Introduction
The development of Ethiopia’s capital market creates an important opportunity to diversify long-term financing beyond the country’s bank-dominated financing system. At the same time, theglobal shift toward sustainable finance has increased demand for instruments that channel capital toward environmentally beneficial projects.
Green bonds, while fundamentally debt securities, distinguish themselves through commitments concerning the use of proceeds, project eligibility, transparency and reporting. The International Capital Market Association (ICMA) Green Bond Principles (GBP), updated in June 2025, provide internationally recognized voluntary guidance emphasizing these principles. For Ethiopia, green bonds have gained particular relevance following the 28 May 2026 soft launch of the Sustainable Securities Framework by ECMA and ESX, which introduced the Sustainable Securities Guideline, Minimum Documentation Pack and ESX Guideline on Listed ECMA-Labelled Sustainable Securities. The framework supports green, social, sustainability, and sustainability-linked securities.
The Development Bank of Ethiopia (DBE) has planned to issue a green bond as part of a broader effort to diversify its funding base and reduce reliance on traditional sources of capital. The planned bond issuances come as the bank faces a funding gap following the discontinuation of a long-standing mechanism under which commercial banks, insurers and pension funds were required to purchase DBE bonds. According to the scoping Study Report of April 2025 on the Feasibility of Green and Sustainable Finance Instrument in Ethiopia, prepared by Genesis Analytics and sponsored by FSD Africa and FSD Ethiopia, the country has made significant progress in integrating green finance into its development agenda, with the Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) strategy as the cornerstone of its climate policy. Despite this effort, Ethiopia’s green finance landscape faces various challenges including limited private sector participation, weak credit risk mitigation mechanisms, and gaps in monitoring.
The key legal issue is therefore not merely whether green bonds can be issued, but whether Ethiopia’s regulatory framework can ensure clear eligibility criteria, credible disclosure, proper management of proceeds, independent verification, continuing reporting and effective oversight. These safeguards will ultimately determine the credibility of Ethiopia’s emerging green-bond market.
I. Understanding Green Bonds from a Legal Perspective
Green Bonds Are Debt Securities with Additional Commitments
A green bond does not necessarily constitute a fundamentally different legal form of debt instrument. Like a conventional bond, it creates a debt relationship between the issuer and investors and establishes obligations relating to principal repayment, interest, maturity, ranking, security and other contractual terms. The distinguishing feature lies primarily in the purpose and governance of the proceeds. A conventional bond may permit an issuer to use the proceeds for general corporate purposes, subject to the terms of the offering. A green bond, by contrast, is generally structured so that proceeds are allocated exclusively, or substantially, to specified eligible green projects or assets.
The legal significance of this distinction is substantial because a green-bond issuer makes additional representations to investors concerning the environmental purpose of the issuance, the eligibility and selection of projects or assets, the management and allocation of proceeds, the reporting methodology, and, where applicable, the environmental impact of the financed projects. Consequently, the green designation should not be treated merely as a marketing statement. It creates an additional layer of information and compliance that must operate alongside the ordinary securities-law requirements. The ICMA Green Bond Principles identify four core components of a green bond framework: Use of Proceeds; Process for Project Evaluation and Selection; Management of Proceeds; and Reporting. The Principles also recommend disclosure of a Green Bond Framework and encourage external reviews. These principles provide a useful international benchmark for Ethiopia, although they are voluntary and should not be confused with Ethiopian law or ECMA’s mandatory requirements.
II. Ethiopia’s Existing Legal Foundation for Green Bond Issuance
The starting point for analysing green bonds in Ethiopia is the Capital Market Proclamation No. 1248/2021. The Proclamation establishes the statutory foundation for Ethiopia’s capital-market regulatory system and ECMA’s mandate. It provides the broader legal architecture within which securities may be issued, offered and traded, and empowers ECMA to regulate public offerings and trading of securities.
The significance of this legal framework for green bonds is that the green character of a security does not remove the security from the ordinary securities regime. A green bond remains subject to the general legal requirements governing the underlying debt security, together with the additional requirements applicable to its sustainable designation based on the proposed framework of sustainable finance. Accordingly, a prospective issuer cannot simply characterize an ordinary corporate bond as “green” and assume that the sustainability label creates a separate regulatory pathway. The issuer must first satisfy the ordinary legal requirements for issuing the relevant debt security and then satisfy the applicable sustainable-securities requirements. Articles 19–24, read together with other relevant provisions of the Public Offering and Trading of Securities Directive No. 1030/2024, provide an important regulatory foundation for debt securities, including requirements relating to public offerings, registration, disclosure and prospectuses, eligibility to issue debt securities, debt-security requirements, credit ratings where applicable, transaction advisers, continuing disclosure and trading. However, the general debt-securities framework does not, by itself, address the sustainability-specific features of a green bond, such as project eligibility, use and management of proceeds, project selection, external review, impact reporting and continuing sustainability obligations. These matters require a dedicated sustainable-securities framework. In this regard, ECMA and ESX, in collaboration with FSD Ethiopia, have developed the Sustainable Securities Framework, which provides the sustainability-specific regulatory layer for green, social, sustainability and sustainability-linked securities. The legal architecture can therefore be viewed as consisting of two interconnected levels: Level One — General Securities Regulation Issuer eligibility → debt-security requirements → registration → prospectus → offering → listing/trading → continuing disclosure. Level Two —Sustainable-Securities Regulation Green-project eligibility → use of proceeds → projectselection → proceeds management → external review → impact reporting → continuing sustainability compliance. This two-layer approach is particularly important because it prevents sustainable securities from becoming detached from the ordinary investor-protection framework. III. Registration and Issuer Eligibility
Green Bonds Must Satisfy the Ordinary Requirements for Debt Securities
The green designation does not exempt a bond from the ordinary legal requirements applicable
to debt securities. Accordingly, before structuring a green bond, the issuer should assess its
borrowing authority, corporate approvals, existing financing arrangements, security or guarantee
requirements, regulatory and licensing obligations, applicable credit-rating requirements,
authority to undertake the underlying project, and ECMA registration and disclosure
requirements. The green-bond framework should therefore complement, rather than replace,
the legal analysis of the underlying debt transaction.
IV. The 2026 Ethiopian Sustainable Securities Framework
A New Regulatory Layer for Sustainable Finance
A significant recent development is the Sustainable Securities Framework jointly introduced by
ECMA and ESX and soft-launched on 28 May 2026 in collaboration with FSD Ethiopia. The
framework comprises the Sustainable Securities Guideline, Minimum Documentation Pack, and
ESX Guideline on Listed ECMA-Labelled Sustainable Securities
It covers four categories: green, social, sustainability and sustainability-linked securities. Green
bonds finance eligible environmental projects; social bonds finance specified social projects;
sustainability bonds combine green and social objectives; and sustainability-linked bonds link
financial or structural features to predefined sustainability performance targets rather than
requiring proceeds to be used exclusively for designated projects. The framework represents an
important step toward establishing a broader and structured sustainable-finance architecture in
Ethiopia.
V. Use of Proceeds: The Central Legal Issue
Establishing a Legal Link Between Investors’ Money and Green Projects
The treatment of proceeds is a fundamental feature of a green bond. An issuer should
demonstrate that funds raised are allocated and tracked for eligible green projects throughout
the bond’s life. A credible framework should address project eligibility and selection, allocation
and tracking of proceeds, management of unallocated funds, internal controls, reporting and
external review — consistent with the four core components of the ICMA Green Bond
Principles: use of proceeds, project evaluation and selection, management of proceeds, and
reporting. For example, if an issuer raises ETB 25 billion to finance renewable-energy projects
but materially diverts the proceeds to unrelated purposes, this may raise legal and regulatory
concerns regarding its offering documents, investor representations and applicable sustainable-
securities requirements.
VI. What Should Qualify as a Green Project?
The Importance of Eligibility Criteria and a Green Taxonomy
A credible green-bond market requires clear criteria for determining eligible projects. Nigeria’s
SEC Green Bond Rules provide a useful model, covering areas such as renewable energy,
clean transportation, water management, energy efficiency, waste management, sustainable
land use, biodiversity and green buildings, while allowing additional categories to be approved
by the Commission. For Ethiopia, eligible categories could similarly include renewable energy, energy efficiency, sustainable transport, climate-smart infrastructure, water and waste
management, green buildings, forestry, biodiversity and climate adaptation. The framework
should, however, remain sufficiently flexible to accommodate emerging technologies and
innovative projects that demonstrably deliver environmental benefits. The objective should be to
balance regulatory certainty with technological flexibility.
VII. Disclosure and Prospectus Requirements
Sustainability Disclosure as an Extension of Investor Protection
Disclosure is a core mechanism of securities regulation and investor protection. Under
Ethiopia’s Public Offering and Trading of Securities Directive, public securities offerings are
subject to registration and disclosure requirements. For green bonds, these conventional
disclosures should be supplemented with sustainability-specific information, including the
environmental objectives, eligible projects, selection criteria, use and tracking of proceeds,
material risks, external review, reporting obligations, and relevant performance indicators. The
underlying legal principle is straightforward: any information concerning the green
characteristics of a bond that could reasonably influence an investment decision should be
disclosed clearly, accurately and sufficiently to enable investors to assess the associated risks.
VIII. The Role of the Transaction and Legal Adviser
Green-bond transactions involve multiple participants, including the issuer, transaction adviser,
legal adviser, auditor, independent reviewer, environmental consultant, rating agency where
applicable, ESX, ECMA and investors. The Transaction Adviser supports registration,
compliance and transaction documentation, while the legal adviser should assess the issuer’s
corporate authority, regulatory compliance, green-bond documentation, financial and
sustainability disclosures, proceeds-related obligations, and any restrictions under existing
financing arrangements. Accordingly, green-bond transactions require legal advisors to address
not only conventional debt and securities-law issues, but also the legal implications of
sustainability commitments and ongoing reporting obligations.
IX. Independent Verification and Greenwashing
Greenwashing — presenting an issuer or financial product as environmentally beneficial without
adequate factual or regulatory basis — is a significant investor-protection risk in sustainable
finance. Because sustainability representations may influence investment decisions, misleading
green claims may raise serious securities law and disclosure concerns. Independent external
review is therefore an important safeguard. Kenya, through the CMA’s Policy Guidance Note for
Green Bonds, requires external verification of the green characteristics of an issuance,
alongside requirements concerning disclosure, use and management of proceeds, and
reporting. Nigeria similarly requires independent assessment or certification by a professional
authority or person approved or recognized by the SEC. South Africa’s JSE Green Bond
Segment also requires independent assessment of project selection and use and management
of proceeds, which may take the form of a second opinion, certification, verification or rating.
These approaches support a clear allocation of responsibility: the issuer remains responsible for
the accuracy of its disclosures; independent reviewers provide additional assurance; and the
regulator retains supervisory responsibility. Ethiopia can strengthen investor confidence by
maintaining this clear separation of responsibilities within its emerging sustainable-securities
framework.
X. Post-Issuance Reporting and Impact Disclosure
A green bond should not be regulated solely at the point of issuance. Its green designation must
remain credible throughout the life of the bond through continuing reporting and accountability.
Issuers should periodically disclose the allocation and remaining balance of proceeds, projects
financed, project implementation, environmental objectives, relevant key performance indicators
and, where measurable, environmental impact. South Africa’s JSE Green Bond Segment
provides a useful model, requiring post-issuance reporting beginning one year after listing and
addressing the actual use of proceeds and, where possible, environmental impact against
disclosed KPIs and benchmarks. Nigeria similarly requires annual reporting on projects
financed, amounts allocated, eligible sectors and expected environmental impact. For Ethiopia,
the key lesson is clear: continuing disclosure and impact reporting should be integral to the
green-bond lifecycle, not merely an issuance-stage requirement.
XI. Listing and the Role of the Ethiopian Securities Exchange
The Ethiopian Securities Exchange (ESX) provides the institutional platform for listing and
trading securities. The 2026 Sustainable Securities Framework, including the ESX Guideline on
Listed ECMA-Labelled Sustainable Securities, extends sustainability requirements into the
listing environment. In this framework, ECMA is responsible for registration and regulatory
oversight, while ESX is responsible for listing and market requirements. The issuer remains
responsible for continuing compliance and disclosure, while investors rely on the information
disclosed to make investment decisions and monitor the performance of the sustainable
security. South Africa’s JSE provides a useful comparative model through its Sustainability
Segment, which covers green, social and sustainability bonds and imposes requirements
relating to use of proceeds, external review and post-issuance reporting. For Ethiopia, the key
principle is that sustainable securities should be regulated consistently throughout their lifecycle
— from issuance and listing to continuing disclosure and compliance.
Key Legal Challenges for Ethiopia
Despite the progress under the 2026 Sustainable Securities Framework, Ethiopia’s green-bond
market may face several challenges, including developing a clear green taxonomy, building
verification capacity, ensuring post-issuance monitoring, improving investor awareness,
deepening market demand, coordinating regulatory requirements, strengthening enforcement,
and keeping compliance costs proportionate.
Recommendations for Ethiopia
ECMA should establish clear green-project criteria reflecting Ethiopia’s environmental
and development priorities while allowing technological innovation.
The framework should clearly regulate external reviewers’ eligibility, independence,
competence, methodology, conflicts of interest and responsibilities.
Green-bond disclosures should form part of the prospectus, enabling investors to assess
financial, environmental and project risks, use of proceeds, verification and compliance
obligations.
Issuers should establish mechanisms for tracking, allocating and reconciling proceeds,
managing unallocated funds and maintaining appropriate internal controls.
Issuers should provide periodic reports on the allocation of proceeds and, where
measurable, environmental outcomes using appropriate key performance indicators.
The framework should provide clear consequences for material non-compliance,
including corrective disclosure, remedial measures, withdrawal of green status,
suspension and applicable sanctions.
Ethiopia should develop domestic expertise among lawyers, investment advisers,
auditors, environmental professionals, rating agencies and independent reviewers to
strengthen the sustainable-finance ecosystem and reduce reliance on international
service providers.
Conclusion
Ethiopia’s emerging sustainable-securities framework, supported by Capital Market
Proclamation No. 1248/2021, the Public Offering and Trading of Securities Directive No.
1030/2024 and the proposed 2026 Sustainable Securities Framework, provides a foundation for
developing a credible green-bond market.
The regulatory architecture should be understood as a two-layer framework: the general
securities regime governs the underlying debt security, while the sustainable-securities
framework addresses the additional obligations arising from its green designation. African
experience, particularly from Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa and Morocco, shows that effective
green-bond regulation requires more than an issuance framework. It requires clear eligibility
criteria, transparent disclosure, independent verification, effective proceeds management,
continuing reporting and meaningful enforcement. Ethiopia should therefore adapt these tested
principles to its own legal, institutional and environmental context.
The success of the market should be measured not by the volume of bonds labelled green, but
by their environmental integrity, transparency and accountability. Ultimately, a green bond
should not be green merely because it is labelled as such. Its environmental character must be
supported by a credible legal framework, transparent use of proceeds, independent assurance
and continuing accountability. These are the foundations upon which investor confidence and
Ethiopia’s sustainable-finance market will depend.
Disclaimer: This Legal Insight is intended for general information and discussion purposes only
and does not constitute legal advice. The application of the legal and regulatory requirements to
a particular green-bond transaction will depend on the identity and legal status of the issuer,
structure of the issuance, nature of the underlying projects, offering method, listing
arrangements and the requirements applicable at the time of issuance.
For further information and updates please contact Dablo Law Firm, the LEX Africa member in
Ethiopia, on info@dablolawfirm.com or visit https://dablolawfirm.com/
