COMPARISON STUDY BETWEEN THE COLOMBIAN AND EU TAXONOMIES

This report provides a technical comparison between the Colombian Green Taxonomy and the EU Taxonomy as of June 2023. It evaluates the alignment of Technical Screening Criteria (TSC), Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) principles, and Minimum Safeguards (MS) across various economic sectors to facilitate cross-border financial flows and reduce research costs for international investors.

• The Technical Screening Criteria (TSC) for substantial contribution to climate change mitigation are very similar for 47% (24 activities) of the matched economic activities, with the highest similarities found in the Energy and Manufacturing sectors.
• Colombia's TSC are less ambitious or detailed than the EU's for 27% (14 activities) of the assessed activities, primarily affecting the water, waste, energy, transport, ICT, and construction sectors.
• Only 6% (3 activities) of the Colombian Green Taxonomy's criteria are more stringent or ambitious than the EU Taxonomy's, specifically within the Waste sector regarding composting of organic waste, recovery of non-hazardous waste material, and separate transportation of non-hazardous waste.
• Regarding Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) criteria, 42% (106 criteria) are very similar between the two taxonomies, particularly in the Energy and Waste sectors. However, 16% (41 criteria) are more stringent in the Colombian taxonomy, largely due to the EU's lack of generic circular economy criteria.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy does not yet have a developed objective for substantial contribution to climate change adaptation, whereas the EU Taxonomy addresses this for 13 economic sectors.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy specifically addresses three land-use sectors (Forestry, Agriculture, and Livestock) that are not yet addressed in the EU Taxonomy; these sectors are critical as they contribute to 59% of Colombia's GHG emissions.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy's Minimum Safeguards (MS) are considered less strict and detailed than the EU's because they focus on six IFC performance standards, while the EU integrates broader standards including OECD MNE Guidelines and UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy currently lacks legal status and does not mandate disclosure obligations for corporates or financial participants, whereas the EU Taxonomy requires disclosures for large companies under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).

APA

Dagnino, V., Peláez, A., González, I., & Porras, E. (2023). COMPARISON STUDY BETWEEN THE COLOMBIAN AND EU TAXONOMIES. Climate Bonds Initiative. https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/Climate-Bonds_Comparison-Study-Between-the-Colombian-and-EU-Taxonomies_EN_Jul-2023.pdf

Chicago

Dagnino, Valeria, Adelaida Peláez, Isabel González, and Erika Porras. COMPARISON STUDY BETWEEN THE COLOMBIAN AND EU TAXONOMIES. Climate Bonds Initiative, 2023. https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/Climate-Bonds_Comparison-Study-Between-the-Colombian-and-EU-Taxonomies_EN_Jul-2023.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Dagnino |first1=Valeria |last2=Peláez |first2=Adelaida |last3=González |first3=Isabel |last4=Porras |first4=Erika |title=COMPARISON STUDY BETWEEN THE COLOMBIAN AND EU TAXONOMIES |publisher=Climate Bonds Initiative |date=July 2023 |url=https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/Climate-Bonds_Comparison-Study-Between-the-Colombian-and-EU-Taxonomies_EN_Jul-2023.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{dagnino2023comparison, author = {Dagnino, Valeria and Peláez, Adelaida and González, Isabel and Porras, Erika}, title = {{COMPARISON STUDY BETWEEN THE COLOMBIAN AND EU TAXONOMIES}}, institution = {Climate Bonds Initiative}, year = {2023}, month = jul, url = {https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/Climate-Bonds_Comparison-Study-Between-the-Colombian-and-EU-Taxonomies_EN_Jul-2023.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }