S&P Global Ratings believes that investment in sustainable land use is critical in mitigating climate change and bridging the gap between the need for increased agricultural production and a concern for the environment. However, unlike the transition to clean energy--which has to date been a focus of the $744 billion green bond market--sustainable land use is still a comparatively nascent green bond financing objective.
Though land use, which includes categories such as forest land, cropland, grassland and wetlands, currently only has a small presence in the green bond market, demand for sustainably produced agricultural and forestry commodities is set to increase. Moreover, green bonds could be instrumental in enabling this growth. According to estimates by the Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI), financing from green bonds for sustainable agriculture and forestry has already grown to $7.4 billion in 2018 from $208 million in 2013. To support this part of the green bond market, the CBI launched its Forest Criteria in 2018, and is due to launch its Agriculture Criteria in January 2020.
As the green bond market continues to develop, we believe it is vital that the focus on transaction transparency and impact assessment--which distinguishes green bonds from conventional bonds--remains robust to encourage further market scaling. We used our Green Evaluation analytical approach--newly expanded to include land use projects--to gauge the potential environmental contribution of two green bonds issued by Fibria Celulose S.A. and Klabin S.A., targeting sustainable land use in Brazil. The results show that green bond issuers and purchasers could view land use projects as making a positive environmental contribution.
As the green bond market continues to expand, and pressure on the agricultural and forestry sectors to sustainably increase production grows, green bonds targeting land use could become a larger feature in the market. However, there are challenges to overcome--not least, the scale of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the sector (see infographic below).
Agriculture And Forestry Have A Huge Impact On The Environment
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading scientific authority on climate change, highlights the important role that global and regional land use plays in limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures. Meeting this target, the IPCC has found, will be vital for avoiding the negative effects of climate change, such as those on health, livelihoods, human security, endurance of ecosystems, and economic growth. Moreover, the sustainable management of land resources is, according to the IPCC, essential to the provision of ecosystem services, such as the production of food and freshwater, that humanity and nature rely on. With the UN forecasting that the global population will grow from today's 7.8 billion to a peak of 10.9 billion by the end of the century, pressure on natural resources will inevitably increase.
Researchers at Pennsylvania State University have estimated that global agricultural production will have to increase by 25%-70% by 2050 in order to feed this swelling population. Agriculture already uses 49% of the global ice-free land surface, and the UN in its landmark Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services estimates that 75% of the earth's surface has been severely altered by human actions. Therefore, the sustainable intensification of existing agricultural land could be a solution that increases food production, while limiting the environmental impact of agricultural systems.
With increased land use change comes higher GHG emissions. Since the Green Revolution of the 1960s--a period that saw prodigious improvements in global grain yields driven by technological and agronomic advancements--intensive land use by the agriculture and forestry sectors has led to increased levels of GHG emissions, degradation of natural ecosystems, and a decline in biodiversity. From 2007-2016, agriculture, forestry, and other land use activities represented 23% of total net anthropogenic GHG emissions. According to the IPCC, agriculture accounts for 70% of global fresh-water use, and is considered a key driver in the potential extinction of one million species the UN estimates are at risk over the coming decades.
Proceeds From Land Use Green Bonds Are Skewed Toward Forestry Projects In Brazil
According to the CBI, a total of $744 billion of green bonds have been issued since the market's inception in 2007. Despite this overall market expansion, allocation of proceeds to land use projects has been relatively small. Only 3.3% of the total market, or just over $24 billion, has been allocated to land use initiatives, with renewable energy, building energy efficiency, and clean transport initiatives being the key eligible green projects financed by green bonds (see chart 1).
The CBI has three categories for land use bonds, based on the percentage of bond proceeds allocated to land use projects. Among bonds with more than 95% allocation of proceeds to land use, there are two notable trends: a preference for forestry projects, and a geographic emphasis on Brazil (see chart 2).
Preference for forestry projects
The first trend, higher allocation to forestry than agriculture, is driven by a number of factors. First, investors consider forestry as a hedge to financial markets--trees grow irrespective of macroeconomic conditions. Second, large forestry companies have dominated the issuance of land use green bonds. This trend is less a reflection of the financial merits of forestry relative to agriculture, and more a symptom of the difficulty in aggregating farming projects. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that 83% of the world's farms are less than two hectares in size. Third, the global market for sustainable timber is more developed than sustainable agricultural commodities, as legislative frameworks, such as the EU's Timber Regulation, prohibits the sale of illegally logged timber or timber products in Europe.
This market focus on forestry is not without its issues. A criticism leveled at land use green bonds is that forestry companies are using the proceeds of their green bonds to grow business-as-usual industrial plantations. The fear of greenwashing--the misrepresentation of a company's products as environmentally sound--in forestry green bonds is understandable, and forestry issuers may need to consider making more concerted efforts to allay investor fears through improved transaction transparency (on proceeds allocation and impact reporting) and governance (on proceeds allocation). This could mean demonstrating how green bonds are being used to finance projects that fall outside general business purposes, such as Fibria Celulose's $700 million green bond issuance in 2017--which we assess below--that allocated some of the proceeds to the conservation of native forests.
Geographic emphasis on Brazil
The second trend, of financing land use initiatives in Brazil, is understandable, given its prominence in the global agricultural and forestry sectors. The FAO estimates that Brazil produces 26% of the total global soy crop, and is the second largest producer of beef. As a result of this, Brazil has seen wide-scale agricultural expansion in its natural ecosystems, and, depending on how it addresses Amazonian deforestation, will be a key player in determining the severity of global warming. Recent headlines highlight the plight of the Amazon rainforest, and experts warn that the Amazon is near a tipping point, as 15%-17% has been deforested. Scientists from George Mason University and the World Resources Institute estimate that should this figure reach 20%-25%, then the rainforest will no longer be able to create enough water to sustain itself. According to scientists, it is vital that Brazil's natural ecosystems are protected, and green bonds could be a pecuniary solution to enable these efforts.
Green Bonds Could Help Curb Deforestation In Brazil
Brazil is at a sustainability crossroads. From 2005 to 2013, Brazil lowered the rate of deforestation in the Amazon by 70%. Since then, however, deforestation rates have been increasing. This year has seen a record number of forest fires, and an 83% increase in the rate of deforestation until October compared to the same period in 2018. Much of this deforestation has been attributed to agricultural expansion. The growth of agriculture has been especially notable in the Cerrado--a 200-million-hectare tropical savannah famed for its biodiversity. The Cerrado's destruction has enabled Brazil to become the world's largest exporter of soy. With the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the FAO forecasting growth in the global demand for soy of 1.6% per year, concerned investors are using green bonds to enable the sustainable management of land, and the sustainable intensification of agricultural production (see the box below).
Brazil is also among the world's largest producers of pulp. Two key producers, Klabin and Fibria Celulose (which merged with Suzano Papel e Celulose S.A. in 2019 to form the world's largest producer of pulp, Suzano S.A.), have targeted the proceeds from their green bonds primarily at the sustainable production of eucalyptus--a key feedstock for global pulp production.
A Potential Incentive For Soy Producers To Stop Deforestation
The Responsible Commodities Facility (RCF), an initiative led by Sustainable Investment Management, is exploring the use of green bonds to restore degraded agricultural lands in the Cerrado. The RCF would require soy farmers to commit to halting deforestation and instead direct the expansion of soy cultivation to existing cleared lands. In exchange, they would be eligible for a low interest revolving credit facility financed by green bonds. The soy produced through this initiative would then be sold through a dedicated exchange, thereby providing a market for certified sustainably produced soy.
We Assess Two Land Use Green Bond Issuances As Having A Positive Environmental Impact
As the majority of green bonds targeting sustainable land use focus on Brazilian forestry projects, we used publically available information to apply our newly expanded Green Evaluation analytical approach to two green bonds in this space: Fibria Celulose (issued on Jan. 17, 2017) and Klabin (issued on Sept. 19, 2017). We only evaluated the proceeds that were allocated to forestry activities and in scope of our Green Evaluation analytical approach.
Our analysis shows that these green bonds would likely fall into the top half of our scoring range (the E1 or E2 category, on a scale of E1 to E4, with E1 being the best and E4 the worst). These positive environmental scores are a function of measures the issuers have taken to restore degraded land and reestablish native forest cover, among other things.
|Examples Of Green Bonds In The Forestry Sectors|
|Company name||Fibria Celulose S.A. (now Suzano S.A.)||Klabin S.A.|
|Issue date||Jan. 17, 2017||Sept. 19, 2017|
|Company information||Fibria Celulose produces, sells, and exports short-fiber pulp in Brazil and internationally. It manufactures and sells bleached eucalyptus kraft pulp. It also exports its products to approximately 35 countries for educational, health, hygiene, and cleaning products. As of Jan. 14, 2019, Fibria Celulose operates as a subsidiary of Suzano S.A.||Klabin, together with its subsidiaries, operates in the paper and pulp industry in Brazil. It operates through forestry, paper, conversion, and pulp segments. The company also manufactures phytotherapic products; provides finance and reforestation services; and operates hotels. In addition, it exports its products.|
|Country of risk||Brazil||Brazil|
|Amount issued/to be issued||$700 million||$500 million|
|Description of proceeds use||Sustainable forest management; restoration of native forests and conservation of biodiversity; waste management; sustainable water management; water usage efficiency; renewable energy; generation of energy from renewable sources||Sustainable forestry; restoration of native forests and conservation of biodiversity; renewable energy; clean transportation; energy efficiency; waste management; sustainable water management; eco-efficient and/or circular economy-adapted products, production technologies, and processes; climate change adaptation|
|Evaluated proceeds use||Forest maintenance; forest protection and management; and forest restoration||Sustainable forestry and climate change adaptation|
|Source||Final offering memorandum||Final offering memorandum|
S&P Global Ratings' Green Evaluation
S&P Global Ratings' Green Evaluation scores instruments targeted at financing environmentally beneficial projects according to their environmental impact. A Green Evaluation is based on three scores--a transparency score, a governance score, and a mitigation score (environmental impact) or adaptation score (resilience level). We evaluate instruments in each category and then combine the resulting scores into a final Green Evaluation.
A Green Evaluation is a point-in-time assessment, in part based on our estimate of the expected lifetime net environmental benefit of a project, should it perform to industry averages.
Green mitigation sectors that are in scope for the Green Evaluation include: green energy, green transport, green buildings, energy efficiency, fossil fuel power plants (decreased carbon intensity of conventional energy production), nuclear power, and water.
S&P Global Ratings has recently released two new modules: waste management, and agriculture and forestry. The agriculture and forestry module, which is the focus of this commentary, includes forestry protection, forestry expansion, sustainable farming, smart farming, crop-based products, and land restoration among its in-scope green mitigation sectors.
For more information, see "S&P Global Ratings Expands Green Evaluation Analytical Approach To Include Agriculture, Forestry, Land Use and Waste Management," published Dec. 4, 2019, on RatingsDirect.
We note that the Green Evaluation is not a credit rating, it does not consider the credit quality of the issuer, nor do we factor its results into our credit ratings.
What Does The Future Look Like For Land Use Projects In The Green Bond Market?
Our analysis shows that green bond issuers and purchasers could view land use projects as making positive environmental contributions. As the green bond market continues to expand, and as the pressure on agricultural and forestry production grows, land use could become a greater feature of the green bond market. However, there are concerns that green bonds targeting land use projects might be at a disadvantage relative to more seasoned eligible categories, such as renewable energy and clean transport.
To date, the adoption of green bonds targeting land use has been slow. A key obstacle limiting investor interest in such bonds has been the absence of a direct and immediate revenue stream, as clean energy infrastructure investments, such as wind farms, tend to generate. The RCF proposal targeting sustainable agriculture could overcome this hurdle. Its revolving credit facility structure, and the annual harvesting of soy, could allow it to garner an almost immediate, and certainly regular, revenue stream to repay its coupon. Equally, should binding legislation on sustainable agricultural commodities, or a market for sustainably produced soy, such as what is being proposed with the RCF, gather momentum, then this could be a catalyst for the expansion of land use green bonds. Further, there is now a political and financial momentum building behind sustainability targets and initiatives, which could help to spur allocation to green bonds targeting land use.
Green Financial Instruments Have Policy Support
Financing sustainable practices in agriculture and forestry is a topic being addressed at the highest political levels. Among the most notable international initiatives are the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a collection of 17 global goals designed to "achieve a better and more sustainable future for all". SDG 15, Life on Land, for instance, advocates greater investment in, and awareness of, the sustainable management of forestry and agricultural resources.
Land use is also referenced as one of the main areas for climate mitigation in the Paris Agreement--a landmark multilateral agreement in 2015 to limit global warming to well below 2°C above preindustrial temperatures. Moreover, the European Commission has put agriculture and forestry in its "taxonomy" of green activities, therefore highlighting them as sectors eligible for sustainable financing (see "Credit FAQ: The EU Green Taxonomy: What's In A Name?," published Sept. 11, 2019).
There is, therefore, a convergence of political and market interest in reducing the negative environmental effects associated with land use activities. As the IPCC makes clear, GHG emissions from land use must be curbed if climate change is to be arrested. Much like how the green bond market is financing the decarbonization of the energy system--another vital element in tackling climate change--green bonds may help to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture and forestry, and therefore play a meaningful role in limiting the effects of climate change.
- Green Evaluation Analytical Approach, Dec. 4, 2019
- Climate Change and Land, IPCC, Aug. 8, 2019
- OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2019-2028, July 8, 2019
- Amazon Tipping Point, Thomas E. Lovejoy and Carlos Nobre, Science, Feb. 2, 2018
- Business as usual: a resurgence of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, Philip Fearnside, Yale Environment 360, April 18, 2017
- Moment of truth for the Cerrado hotspot, Bernardo B. N. Strassburg, Thomas Brooks, Rafael Feltran-Barbieri, Alvaro Iribarrem, Renato Crouzeilles, Rafael Loyola, Agnieszka E. Latawiec, Francisco J. B. Oliveira Filho, Carlos A. de M. Scaramuzza, Fabio R. Scarano, Britaldo Soares-Filho and Andrew Balmford, Nature, March 23, 2017
- Agriculture in 2050: Recalibrating Targets for Sustainable Intensification, Mitchell C. Hunter, Richard G. Smith, Meagan E. Schipanski, Lesley W. Atwood, David A. Mortensen, BioScience, Feb. 22, 2017
This report does not constitute a rating action.
|Primary Credit Analyst:||Maurice Bryson, London;|
|Secondary Contacts:||Anna Liubachyna, London;|
|Michael Wilkins, London (44) 20-7176-3528;|
|Additional Contact:||Industrial Ratings Europe;|
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.
Any Passwords/user IDs issued by S&P to users are single user-dedicated and may ONLY be used by the individual to whom they have been assigned. No sharing of passwords/user IDs and no simultaneous access via the same password/user ID is permitted. To reprint, translate, or use the data or information other than as provided herein, contact S&P Global Ratings, Client Services, 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041; (1) 212-438-7280 or by e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org.