Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The document evaluates how fiscal, budgetary, monetary, and trade policies in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic integrated or ignored natural capital in the Legal Amazon. It finds that the vast majority of economic stimulus measures had a negative impact on natural capital, with 87.2% categorized as 'high negative'. While some positive measures exist in bioeconomy and low-carbon agriculture, the report argues that nature was not central to economic decision-making and recommends a shift toward a 'green recovery' that values standing forests.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The vast majority of economic stimulus measures analyzed had a negative impact on natural capital, with 87.2% rated as 'high negative', 9.7% as 'low negative', 2.9% as 'high positive', and 0.1% as 'low positive'.
  • Despite Brazil spending over R$ 520 billion to combat pandemic effects, these measures did not centrally or marginally consider natural capital in their scope.
  • Positive impacts on natural capital were identified in family farming and bioeconomy, including R$ 4.9 billion (US$ 942.7 million) from the Plano Safra for Pronaf and the ABC Program in the nine states of the Legal Amazon between 2020 and 2021, and R$ 2.2 million (US$ 419 thousand) for Sustainable Bioeconomy Development in Amazonas state.
  • Negative impacts were driven by regulatory flexibility in mining and agribusiness, including four regulatory acts easing mining activities and an estimated R$ 462 million (US$ 126 million) impact on the Amazon from the Central Bank's flexibility regarding Agribusiness Credit Notes (LCA).
  • The report concludes that extra-fiscal measures implemented before and during the pandemic failed to use natural capital as a guiding principle, and many positive budget lines saw decreased funding in 2021 compared to 2020.

Cite the original document

APA
Green Economy Coalition (n.d.). Recuperação Verde na Amazônia. https://www.greeneconomycoalition.org/assets/reports/GEC-Reports/GR-Country-reports/GR-Brazil-hub-recuperacao-verde-factsheet.pdf
Chicago
Green Economy Coalition. Recuperação Verde na Amazônia. n.d. https://www.greeneconomycoalition.org/assets/reports/GEC-Reports/GR-Country-reports/GR-Brazil-hub-recuperacao-verde-factsheet.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=Green Economy Coalition |title=Recuperação Verde na Amazônia |url=https://www.greeneconomycoalition.org/assets/reports/GEC-Reports/GR-Country-reports/GR-Brazil-hub-recuperacao-verde-factsheet.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{greeneconomycoalitionndrecuperao, author = {{Green Economy Coalition}}, title = {{Recuperação Verde na Amazônia}}, institution = {Green Economy Coalition}, url = {https://www.greeneconomycoalition.org/assets/reports/GEC-Reports/GR-Country-reports/GR-Brazil-hub-recuperacao-verde-factsheet.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated