From ambition to alignment: integrating methane into tomorrow’s taxonomies

COP30 in Belém placed methane firmly at the centre of global climate discussions. Findings from the Global Methane Status Report 2025 show that, while methane emissions are still rising globally, more robust national policies and market shifts mean the world is closer to bending the curve than previously forecast. Yet the message from Belém was clear: meeting the Global Methane Pledge’s 30% reduction target by 2030 will require a clear set of measures, and far stronger investment signals. 

Methane accounts for nearly 30% of global warming, but global investment in methane abatement remains severely insufficient: less than USD 14 billion is invested each year, against an estimated USD 48 billion required by 2030. Clearer definitions of what constitutes credible methane mitigation are essential to mobilise finance at scale. 

This is where sustainable finance taxonomies have a critical role to play. 
 

A new joint analysis of methane abatement in sustainable finance taxonomies  

A new joint report from the Climate Bonds Initiative (Climate Bonds) and Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), entitled "Methane Abatement in Sustainable Taxonomies", offers a cross-cutting assessment of how five taxonomies (Colombia, the EU, Indonesia, South Africa and Thailand) incorporate methane abatement across key sectors. Together with these assessments, the report sets out a list of best-practice measures to support the integration of methane abatement in taxonomy frameworks. 

The review highlights three underlying issues:  
 
1.  Incomplete sectoral and activity coverage 
Agriculture, solid waste and wastewater –all major methane sources – are not systematically integrated across existing taxonomies.  Key economic activities associated with methane emissions – such as manure management, rice systems and landfill gas capture – are sometimes missing or only partially defined.  
 
2.  Trade‑offs between usability and technical rigour 
Where methane is addressed, criteria often rely on high-level requirements rather than granular, methane-specific thresholds, safeguards or performance standards. This limits environmental integrity and reduces investor confidence. 
 
3.  Lack of specificity in criteria and safeguards 
Methane-related criteria are often qualitative or implicit, especially where methane abatement appears as a safeguard rather than a primary objective. For example, in agriculture and waste sectors measures such as biodigesters, pasture management or biogas utilisation are referenced, but typically without methane-specific thresholds, leakage limits or performance benchmarks. 
 

Methane at COP30 

COP30 in Belém placed methane and other short-lived climate pollutants firmly on the global agenda, underscoring their importance as near-term levers capable of avoiding up to 0.6°C of warming by mid-century. 

Alongside the negotiations, several new methane initiatives were showcased, including the launch of the No Organic Waste (NOW) Plan, which commits participating governments and cities to reduce methane emissions from organic waste by 30 percent by 2030. The announcement reflected growing international interest in practical, near-term mitigation measures. 

Ministers also stressed that achieving the Global Methane Pledge will require coordinated progress across regulation, policy and finance. Methane abatement is technically feasible, commercially viable and socially impactful, but it will not scale without clearer investment signals, particularly through sustainable finance taxonomies. 

Against this backdrop, strengthening how taxonomies address methane is increasingly critical to ensure they reflect global climate ambition and help direct capital toward high-impact mitigation opportunities. 
 

Technical guidance that can support stronger taxonomies  

In addition to identifying gaps, the report offers practical guidance for taxonomy developers and policymakers, including recommendations and examples of best-practice approaches. These insights can help improve activity coverage, strengthen performance expectations and enhance the specificity of safeguards, supporting clearer and more credible methane-related criteria as taxonomies evolve. 
 

How this fits into the wider methane-finance landscape 

The assessment complements other efforts to build the policy and financial architecture needed to scale methane mitigation, in particular:  

• Fast Track to Net Zero report – it outlines policy pathways for scaling methane abatement across oil and gas, waste and agrifood systems, showing that many reductions are technically feasible and low cost.
• Inclusion of Methane Abatement Measures in Transition Finance report – it provides guidance on how financial instruments can support credible methane mitigation while avoiding carbon lock-in, offering practical guardrails and KPIs. 

Together, these resources help define what credible methane abatement looks like, a foundation that taxonomies can build upon. 

Interoperability matters more than ever 

With more than sixty taxonomies established or under development globally, aligning the treatment of methane across jurisdictions will be essential to strengthen the credibility of green investments and reduce market fragmentation whilst also supporting cross-border capital flows. 

The new Climate Bonds–CPI taxonomy analysis offers practical guidance for countries updating or developing taxonomies, helping ensure frameworks are consistent with global climate ambition and capable of mobilising investment into methane mitigation this decade. 
 

The opportunity ahead 

Methane abatement is one of the fastest and most cost-effective ways to advance climate goals in the near term. Strengthening the way taxonomies define and support methane mitigation can unlock capital for measures already proven to reduce emissions quickly and reliably. 

This report provides governments, financial institutions and market actors with a clear, actionable basis for enhancing methane-related taxonomy criteria, helping align sustainable finance frameworks with climate science, sectoral needs and rising global ambition. 
 

Access the full joint report here