might be found if small changes were made to either
taxonomy. For future work, see the discussion in Chapter 6 Future considerations.

3.3.2. Scenario description

Scenario 1: Areas with clear overlaps

Some activities in the two taxonomies assessed have overlaps and can be considered comparable
within the scope/for the purpose of the CGT report. These have little need for further analysis.
Examples include electricity generation from wind power.

Scenario 2: EU criteria are more stringent and/or detailed

Scenario 2 was assigned to activities which were clear to map but where the EU screening criteria
were either narrower in scope or more stringent and/or detailed than Chinese criteria. In this case,
the EU criteria were described in the CGT in more detail.
An example is electricity generation from hydropower where EU criteria specific quantitative
screening criteria to projects while the Chinese criteria are not quantitative in nature.

Scenario 3: China criteria are more stringent and/or detailed

Scenario 3 was assigned to activities which were clear to map but where the China criteria (as put
forward in the taxonomy itself or relevant industrial standards and regulations) were either narrower
in scope or more stringent and/or detailed than EU criteria. In this case, the China criteria were
described in the CGT in more detail.

All scenario 3 activities were included in the CGT.

Scenario 4: Identifiable overlap
Scenario 4 was assigned to activities that have some alignment in scope of activities.
Some scenario 4 activities were included in the CGT after additional work was done to understand
the mapping and overlap. However, given the lack of clarity across the criteria, it was not possible
to assess their comparability– as a result both the EU and China criteria were described

Scenario 5/6: Unclear overlap or obvious divergence

26
Scenario 5 was assigned to activities that were very difficult to map in the other taxonomy – for
example, the EU includes criteria for landfills but the China taxonomy does not include landfills.
Scenario 6 was assigned to activities where there was obvious differentiation.
Both Scenario 5 and 6 activities were excluded from the CGT.

3.4. Structure of CGT Climate

The current Climate Change CGT accompanying this report comprises seven sections, six
categories and 55 activities (over 79 analysed). The remaining 24 activities are pending further
assessment by the IPSF Taxonomy Technical Expert Group.

Sections Category Activities

A. Agriculture, forestry and logging A1. Forestry and logging 4
C. Manufacturing C1. Manufacture of low-carbon 3
footprint materials

C2. Manufacture of clean energy 11

technologies

C3. Manufacture of clean energy 2

vehicle and parts

C4. Manufacture of recycling 3

equipment

27
 C5. Manufacture of energy-saving 15
equipment

D. Electricity, gas, steam and air D1. Electric power generation, 9

conditioning supply transmission and distribution
D2. Steam and air conditioning 8
supply
E. Water supply, sewerage, waste E1. Sewage sludge treatment 1
management, and remediation
activities E2. Waste collection, treatment 7
and recycling
F. Construction F1. Construction and renovation of 2
buildings

F2. Construction of transport 4

infrastructure

F3. Electrical, plumbing and other 3

construction installation activities

H. Transportation and storage H1. Land transport including 5

railways
X. Others X1. Underground permanent 2
geological storage of CO2
X2. Hydrogen storage

For each activity, the following tabular format is used to present the number, name, description,
criteria, association with relevant EU or China activities.

CGT number and Each activity in the CGT is numbered according to its headline sector e.g. A1.1 is
activity name Afforestation which is the first activity under the Agriculture and Forestry sector.
Name of activity – China or EU nomenclature is used depending on the scenario (e.g.
for Scenario 2 activities, generally EU nomenclature is used)
Description Description of what is covered under the activity- China or EU nomenclature is used
depending on the scenario (e.g. for Scenario 2 activities, generally EU nomenclature is
used)
Substantial Scope of activity
contribution criteria Description of Technical screening criteria
Additional notes Provides reference numbers within the associated activities in the EU and/or China
Taxonomy. Generally, if it is Scenario 2 (i.e. EU criteria are applied), the additional
notes show how it is mapped to China. And vice versa.
Overlap scenario Provide the scenario ascribed during the research

28
4. Overview of the Common Ground
Taxonomy
4.1. Overview of alignment across sectors

The CGT analysis covers six sections in the International Standard Industrial Classification of All
Economic Activities (ISIC), Rev. 4:
 Agriculture, forestry and fishing
 Manufacturing
 Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning
 Water supply; sewage, waste management and remediation activities
 Construction
 Transportation and Storage

This compares with 87 activities within the climate mitigation criteria under the EU Taxonomy and
94 climate mitigation activities covered under the China Taxonomy.

These figures do not give a full understanding of the overlap. For example, under the EU
‘Manufacture of other low carbon technologies’ is represented 16 times as there are 16 activities in
the China taxonomy that have a narrower scope than this and are specified individually.

Further, while the China taxonomy covers over 200 activities, many of the activities in the CGT
cover multiple of those in a single line.

4.2. Do No Significant Harm

Currently, the Do No significant Harm criterion of the EU Taxonomy is not covered within the CGT
given the technical complexity of the exercise. It is anticipated that this will be an area of future
work.

Some initial work was done early on in the research phase to ascertain those DNSH criteria which
are quantitative in nature and therefore possible to be assessed and compared in line with
Substantial Contribution criteria. While a comprehensive assessment is yet to be carried out, initial
analysis shows that there are a number of criteria from the EU and China taxonomies that can be
mapped and compared in a similar way to Scenario approach noted above.

4.3. Minimum Safeguard

While minimum safeguards are used in both taxonomies, these are not uniform across taxonomies
and not easily comparable.

Under article 18 of the EU Taxonomy Regulation, economic activities must also meet the
requirements of the minimum social safeguards including but not limited to alignment with:
● the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises,
● the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,

29
 ● the International Labour Organization (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and
Rights at Work and its Eight Fundamental Conventions, and
● the International Bill of Human Rights.

China has minimum safeguards in place, referencing relevant domestic policies and standards.
The focus of those requirements – which include the Sanitary Standards for the Design of Industrial
Enterprises, and the Regulations on Labour Security Inspection – is more on Environmental, Health
and Safety (EHS).

4.4. Climate change adaptation-related activities

While some attempts were made to cover the EU’s adaptation objective under the CGT, this has
proven to be difficult and as a result more work is required in this area.

The technical screening criteria for the climate change adaptation objective under the EU
Taxonomy are specified for each NACE code in the same way as they are for climate change
mitigation criteria.

In the China Taxonomy, however, there are no criteria specified as adaptation criteria under the
Taxonomy itself and, generally speaking, the China Taxonomy places greater emphasis on climate
mitigation as part of its climate change objective. However, there are a number of local codes,
standards and regulations which have adaptation elements incorporated. Due to the huge number
of codes that were required to be assessed, it was not possible to assess them for this first report.
Under the EU standard, adaptation criteria are very similar across activities and are process-based
and hence more qualitative in nature. These can be seen in Annex and will be the subject of future
work.

30
5. Usability
5.1. Challenges and potential solutions to ensuring usability for
analysis

The CGT as it currently stands provides a starting point to assess common ground across certain
features of the two taxonomies. While best efforts have been made to translate local standards into
metrics that can easily be used for analysis of taxonomies around the world, there is still some way
to go on this to ensure greater usability.

The following section outlines some of the challenges to usability for analysis and applies not just
to the EU and China but also to other jurisdictions which intend to pursue a taxonomy-based
approach to consider developing sustainable finance taxonomies as they put together their own
taxonomies.

Reference to local legislation/ codes

Areas where the CGT refers to other pieces of legislation – e.g. European directives and Chinese
standards, more work will be required to make these useful for analysis in other jurisdictions.

Improve data availability

Some activities specify criteria that rely on the availability of data which does not exist in all
jurisdictions. For example, Energy Performance Certificates are the norm in the EU but are not
available universally around the world.

Understanding how metrics compare

While some activities do specify quantitative thresholds, they make use of metrics that are not
commonly used in other jurisdictions. Electricity generation, for example, has fairly standardised
metrics that are comparable across jurisdictions.

However, sectors like buildings are very difficult to compare and map across jurisdictions and data
availability also varies. Some building codes and regulations utilise energy consumption metrics,
others have standards for building envelopes and others use emissions.

Primary Energy Demand (PED) used in the EU taxonomy is another example of metrics that are
not commonly used in other jurisdictions but has good correlation with energy consumption and
GHG emissions in most instances. Currently, the use of other metrics is not possible in the CGT
analysis even if they meet the same objectives (substantial reduction in emissions from buildings).

Evolve dynamically
Taxonomies are living documents as they follow the development of technologies, and they may
expand the coverage. Accordingly, regular revisions of the CGT may be necessary to ensure that
it is up-to-date.

31
6. Future considerations
6.1. Pathway to include areas not currently included in CGT
This first phase of the CGT presents a detailed analysis of the EU and China Taxonomies. Other
areas missing could be incorporated into future work:

Additional sectors
As noted in Chapter 2.1.2, sectors were prioritised based on their GHG emissions to both
jurisdictions, with sectors like services and ICT not covered in this version. These can be
incorporated in future iterations to provide greater coverage of EU and China taxonomies.

Additional environmental objectives and transition considerations

As the EU puts forward criteria to cover other environmental objectives, these will be analysed for
future work. The China Taxonomy already covers other environmental objectives.
As already discussed, while adaptation is already covered in the EU, it was difficult to assess in the
China Taxonomy due to the breadth of local regulations that would need to be analysed to provide
an assessment. This may be an area of future work.
As pointed out by the G20 Sustainable Finance Synthesis Report and Roadmap, sustainable
finance taxonomies may be adapted to further recognise transition activities. As taxonomies
evolve to include more transition considerations, the CGT will also reflect these changes.

New areas of alignment in existing activities

In some activities where mapping alignment was challenging, there is potential to do more research
work to understand possible commonalities. Future work may also embed transition considerations.

Other eligibility features

As noted, DNSH and minimum safeguards are not currently explicitly analysed within the scope of
this exercise. These features and criteria could be brought in to strengthen the comparison and
interoperability between jurisdictions.

Other jurisdictions
Other jurisdictions which intend to pursue a taxonomy-based approach can be added to this
analysis as taxonomies are finalised in other jurisdictions.

6.2. Options to incorporate other jurisdictions

The China and EU Taxonomies were developed through very different processes at a time when
there was limited guidance around taxonomies or even regular use of the word taxonomy in the
market.

That is no longer the case. There is now a wealth of information and expertise on global taxonomy
development and existing guidelines across jurisdictions.
Over twenty countries and regions around the world are currently in the process of developing their
own taxonomy or have released versions for comment. Even since the CGT work was started, the
landscape has changed dramatically.

The substance and methodology presented provide a valuable tool to facilitate the future
interoperability of taxonomies worldwide. Its analysis can be used and referenced by jurisdictions

32
which intend to pursue a taxonomy-based approach to promote a common language for assessing
green assets.

The Common Ground Taxonomy, and particularly, the analytical methodology was also designed
to be inclusive and flexible so as to incorporate new jurisdictions which develop taxonomies over
time. The CGT presented here is therefore just the beginning.

The IPSF is a member organisation which currently includes 17 members, of which at least seven
are actively looking to develop national or regional taxonomies. It is the intention that the working
group will look to incorporate new taxonomies into the CGT as they become available although the
working group has yet to establish a time frame of process for doing this.

6.3. Reflection of Taxonomy principles outlined by the IPSF-

UNDESA input paper to the G20 Sustainable Finance Working
Group

In the context of the G20 SFWG, the IPSF and UNDESA issued an input paper on “Improving
compatibility of approaches to identify, verify and align investments to sustainability goals”, which inter
alia provides a mapping and analysis of existing – under development – taxonomies. This paper sets
out the following 7 high level principles for jurisdictions and markets for the development of coherent
approaches to identify and align investments with sustainability goals:

Principle 1: Make a positive contribution to support SDGs. Approaches to align investments with
sustainable goals, including definitions and taxonomies, should aim to create a positive contribution to
at least one of the 17 sustainable development goals, including environmental, climate, biodiversity and
social objectives.

Principle 2: Do no significant harm. Approaches to align investments with sustainable goals, including
definitions and taxonomies, should ensure that activities identified by these approaches do no significant
harm to any of the 17 SDGs, even if the selected activity makes positive contribution to some other
SDGs. To the extent that an alignment approach involves a process for implementation, it should also
introduce safeguards to ensure that a positive contribution to one objective is not going to be outweighed
by negative impacts on other environmental and social objectives.

Principle 3: Be Science-based. Approaches to align investments with sustainable goals, including

definitions and taxonomies, should be objective in nature, supported by clearly defined and disclosed
metrics and thresholds that align with the best available science and are internationally interoperable.
Principle 4: Be dynamic. Approaches to align investments with sustainable goals, including definitions
and taxonomies, will need to be regularly reviewed and updated to reflect the market change and
development of green and sustainable technologies, as well as the change of both domestic and
international policy agendas and priorities.

Principle 5: Be transparent and verified. Approaches to align investments with sustainable goals,
including definitions and taxonomies, should rely on: (i) transparent and robust methodologies (including
from private data providers) to identify sustainable investment opportunities; (ii) proper disclosure by
investment managers and financial advisors marketing sustainable investment products and strategies;
and (iii) independent verification mechanisms.

Principle 6: Contain a fuller coverage of SDGs. As some approaches to align investments with
sustainable goals, including definitions and taxonomies, are developed with an initial focus on climate,

33
there is a need to expand over time their coverage to include other aspects of SDGs, such as
environment, biodiversity and social aspects of sustainability.

Principle 7: Create a comprehensive assessment - Approaches to align investments with sustainable

goals, including definitions and taxonomies, should consider the entire impact of an investee entity’s
activities, both from its operational activities and from the value chain and usage of its products and
services.

34
Annex: Stocktake of sustainable finance taxonomies (Extract from IPSF-UNDESA input paper)
Current coverage / Approach to
Country/jurisdiction State of play Objectives Usability
granularity alignment/eligibility

China In use i. Environmental 6 Level-I industry categories: Mandatory for green bonds Whitelist
improvement, 1. Energy-saving and issuance
Green Bond Endorsed ii. Addressing environmental protection Binary (green/not green)
Projects Catalogue (2021 climate change, industry, 2. Cleaner Activities linked to industry-
Edition) released by the PBC, and production industry, 3. clean specific green standards and
the NDRC, and the China iii. More efficient energy industry, 4. eco-
Securities Regulatory resource criteria set by competent
environment industry, 5. regulatory authorities.
Commission (CSRC). utilization green upgrading of
infrastructure, 6. Green
services.

EU In regulation with additional (i) CCM, (ii) CCA, (iii) Taxonomy based on NACE Mandatory for EU Member Technical Screening Criteria
delegated acts to follow sustainable use and codes (EU industry states, Large corporate and
protection of water and classification derived from financial market participants “Do No Significant Harm”
marine resources, (iv) UN ISIC code). principle
transition to a circular Where:
9 broad categories with Minimum social safeguards
economy, (v) pollution Taxonomy to be used as
prevention and control, (vi) additional NACE Room for transition and
subcategories. reference for green
and protection and investment funds (e.g., retail enabling activities
restoration of biodiversity Activities within select funds and green bonds)
and ecosystems sectors 7 sectors: 1.
Agriculture & forestry, 2. Taxonomy to be used for
Environmental protection disclosure (e.g., investors
and restoration activities, 3. and large companies to
Manufacturing, 4. Energy, 5. disclose share of taxonomy-
Water and waste, 6. aligned investments/
Transport, 7. Buildings, 8. activities).
ICT & 9. Professional
services
Taxonomy covers economic
activities of roughly 40% of
listed companies.

Japan In use Focus on transition Roadmaps to Carbon Guidelines released are Principles-based guidelines
pathways for high emitting Neutrality by 2050 are the legally non-binding with forthcoming cases
companies/ sectors and attachments to the Basic studies and Industry
Guidelines. Target sectors to
 Basic Guidelines on Climate ensure the credibility of be published in 2021 include transition pathways for
Transition Finance released transition finance label. steel, chemistry, electric sectors
in May 2021 power, gas, petroleum,
cement and paper/pulp
Under development
METI has set up a Roadmap
Taskforce to formulate
sector-specific roadmaps.

South Africa Draft published Initial coverage: (i) CCM, (ii) Based on SIC code TBC, likely all financial Technical Screening Criteria
CCA instruments
Public consultation in June Covers: 1. Agriculture “Do No Significant Harm”
2021. Future coverage: forestry, fisheries and land principle
use; 2. Industry; 3.Energy; 4.
(iii) Sustainable use and Water and waste; 5. Room for transition and
protection of water and Transportation; 6. ICT; 7. enabling activities
marine resources, (iv) Construction; Enabling
Sustainable resource use activities, system resilience
and circularity, (v) Pollution and innovation; 8.Social
prevention, (vi) Ecosystem resilience
protection and restoration

Russia Draft published in Dec 2020 (i) Environmental Taxonomy covers 9 sector Financial instruments but Whitelist
improvement; (ii) Pollution categories: not government financial
Part of Russia ‘Green reduction; (iii) Greenhouse instruments Mandatory verification to
Finance Guidelines’ emissions reduction; (iv) obtain green certification for
Energy efficiency a financial instrument
1. waste management and
enhancement; (v) CCA recycling, 2. energy, 3.
construction, 4. industrial
production, 5. transport, 6.
water supply and
wastewater disposal, 7.
forestry, 8. conservation of
natural landscapes and
biodiversity, 9. ICT

Kazakhstan Under development TBC TBC Anticipated to cover green The Rules for recognizing
finance instruments such as technologies as “green”
The New Environmental green bonds, loans, technologies, will outline the
Code of Kazakhstan is technologies, and projects. procedure for recognizing
expected to come in force in technologies and projects as
July 2021, which will green, verification of green
include: definitions of green activities with accordance to
technologies, green finance, Will include a Register of
green technologies and the green taxonomy,
green projects, classification

36
 of green projects projects – a digital data base functions of the Service
(taxonomy), green bonds that gathers information on Operator.
and green loans. green technologies and
projects

Korea Draft published (i) CCM, (ii) CCA, (iii) 53 activities in 9 major It is recommended to Similar structure to EU
sustainable conservation of categories: applied to green projects Taxonomy, substantial
‘K-taxonomy’ draft open for water, (iv) circular economy, selected in accordance with contribution + DNSH +
public consultation in (v) pollution prevention 1. Energy, 2. Manufacturing, the Korean Green Bond minimum safeguards.
Korean management, (vi) 3. Cities and buildings, 4. Guidelines.
biodiversity conservation Transportation, 5. Resource Also contains exclusions
circulation, 6. CO2 capture, It is expected to be applied criteria
7. Water., 8. Biodiversity & to green bonds first and
Agriculture, 9. Research and then to other green financial
education. activities e.g. green loans
and green funds.
It is noted that the
taxonomy may also be used
by any entity or financial
institution to assess the
sustainability of an
individual assets or to
disclose the proportion of
sustainable assets of an
entity.

Mongolia Approved (i) CCM and CCA, (ii) Covers 58 activities from The taxonomy is designed to White List
pollution prevention, (iii) eight sectors be applied for a wider range
Mongolia Green Taxonomy resource conservation, and of financial instruments, It stipulates a list of
(iv) livelihood improvement 8 sector categories are: 1. including loans, bonds, activities considered as
renewable energy; energy equity investment, environmentally sustainable
It includes livelihood efficiency; 2.pollution insurance, etc. Beyond the for investment purposes and
improvement as one of its prevention and control; eligibility of green financial does not provide technical
overall objectives, adding a sustainable agriculture, land products, it is also used for criteria
social element to the use, forestry, bio-diversity banks to report exposures
taxonomy conservation and and for the central bank to
ecotourism; low-pollution track the development of its
energy; green buildings; green loan markets
sustainable water and waste
use; and clean transport

India Under development Under discussion Under discussion Under discussion Under discussion

37
 Phase 1 expected to be
completed in 2021

(*note that India has green

bond guidelines in place but
these are separate to a detailed
taxonomy)

Sri Lanka Under development TBC TBC TBC TBC

Central Bank of Sri Lanka Will likely utilise elements of
with technical assistance China and EU taxonomies
from IFC
Further information
expected in Q4 2021

Bangladesh Existing: Existing: Existing: Existing Existing:

Bangladesh Bank (BB) (i) CCM, (ii) CCA, (iii) 1. Renewable energy, 2. It is used to encourage and 1.Must make substantial
published a Sustainable sustainable protection of Energy efficiency, 3. supervise banks and FIs to contribution to
Finance Policy for Banks and water and marine resources, Alternative energy, 4. grant sustainable loans and environmental objectives, +
Financial Institutions in (iv) transition to a circular Waste, 5. Recycling, 6. conduct sustainable 2. DNSH + 3. minimum social
December 2020 economy, waste prevention Green Brick production, 7. investments. and governance safeguards.
and recycling, (v) pollution Green buildings
prevention and control, (vi) The list of green products/ Similar to EU at a high level
protection and restoration projects/initiatives is also except that the eligibility is
In development: used as eligibility criteria for defined using a Whitelist
of biodiversity and healthy In development:
Green Bond taxonomy (not ecosystems whether bank assets can be approach where a List of
yet published) Likely to align with EU refinanced with BB under eligible Green Products/
taxonomy sector coverage the Refinance Scheme for Projects/ Initiatives is
Green Finance. provided. List of eligible
projects possibly in sync
In development with local conditions and
Mandatory nature of future should create widespread
taxonomy is yet to be awareness of sustainability
confirmed. and environmental issues
for banks and FI.
It also provides two
exclusion lists of economic
activities considered
ineligible for financing and
sustainable finance
respectively

38
 In development:
Likely to use TSC approach

ASEAN Under development Will likely include climate TBC The ASEAN Taxonomy will be TBC
mitigation as well as the overarching guide for all
The association of ASEAN ASEAN Member States
central banks has set up an
transition objectives
complementing their respective
ASEAN Taxonomy Board to national sustainability initiatives
develop, maintain and promote and serving as ASEAN’s
a multi-tiered ASEAN Taxonomy common language for
for Sustainable Finance. sustainable finance.
Work is currently underway on
a first iteration of the
taxonomy, expected to be
announced at the November
2021 UN Climate Change
Conference in Glasgow.

Indonesia Under development TBC – likely to be TBC – likely to be Technical screening criteria
comparable with EU in comparable with EU in (TBC)
terms of environmental terms of economic
objectives classifications 2 categories: “green” and
“towards green”.
Thresholds to reflect the
country's objectives and
capacities

Vietnam Under development, TBC Energy, Transport, Water, Technical screening criteria
expected end 2021. Buildings, Land use and (TBC)
Marine resources, Industry,
Waste, ICT Likely mandatory

Using the Vietnam Standard Comparable metrics and

Industrial Classification thresholds to EU to
(VSIC) determine whether an
economic activity is aligned
with Vietnam’s climate-
transition pathway.

Philippines Under development TBC TBC

a Green inter-agency taskforce
with the Philippines Securities
and Exchange Commission and

39
 the central bank has started the
process of developing a
taxonomy.

Malaysia Published 5 Guiding Principles (GPs): Principles 1 &2 are Applicable to Financial Principles-based Taxonomy
(1) CCM, (2) CCA, (3) No applicable at the activity Institutions to assess provides the 5 principles
Climate Change and Principle-
based Taxonomy (CCPT)
level whereas 3 and 4 whether financed activities with examples as to what
significant harm to the should be applicable at the are (i) Climate supporting types of investment qualify
published in April 2021
environment, (4) Remedial entity level. (see GP1 to 3); (ii) under each. This list is non-
measures to transition, (5) Transitioning (GP4) or (iii) exhaustive.
Watchlist. This facilitates
Prohibited activities
standardized reporting of
climate-related exposures.

Singapore Under development 4 objectives proposed: (i) ISIC sectors and sub-sectors Financial sector A combination of principle-
CCM; (ii) CCA; (iii) Protect are covered. based criteria and
biodiversity; (iv) Promote quantifiable thresholds for
resource resilience Proposed sectors: activities via a 'traffic light
Agriculture, construction & system' green (clear
real estate, transportation, aligned), yellow (activities
energy, industrial. with pathways to becoming
Additional enabling sectors green) and red (activities
may include waste, ICT and that are inconsistent with
CCS. the taxonomy).
The conceptual framework
of the traffic light system
was set out in the
consultation document
published in January 2021,
and the granular criteria is
now being developed.
Other eligibility features: a)
Do no significant harm; b)
no negative impact on
communities’ social and
economic well-being, unless
the trade-offs can be
justified in the long run; c)
no breach local laws and
regulations.

Thailand In discussion Financial sector

40
 Workplan to develop a
green taxonomy initiated

Colombia In draft 7 objectives: (i) CCM; (ii) 8 Broad categories Green Labelled financial Voluntary. No certification
CCA (iii) Sustainable use and instruments mechanism discussed
protection of water and
marine resources; (iv) TSC proposed
Transition to a circular Other eligibility features:
economy (v) Pollution Minimum safeguards and
prevention and control (vi) DNSH
Protection of healthy
ecosystems (vii) Social / SDG

Chile In discussion Likely climate mitigation, Priority sectors to address Likely leverage EU
adaptation and other are Energy, Transport, Taxonomy.
Taxonomy Roadmap for environmental objectives Buildings, and Industry
Chile published in 2021 (mining). Taxonomy type: Technical
screening criteria likely

Mexico In discussion includes six elements:

principles, criteria,
methodologies, operational
and governance
mechanisms, reporting
framework, and diffusion
mechanisms

Dominican Republic Under development

UK Under development GTAG will provide the UK TBC TBC TBC- likely based on TSC
government with non- approach as per the EU
Green Technical Advisory binding advice on how to Likely based on EU approach
Group (GTAG) announced adapt the EU taxonomy for
UK purposes.

New Zealand In Draft Sustainable Agriculture Agriculture only To be used by the finance Aims to seek equivalence, to
(SAFI) sector in considering bridge the gap between
Published in Dec 2020 agriculture lending and international and domestic
seeking stakeholder investment standards
feedback

41
 Australia In discussion Voluntary (likely leveraging
the EU Taxonomy).
Private sector-led initiative

Canada Under development Transition focused Part I: Transition definition, Likely applicable to Voluntary classification tool
taxonomy27 and specifically principles and detailed transition-based financial ()
Industry-led (not connected on GHG emissions reduction corporate disclosures instruments (bonds and
to a regulatory framework / requirement. loans) Activity-and sub-activity
not a government policy based: aligned with EU, CBI
document) Part II: 8 sector-specific and ICMA.
transition taxonomy: (i)
Energy (ii) Utilities, (ii)
Agriculture, (iv) Forestry, (v)
Cement, (vi) Steel (vii)
Aluminium, (viii) Mineral
mining.

CBI Taxonomy In use (i) CCM and (ii) CCA No reference to industrial The use of the taxonomy is “Traffic lights”: green
classification code. mandatory for certified (automatically eligible);
climate bonds. orange (subject to eligibility
The CBI taxonomy presents criteria); and red (not
eight categories (energy, eligible).
water, transport, buildings,
land use and marine The CBI’s guidance on
resources, industry, waste, eligibility goes beyond its
and ICT), with forty-five taxonomy. Issuers wishing
subcategories of eligible to certify their bonds need
assets and projects. to comply with the detailed
Sector Criteria, the Climate
Resilience Principles, and
the Climate Transition
Principles, (where relevant).

MDBs-IDFC Common In Use since 2015 – (i) CCM and (ii) CCA Table 2: Energy Mainly used for the Descriptive eligibility: The
updated in 2021 and in Use monitoring and reporting of Common Principles
Principles from Jan 2021 by MDBs Table 3: Mining and metal climate financing in a introduce definitions for
production for climate consistent manner among CCM and CCA-related
action development banks, financing. Inclusion in the

27
IIAC letter, Taxonomy Developments and Issuance Potential in Canadian Transition Bond Markets in 2021 (https://iiac.ca/wp-content/uploads/Taxonomy-Developments-and-Issuance-Potential-in-Canadian-Transition-Bond-Markets-in-
2021_February-2021.pdf).

42
 mdb_idfc_mitigation_com Table 4: Manufacturing reporting to OECD, UNFCCC exhaustive list of eligible
mon_principles_en.pdf Standing Committee on activities is descriptive and
(eib.org) Table 5: Agriculture, Finance etc. although it includes many
forestry, land use and qualitative criteria, it is not
fisheries subject to quantitative
Table 6: Water supply and greenness thresholds
wastewater The Common Principles on
Table 7: Solid waste CCM includes “transition”-
management related projects/ activities at
a high level, with the
Table 8: Transport backstop of principles such
Table 9: Buildings, public as avoiding carbon-lock in,
installations and end-use importance of long-term
energy efficiency structural shift towards
green technologies, and
Table 10: Information and replacing the old
communications technology technologies before their
(ICT) and digital lifetime (with a distinction of
technologies greenfield vs. brownfield
investments in energy
Table 11: Research, efficiency).
development and
innovation The 2021 Common
Principles will be
Table 12: Cross-sectoral operationalised over a
activities period of two years. At the
end of the two-year period,
the MDBs and the IDFC will
adjust the list, if required,
based on their respective
experience. The list of
eligible activities will be
reviewed regularly to ensure
that it accounts for
technology that may enable
deeper decarbonisation of
economic activities.

[1]
https://iiac.ca/wp-content/uploads/Taxonomy-Developments-and-Issuance-Potential-in-Canadian-Transition-Bond-Markets-in-2021_February-2021.pdf

43