Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that while significant financial flows enter the Cerrado, the current financial architecture fails to align agricultural funding with sustainability and zero-deforestation goals. Subsidized sustainable credit represents only 5.7% of total rural credit in the biome between 2020/21 and 2023/24, and is highly concentrated among large producers and a few financial institutions. The Matopiba region is particularly vulnerable, concentrating over 55% of the biome's deforestation (2013–2022) while relying heavily on Constitutional Financing Funds (FCFs), which often lack transparent sustainability criteria. Blended finance instruments show potential through risk mitigation and flexible terms but remain limited in scale compared to the economic incentives driving land conversion. The authors recommend improving transparency via the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy (TSB), expanding the role of sustainable credit, and fostering financial innovation to mobilize private capital.

The report finds that while significant financial flows reach the Cerrado, particularly in the MATOPIBA region, the current architecture fails to align agricultural finance with zero-deforestation goals. Sustainable subsidized credit represents only 5.7% of total rural credit in the biome and is highly concentrated among large producers and a few financial institutions. In MATOPIBA, Constitutional Financing Funds (FCFs) provide 62% of subsidized credit but lack transparency regarding sustainability criteria. Blended-finance instruments show promise through risk-mitigation and value chain partnerships but remain limited in scale due to high Brazilian interest rates, regulatory complexity for foreign investors, and the strong economic incentive for land conversion. The authors recommend improving transparency via the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy (BST), increasing the share of sustainability-linked public credit, and scaling innovative blended structures to mobilize private capital.

The report finds that while agricultural credit flows to the Cerrado are significant, the current financial architecture fails to align with sustainability goals. Sustainable credit is limited, highly concentrated among large producers and a few financial institutions, and lacks sufficient territorial coverage, particularly in the Matopiba region. The authors recommend improving transparency through tools like the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy, increasing the share of financing linked to sustainability results, and scaling innovative blended finance mechanisms to mobilize private capital.

The document examines how traditional communities in western Bahia, such as the Fecho de Pasto Clemente and Beira Rio, maintain the Cerrado biome through sustainable practices like extensive cattle grazing. It highlights the severe threats posed by industrial agribusiness, including land grabbing and water depletion, and argues that formal recognition of these territories as Omecs or TICCAs is essential for inclusive conservation and social justice.

The report examines the potential for implementing OECMs (meccs) in Brazil to achieve the '30x30' biodiversity goals. It analyzes various spatial mechanisms, including protected areas (UCs), Indigenous lands (TIs), Quilombola territories (TQs), and private lands. The document highlights that while formal protected areas are established, significant conservation occurs in traditional territories and private lands that lack formal recognition. It identifies land tenure insecurity as a primary obstacle to inclusive conservation and proposes that the mecc framework be used to prioritize land regularization for traditional peoples and communities (PCTs). The report concludes with recommendations to integrate meccs with social policies, ensure equitable governance, and provide technical and financial support to local actors.

International climate finance for Brazil grew by 84% between the 2019–2020 and 2021–2022 biennia, reaching an average of US$ 5.1 billion per year. This growth was primarily driven by the energy sector, specifically solar and wind power, and was characterized by a shift toward commercial financing instruments. While Western Europe, led by France, was the largest regional provider, the AFOLU sector—responsible for most of Brazil's GHG emissions—received only 11% of the total finance. Public institutions provided 58% of the funds, with multilateral development finance institutions (DFIs) playing a dominant role, while private finance grew fourfold to reach 42% of the total.

International climate finance for Brazil averaged US$ 5.1 billion per year in 2021–2022, an 84% increase from the 2019–2020 period. This growth was primarily driven by the energy sector, particularly solar and wind power, and a significant rise in private capital from commercial financial institutions. While Western Europe was the largest regional provider, the report highlights a stark imbalance in sectoral allocation: the AFOLU sector, responsible for most of Brazil's GHG emissions, received only 11% of total finance. The majority of funds were earmarked for mitigation (80%) and delivered via commercial debt and equity, while grants and concessional finance declined by 43%.

International climate finance to Brazil averaged R$ 26.6 billion per year in 2021–2022, an 84% increase from 2019–2020. Growth was primarily driven by the energy sector, specifically solar and wind power, and a significant rise in private commercial financing. While Western Europe, led by France, was the primary source, the AFOLU sector—responsible for most of Brazil's emissions—received only 11% of total funding, mostly through public multilateral sources.

The document examines the 'PRA autodeclaratório' as a mechanism to overcome administrative bottlenecks in Brazil's Forest Code implementation, specifically the slow validation of CAR registrations. It analyzes experiences in Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Goiás, and Bahia, concluding that while the model can accelerate restoration, its success depends on robust post-execution monitoring, clear result indicators, and effective accountability mechanisms to prevent the underestimation of environmental liabilities.

The document evaluates a proposed Conama resolution aimed at standardizing the issuance of Vegetation Suppression Authorizations (ASV) to control legal deforestation in Brazil. While the authors praise the proposal for establishing minimum transparency criteria, mandatory geospatial data, and linking validity to the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR), they identify critical flaws. Specifically, they argue the scope is too narrow—restricted to agrosilvopastoral activities—and criticize the unnecessary distinction between ASV and Authorizations for Alternative Land Use (UAS). The briefing recommends expanding the scope to include infrastructure and mining, unifying the authorization nomenclature, and improving the technical interoperability of the national Sinaflor system.

The document serves as a legal reference guide, listing the specific laws and regulations used to implement the Brazilian Forest Code (Lei nº 12.651/2012). It details federal legislation and provides a state-by-state breakdown of the legal frameworks for the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and the Environmental Regularization Program (PRA) in 26 Brazilian states and the Federal District. The listed legislation covers topics such as ecological-economic zoning, legal reserve compensation, the restoration of degraded areas, and the administrative procedures for validating rural property registrations.

The research finds that 36% of subsidized rural credit in Brazil from 2020 to 2024 went to properties that deforested after 2009, with public banks and cooperatives providing 91% of this volume. It highlights a recurring pattern of deforestation both before and after credit is granted and argues for a complete dissociation of public financial incentives from any form of deforestation to meet Brazil's 2030 zero-deforestation target.

The report provides a snapshot of the implementation of Brazil's Forest Code in 2024, focusing on the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and the Environmental Compliance Program (PRA). It highlights a steady increase in CAR registrations, reaching 7.65 million by November 2024, and notes that all states have now initiated the analysis stage, though this remains a significant bottleneck. While some states like São Paulo and Mato Grosso have made substantial progress through automation and legislative changes, only about 3.3% of all registrations nationwide have completed analysis. The report also details the expansion of the PRA, with 19 states and the Federal District having regulated it, and notes the increasing use of Terms of Commitment (ToC) for environmental recovery in states such as Mato Grosso and Pará.

The report finds that 36% of subsidized rural credit in Brazil between 2020 and 2024 was directed to properties that deforested after 2009. Public banks and credit cooperatives are the primary providers of this credit, with some institutions showing high levels of exposure to deforesting properties. The authors argue for a complete dissociation of subsidized credit from any form of deforestation to meet Brazil's 2030 climate goals.

Between 2021 and 2023, bioeconomy finance in Brazil averaged US$ 3.213 billion per year, heavily concentrated in planted forests and bioenergy. While private domestic sources provided 69% of funding, biodiversity-based products and the Northern region remain significantly underfunded compared to industrial crops and other regions.

Between 2021 and 2023, Brazil's bioeconomy received an average of R$ 16.6 billion annually, with 74% of funds concentrated in planted forests and bioenergy/biofuels. While domestic private sources provided 69% of the total, significant gaps exist in funding for native forests and biodiversity products, particularly in the North region. Innovative instruments like thematic bonds and CBIOs drive the majority of the funding, but these are limited to the most industrial bioeconomy sectors.

The ARCA project is a GEF-8 initiative focused on the Caatinga biome in Brazil, with a total GEF financing of $9,771,000. The project seeks to create approximately 100,000 hectares of new protected areas (PAs) and improve the management effectiveness of 4.58 million hectares across seven confirmed PAs. Key components include the implementation of National Action Plans for Endangered Species Conservation (PANs), combating illegal wildlife poaching and trafficking, and providing $732,155 for capacity building and sub-grants to Indigenous Peoples, Traditional Peoples, and Local Communities (IP/TP&LC). The project also aims to mitigate an estimated 48.8 million tons of CO2e over a 20-year period as a co-benefit of improved PA management.

The report identifies critical gaps in the governance of legal deforestation in the MATOPIBA region (Maranhão, Tocantins, Piauí, and Bahia), where agricultural expansion for soy and corn drives significant vegetation loss. It highlights a lack of clarity in legal competence between state and municipal authorities for issuing Authorizations for the Suppression of Vegetation (ASV) and the failure of the national SINAFLOR system to serve as an effective management tool. Key issues include underreporting of ASVs, a lack of public transparency regarding georeferenced data, and technical incompatibilities between state and federal systems. The authors recommend that the federal government clarify issuing competencies, improve SINAFLOR's functionality, and ensure open access to complete ASV data to support the goal of zero deforestation by 2030.

The document examines the systemic failures in managing legal deforestation in Brazil's Matopiba region, highlighting the inefficiency of the Sinaflor system and the lack of transparency in ASV data. It argues that the current governance framework allows for significant underreporting of legal land conversion, which undermines the goal of zero deforestation by 2030 in the Cerrado biome.

This document is an annex listing the federal and state legislation consulted for a 2024 report titled "ONDE ESTAMOS NA IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO CÓDIGO FLORESTAL?" (Where are we in the implementation of the Forest Code?). It provides a comprehensive bibliography of laws, decrees, normative instructions, and resolutions related to the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and the Environmental Regularization Program (PRA) across various Brazilian states.