Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy: Inputs for Classifying Land Use Activities





The Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy

Mapping International and Domestic Taxonomies

Mapping Other (Domestic) Initiatives

Rural Credit Case Study


In 2023, the Ministry of Finance (Ministério da Fazenda – MF) began drafting the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy, an initiative included in the “sustainable finance” axis of the Ecological Transformation Plan. The Taxonomy Action Plan (MF 2023a) was officially launched at COP28 in Dubai in December 2023 (MF 2023b), following a public consultation. The first version of the Taxonomy is expected to be released by November 2024, while its mandatory adoption is scheduled for January 2026.

The Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy will be applied to various economic sectors. A relevant highlight is the classification of land use activities, which include crop production, cattle, and forestry.[1] Establishing sustainability criteria for these activities is crucial in a country where three quarters of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions come from agriculture and land-use change—primarily driven by deforestation (SEEG 2022).

However, the effort to define sustainability for land use is not new. Various national and international initiatives have sought to develop criteria applicable to this sector.[2] While some of these initiatives focus on classification and monitoring, others have the broader objective of directing finance towards sustainable production.

Seeking to contribute to the construction of the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy, researchers from Climate Policy Initiative/Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (CPI/PUC-Rio) analyzed the intersections and complementarities between the main initiatives to define land use sustainability in Brazil, as well as international initiatives used as reference for the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy.

This analysis provides an overview of the sustainability dimensions of the initiatives (environmental, climate, social, etc.), the stage of implementation, objectives, responsible actor, users, applications, type of adherence, among other relevant aspects. The work emphasizes the criteria for defining sustainable land use activities. In addition, using rural credit data, the study shows that the proportion of credit aligned with sustainability objectives varies significantly—from 1% to 44% for the 2022/23 agricultural year—depending on which classification is chosen as a reference. This report also discusses recommendations, seeking to establish priorities and identify points of attention for structuring and implementing the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy.

CPI/PUC-Rio’s analysis highlights an urgent need to define harmonized, precise and technical criteria for the sustainability of the land use sector in Brazil. This report calls for a prioritization of efforts, looking for criteria that can be verified and monitored at scale with available data, so that the implementation of the taxonomy takes place quickly and has a greater impact. In addition, it is necessary to recognize the dynamic nature of the taxonomy, whose criteria will have to be revised and expanded over the years. However, this need for refinement and progression should not delay the definition and implementation of the taxonomy. Brazil cannot afford to put off the environmental and climate challenges it faces.

As the country presiding over the G20 in 2024 and COP30 in 2025, Brazil has a unique opportunity to take a leading role in the transition to a sustainable economy. To this end, the establishment of the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy is a fundamental tool for directing public policy and financial flows and for preventing greenwashing. The Brazilian experience can serve as a model and reference at international level.

What is a Sustainable Taxonomy?
In the context of sustainable finance, a taxonomy is a classification system that makes it possible to identify activities, assets or projects that have environmental, climate and/or social objectives, based on pre-established metrics and/or targets (ICMA 2020). Although environmental and climate objectives are predominant, social aspects have been included in taxonomies, mainly through principles and safeguards (Baccas 2023). Taxonomies can be developed by governments (countries or economic blocs), as well as by other organizations, including private ones. Taxonomies aim to guide financial flows towards activities that have positive impacts, potentially reducing funding for harmful activities. They also serve to guide  policies aligned with sustainability objectives. However, there is no globally accepted taxonomy on what is considered sustainable (Ricas and Baccas 2021).

the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy

Proposals for Prioritizing the Implementation of the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy

The construction of a single, harmonized classification system applicable to a country’s entire economy is a necessary, urgent and crucial effort to promote the transition to an economic model more aligned with environmental sustainability. The success of this task will certainly contribute to attracting resources to finance activities that generate a positive impact on the environmental, climate and socio-economic dimensions in Brazil.

The country has taken an important step in this direction by building the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy Action Plan (MF 2023a). The task now remains to draw up the criteria for identifying investments in activities, practices or projects aligned with the various objectives set out in the plan.

In this report, CPI/PUC-Rio seeks to build a basis for defining the criteria for the land use sector based on concrete national and international experiences by identifying lessons and areas of consensus, but also by revealing differences. In Brazil, various institutions play a role in defining these criteria, such as the Central Bank of Brazil (Banco Central do Brasil – BCB), the Brazilian Federation of Banks (Federação Brasileira de Bancos – FEBRABAN), the Brazilian Development Bank (Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social – BNDES), the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária – MAPA), the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária – EMBRAPA), among others.


The criteria for classifying sustainability need to be drawn up in a technical way, with a scientific basis, and their justifications need to be communicated clearly and simply.

Drawing up each criteria based on established references—such as the methodologies drawn up by EMBRAPA, for example—with metrics and thresholds that justify it technically, will contribute to the acceptance of these criteria by all the relevant players—producers, financial institutions, certifiers, etc.—and facilitate the applicability of the taxonomy on the scale required.

Brazil’s taxonomy plan provides for the criteria to be drawn up in a technical manner. However, it is important to emphasize that these technical justifications must be well communicated, focusing mainly on showing how the flagged practices differ from business-as-usual, generating positive and measurable impacts for at least one of the objectives listed in the action plan, without generating significant damage to any of the other objectives.


The taxonomy criteria must be compatible and equivalent with other taxonomies and initiatives—especially international ones—to guarantee their applicability.  

The action plan refers to the principle of interoperability, revealing a concern on the part of policymakers. This issue is key to signaling to the world which land use activities in Brazil follow sustainability standards and provide transparency to attract international investments with a positive impact.

On the other hand, the Brazilian case is full of particularities. Brazil is one of the world’s leading food producers and applies a series of technologies and practices developed domestically, but which are not necessarily used in other countries. Drawing up the taxonomy presents an opportunity to outline these criteria clearly, highlighting the part of Brazilian primary production that takes place on a sustainable basis, and could even establish itself as an international benchmark in a range of crop, cattle, and forestry practices.


The creation of a thematic group dedicated to monitoring, reporting and verification is crucial to ensure the successful implementation of the taxonomy and keep up with market developments.

The criteria established need to be verifiable on the scale and frequency required to assess whether the different profiles of producers at the top adopt the sustainable practices defined by the taxonomy over time. The classification itself may need periodic revisions, a process that benefits greatly from a well-defined and implemented monitoring methodology. The action plan also recognizes the importance of mechanisms to ensure transparency and the consistent disclosure of information about the financial flows aligned with the taxonomy, mentioning the creation of a centralized platform with the aim of guaranteeing the integrity of the information. This is key to assessing the effectiveness of this tool for the transition to a sustainable economy.


The requirements and criteria for activities related to land use should follow the same standard in order to allow for comparability.

The plan mentions that the categories for land use can follow a non-binary format, with gradations of practices, from the most conventional to the most transformative from the point of view of the taxonomy’s objectives. This differentiated treatment of land use in the taxonomy is something that finds support in the experiences analyzed in this report, given the complexity of assigning criteria not only to the activities themselves, but to the practices adopted at the top, within a rural property. However, it is important that the structure of the requirements and criteria of the different activities for the land use sector follow the same standard, which allow for comparability and assessment of the degree of alignment of investments between different sectors.


Regulatory compliance requirements should be seen as the first step in defining activities and projects eligible for the taxonomy criteria.  

The action plan makes reference to some national commitments and regulations that would be linked to the taxonomy.[3] In the case of land use activities, the social, environmental and climate impediments outlined for rural credit in Resolution no. 5,081/2023 of the National Monetary Council (Conselho Monetário Nacional – CMN) provides a good starting point.[4] In addition to establishing the standards, the resolution also indicates the databases that can be used to assess and monitor compliance.


The level of application of the taxonomy criteria should be more granular than economic activity.  

The use of the National Classification of Economic Activities (Cadastro Nacional de Atividades Econômicas – CNAE) to assign classifications at the level of economic activity proves to be insufficient in the case of land use, something that was recognized, for example, by FEBRABAN.[5] Green Taxonomy when it proposed a complementary module for agricultural activities at the level of rural credit programs. Other taxonomy experiences analyzed in this report almost always go down to a more granular level, either to the finance operation itself or to the rural property.


Verification and monitoring procedures need to be cost-effective and adapted to the necessary scale of taxonomy implementation.

In this case, this report recommends proceeding in stages and establishing different types of application of the classifications to reduce the need for visits to production units, which can have a high financial cost. For example, classified units could be divided into three types:

Automatically eligible: projects that need to submit technical information for evaluation before receiving funds. If this information adheres to the criteria established by the taxonomy, it can be classified as sustainable, without additional checks.

Need remote checking: projects that may require some kind of additional checking, but which can be done remotely, for example through remote sensing tools.[6]

Require on-site verification: in some cases, remote verification will not be sufficient. It will then be necessary to assess the application of certain practices on site by means of a technical visit.[7]

Each of these possibilities gives rise to specific recommendations. For example, in the case of automatically eligible operations, the Rural Credit and PROAGRO Operations System (Sistema de Operações do Crédito Rural e do Proagro – SICOR) can be used, since it already records a large amount of information on rural credit borrowers. In this case, it is necessary to improve the way the system’s fields are filled in and address concerns—checks that the BCB makes on the basis of the information filled in by financial institutions to verify the veracity of the information. The system can even be used as a register for other purposes since it has a history of rural credit contracts for various individuals and rural properties.

In the case of operations that require remote checking, it is important to incorporate existing remote sensing tools into the process of checking taxonomy criteria, as well as investing in the constant improvement of these tools. In addition, these technologies can be used as a first line of action to even map cases that require additional, more precise checks.

On-site verifications can take place in a variety of ways. One example would be to register certifying institutions to apply protocols defined by the taxonomy. These protocols could, for example, use EMBRAPA methodologies for the land use sector, which are already widespread and technically recognized. In addition, programs that seek to award certification seals for certain practices, such as the Carbon + Green Program (National Program for Decarbonized Agriculture Chains – Programa Nacional de Cadeias Agropecuárias Descarbonizadas) of MAPA and the Green Seal and Amazon Seal Programs (Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade – Ministério do Desenvolvimento, Indústria, Comércio e Serviços – MDIC), should be aligned with these criteria and protocols, in order to avoid confusion and insecurity among taxonomy users.


Technical Assistance and Rural Extension (TARE) should be included in the category of enabling activities.  

In many cases, it may be necessary to specify technical assistance activities to guarantee the implementation of a practice. The action plan provides for the possibility of enabling activities—which do not generate an impact on the objectives directly but enable another sustainable taxonomy-eligible activity—which would be applicable in this case.[8]


The implementation of the taxonomy should be gradual, dynamic and participatory.  

It is important to reiterate the gradual, dynamic and participatory nature of the taxonomy criteria development process. Gradual, because it is impossible to develop all the criteria at once; it will be necessary to prioritize. In this case, starting with what is most consensual and verifiable is a way to start. Dynamic, because a classification will not be definitive; it can be continually revised and improved as new evidence emerges. And participatory, as it will involve various public policy bodies, regulators, civil society, academia and the private sector.

Covering the entire economy or even an entire sector with all the objectives listed in the action plan is a very ambitious task. In this sense, CPI/PUC-Rio recommends establishing a roadmap, defining stages with different levels of demand and a timetable for the implementation of each stage. For example, the implementation of the taxonomy could be piloted first in the banking sector, following the example of Colombia. Financial institutions already operate with good practices at the strategic, operational and technical levels, and there are already regulations and self-regulations that can be harmonized with the taxonomy. Next, an implementation plan will be established for the capital market, which is more dispersed.[9]


The actors involved in the taxonomy need to act in a coordinated manner and guide its users.

In this sense, it is crucial to clearly define the obligations and responsibilities of financial institutions, capital market structurers, regulators—such as the BCB and the Securities and Exchange Commission (Comissão de Valores Mobiliários – CVM)—self-regulators, and policymakers with regard to taxonomy. In this case, the experience of the European Union is particularly relevant, as it clearly establishes a series of links with other regulations. In the case of Colombia, for example, the taxonomy is a guide document with no clear regulatory links. Legal frameworks and domestic regulations related to sustainable investments, whether new or existing, should be based on the taxonomy, adopting the same principle of harmonization and interoperability at the domestic level as is thought of in relation to other countries’ taxonomies.

Points of Attention
The establishment of the taxonomy criteria, although based on scientific grounds, will have to involve various discussions between public and private agents in order to reach a consensus. This box highlights some points of attention from CPI/PUC-Rio’s analysis. In order to find a solution for these challenges, a participatory and ongoing process of developing taxonomy criteria in Brazil must take these into consideration.

i. Clearly define the scope of the do no significant harm (DNSH) principle within the taxonomy. In theory, any activity that has a negative impact on any of the taxonomy’s objectives could not be given a sustainable classification, even if it has positive impacts on one of the dimensions. However, in some cases, the measure of harm may contradict current regulations.

Suppose, for example, a soybean crop that uses low-carbon practices, such as no-till farming, but uses pesticides, which can cause damage in other dimensions, such as water quality. The use of this pesticide; however, may be in line with Brazilian health regulations, which stipulate types and limits of use in the country (ANVISA 2020).

Another example of a possible conflict between the DNSH principle and regulatory compliance is the issue of deforestation. In Brazil, the Forest Code (Law no. 12,651/2012) provides for legal deforestation margins. However, strictly speaking, an activity that generates a positive impact, but at the same time generates deforestation, may violate the DNSH principle, even if it is within the law.

In such cases, it is not entirely clear how the taxonomy should deal with the existence of negative impacts that appear to be sufficient to trigger the DNSH principle, but which may be in regulatory compliance. Defining what the scope of DNSH will be in the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy is an ongoing challenge and will be a central point in the elaboration of the taxonomy’s eligibility criteria.

ii. Define exactly which sustainable practices are considered when drawing up the criteria. The case study of rural credit, presented later in this report, revealed how sensitive the measurement of flows aligned with sustainability objectives can be, depending on the classification used.

Taking the example of no-till farming, according to the Brazilian Agricultural Policy for Climate Adaptation and Low Carbon Emission – ABC+ Plan (Plano de Adaptação e Baixa Emissão de Carbono na Agricultura – Plano ABC+), in order to be considered a low-carbon crop, No-till Farming System (Sistema de Plantio Direto – SPD) requires the combination of three practices: minimum tillage, use of straw, and crop rotation. However, only 15% of the crops “eligible” for SPD in Brazil use the system in its entirety (MAPA 2021). On the other hand, the Environmentally Sustainable Production Systems (Sistemas Produtivos Ambientalmente Sustentáveis – SPAS) criteria (MAPA 2022) states that 78% of all soybean production in the country uses no-till farming and should therefore be considered sustainable. It is possible that part of this production may be using an incomplete version of SPD. In this case, one could think of categories of suitability for the practice using a non-binary classification, in which incomplete adoption of SPD would be an intermediate stage and complete adoption of SPD a more advanced stage. However, the process of discussing and drawing up the criteria needs to reach a consensus on this type of issue.

iii. Define the level of application of the taxonomy. The action plan (MF 2023a) speaks of “assets, projects or investments” as being the unit classified as sustainable. In the case of land use activities, these projects typically take place on rural properties that may have several different activities taking place simultaneously. One possibility would be to assign a classification to the productive unit (rural property) in addition to the projects.

On the one hand, failing to look at the property when evaluating a project runs the risk of classifying it as sustainable, while the same property operates with unsustainable techniques on other plots of land. On the other hand, assessing the property as a singe unit can be difficult, as it requires constant revalidation of this classification over time. It is not entirely clear which unit should be preferred, but it is certainly important that taxonomy looks at these two levels of classification when analyzing criteria applicable to land use.[10]

Mapping Initiatives for Classifying Sustainable Land Use Activities

The effort to build criteria for classifying land use activities within the scope of the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy can benefit enormously from analyzing existing initiatives or those in the development phase with similar objectives. With the aim of establishing a basis for discussing sustainability criteria associated with land use activities, this section presents a survey of these initiatives to put together a landscape of references and identify their complementarities and differences.[11]

Initiatives were selected to classify land use activities according to their climate/environmental or socioeconomic impact.[12] The selection was based mainly on references used as inspiration for the construction of the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy, as well as national public policy programs and proposals that impact the sustainability of the land use sector. The analysis also includes initiatives with similar objectives, but which are still in the development stage, to assess how these initiatives can be harmonized with the taxonomy under construction.

These initiatives have been organized into two groups. The first group encompasses taxonomies for broader economic sectors, which include specific criteria for land use. This group includes the international taxonomies used as the basis for the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy Action Plan, as well as national taxonomies that have criteria for land use. The second group is made up of other initiatives that seek in some way to establish criteria for sustainable practices, without necessarily constituting a taxonomy.

This section presents these initiatives according to their respective groups in chronological order of the year they were launched:

International Taxonomies

  • • Climate Bonds Taxonomy
  • • European Union (EU) Taxonomy
  • • Colombian Green Taxonomy (TVC)
  • • Mexican Sustainable Taxonomy

Domestic Taxonomies

  • • FEBRABAN Green Taxonomy
  • • BNDES Sustainable Taxonomy

Other (domestic) initiatives

  • • EMBRAPA’s Environmental Impact Assessment System for Agricultural Technological Innovation (Sistema de Avaliação de Impactos Ambientais de Inovações Tecnológicas Agropecuárias – AMBITEC-AGRO)
  • • EMBRAPA’s Weighted Environmental Impact Assessment of New Rural Activities (Avaliação Ponderada de Impacto Ambiental de Atividades do Novo Rural – APOIA-NOVORURAL)
  • • Technologies from the ABC+ Plan (Sustainable Production Systems, Practices, Products and Processes – Sistemas, Práticas, Produtos e Processos de Produção Sustentáveis do Plano ABC+ – (SPSABC) of MAPA
  • • BCB Public Consultation no. 82/2021
  • • SPAS of the Agricultural Plan, a MAPA initiative
  • • Carbon + Green Program
  • • Green Seal Program
  • • Amazon Seal Program

Each initiative will be the subject of a specific analysis that seeks to understand and compare similarities and differences with regard to the criteria used. Understanding the elements and objectives of these initiatives is important so that those still under construction can develop harmonized criteria based on initiatives that have already been consolidated. This report analyzes the most up-to-date version of each initiative according to the following aspects:

  • • Responsible actor
  • • Stage of implementation
  • • Responsible Actor Type
  • • Type of use
  • • Legal mechanisms
  • • Objectives
  • • Scope (including definition of sustainability used)
  • • Criteria for land use sectors[13]

Figure 1 summarizes the presentation of these aspects for each initiative and their main characteristics using a timeline.[14] This information will be detailed in the description of each initiative.

In some cases, the initiatives report specific criteria that can be used to categorize financial flows directed at land use in Brazil.[15] After describing the initiatives, this report presents a case study of the application of these criteria in the universe of rural credit in Brazil, the main financing policy for the agricultural sector in order to assess the sensitivity of using one classification or another to measure the magnitude of sustainable activities.

This report does not present an exhaustive list of all the initiatives that should be considered both to provide input for the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy criteria and to have their own criteria harmonized with the new taxonomy.[16]

Figure 1. Timeline and Main Characteristics of the Initiatives Analyzed

Source: CPI/PUC-Rio with data from MF (2023a); MDIC (2023a; 2023b); BNDES (2022; 2023); Maia (2023); MAPA (2022; 2023a; 2023d); SHCP (2023); BCB (2021a); Gobierno de Colombia (2022); FEBRABAN (2021); EU Regulation no. 2020/852; CBI (2023a) e EMBRAPA (2015a; 2015b), 2024

This work is supported by a grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the Royal Embassy of the Netherlands. This publication does not necessarily represent the view of our funders and partners. The authors would like to thank Renan Florias for his research support and Juliano Assunção, Natalie Hoover El Rashidy, and Mariana Stussi for their comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank Giovanna de Miranda, Camila Calado, and Maria Bourgeois for editing and revising the text, and Nina Oswald Vieira and Meyrele Nascimento for formatting and graphic design.

[1] For more details on land use activities, see: Chiavari, Joana, Priscila Souza, Gabriela Coser and Renan Florias. Landscape of Climate Finance for Land Use in Brazil. Rio de Janeiro: Climate Policy Initiative, 2023.

[2] These initiatives can be taxonomies themselves or other types of classification, whether national or international, public or private. They have different purposes and requirements and are at different stages of implementation.

[3] Among these, it is worth highlighting the exclusion criteria set out in the Brazil’s Sovereign Sustainable Bonds Framework, which provides for activities for which the funds raised through these bonds cannot be used. Learn more at: Ministério da Fazenda (MF). Arcabouço Brasileiro para Títulos Soberanos Sustentáveis. 2023. Data de acesso: 04 de março de 2024.

[4] The impediments cited by the regulations refer mainly to the compliance of the rural credit borrower and the property associated with the financed enterprise with environmental, land, labor, etc. legislation, as shown in the section on the BCB Public Consultation no. 82/2021.

[5] EBRABAN even proposes updating and revising some of CNAE’s codes as a way of improving the information needed to build a taxonomy. Learn more at: Federação Brasileira de Bancos (FEBRABAN). Contribuições da Febraban à Consulta Pública do Plano de Ação da Taxonomia Sustentável Brasileira. In: Ministério da Fazenda (MF). Taxonomia Sustentável Brasileira – Textos enviados. 2023.

[6] An example would be checking the vigor of pastures for a project involving the recovery of degraded pastures. From a certain size of property, remote sensing data from the pasture module of the MAPBIOMAS Platform can be used as a first line of action in this case.

[7] One way of making this verification more cost-effective could be to prioritize larger properties for on-site verifications, as a larger portion of the territory is covered with fewer visits.

[8] CPI/PUC-Rio study shows that technical assistance was a crucial factor in implementing techniques to recover degraded pastures for small producers in the case of ABC CERRADO. Learn more at: Souza, Priscila, Wagner Oliveira, Mariana Stussi, and Arthur Bragança. The Challenges in the Adoption of Sustainable Practices by Small Ranchers. The Case of ABC Cerrado. Rio de Janeiro: Climate Policy Initiative, 2022.

[9] The obligation to register and deposit Rural Product Notes (Cédulas de Produto Rural – CPRs) can be used as a reference for operationalizing taxonomy. For this measure, CMN Resolution no. 4,870/2020 established a timetable for implementation to provide a deadline for market agents to adapt to the requirements of the regulation, including the development of electronic infrastructure systems. In addition, in defining the criteria for mandatory registration of CPRs, the regulation was designed for rural producers of different sizes—small, medium and large (Vote of BCB no. 321/2020).

[10] It is worth noting that the action plan already takes into account this possibility by stating that “in addition to classifying individual activities, some measures associated with the taxonomy can consider to incorporate information at the organizational level. Not considering the organization’s full sustainability profile can increase the risk of greenwashing if, for example, an organization issues a green bond to finance specific activities without changing its net impact on the climate, environmental or social objective in question” (Ministério da Fazenda (MF). Sustainable Taxonomy of Brazil – Action Plan. 2023, p. 61.

[11] Other organizations have undertaken efforts along these lines, most notably the report by the Financial Innovation Laboratory (Laboratório de Inovação Financeira – LAB) (Baccas 2023). This report seeks to add value by presenting inputs for the definition and implementation of Taxonomy criteria with a focus on the land use sector.

[12] There are initiatives that analyze, for example, the degree of exposure of activities to the risk of climate change, such as the FEBRABAN Green Taxonomy. Although this aspect is relevant from the point of view of adaptation, the focus of this document is on the impact generated (potentially positive in the case of activities classified with some degree of sustainability), since most of the existing initiatives focus on this point.

[13] The list of technical criteria for economic activities in each taxonomy is quite extensive and complex. Therefore, for the purposes of the analysis in this report, a simplified version of these criteria is presented, which can be consulted when drawing up the criteria for the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy.

[14] This document compares the latest versions of each initiative as of January 2023, when the report was developed. However, initiatives may update their technical criteria before the report is published.

[15] For a comprehensive study on financial flows directed towards land use in Brazil according to climate mitigation and adaptation objectives, see: Chiavari, Joana, Priscila Souza, Gabriela Coser e Renan Florias. Panorama de Financiamento Climático para Uso da Terra no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Climate Policy Initiative, 2023.

[16] Some examples of initiatives that have not been analyzed, but which should certainly be considered in this process are: (i) the Brazil’s Sovereign Sustainable Bond Framework (MF 2023e), which presents criteria for public expenditure eligible for earmarking sustainable debt bond resources; (ii) the Transversal Environmental Agenda of the Multi-Year Plan (Plano Plurianual – PPA) 2024-2027, which systematizes federal commitments to the environmental area for planning and budgeting (MPO 2024); (iii) the resolutions of the Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM) presenting information requirements on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) and related aspects, including the labeling of sustainable funds (CVM 2023); and (iv) the rules and procedures for investments in sustainable assets published by the Brazilian Financial and Capital Markets Association (Associação Brasileira das Entidades dos Mercados Financeiro e de Capitais – ANBIMA 2023).


Cookie use: We use cookies to personalize content by preferred language and to analyze our traffic. Please refer to our privacy policy for more information.