COMPARISON STUDYBETWEEN THE
COLOMBIAN AND
EU TAXONOMIES

Prepared by the Climate Bonds Initiative and Ambire Global in the frame of the European Union Climate Dialogues (EUCDs) projectTable of contents

Acknowledgements

List of abbreviations

Report Summary 3This paper has been written by the teams of the
Climate Bonds Initiative and Ambire Global in
the frame of the EU Climate Dialogues (EUCDs)
project. It was supported by the valuable
contributions and thoughtful feedback received
from the teams of the Directorate-General forInternational Partnerships (INTPA), the European
External Action Service (EEAS), the DirectorateGeneral for Climate Action from the European

AFOLU Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Climate Bonds Climate Bonds Initiative
CSDDD Corporate Sustainability
Due Diligence Directive
CSRD Corporate Sustainability
Reporting Directive

1. Background information 5
2. Comparison of key taxonomy
elements 7
Objectives 7
Scope 8
Activities covered
and prioritisation of sectors 9
3. Comparison ofTechnical Screening Criteria,
DNSH and Minimum
Safeguards 10
Methodology 10

Commission, and the EUCDs team. The work
would not have been possible without the
unwavering support of the European Union
Delegation in Colombia and the financial
support of the European Union, which has been
instrumental in enabling the realisation of thisimportant endeavour.

4. Application and disclosure
requirements 13
Annexes 14
Endnotes 71

DANE Department of Statistics of Colombia
DNP National Planning Department
DNSH Do no significant harm
EU European Union
GDP Gross domestic product
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HLEG High-Level Expert GroupIFC International Finance Corporation
ILO International Labour Organisation
ISIC International Standard
Industrial Classification
MADS Ministry of Environment
and Sustainable Development
MHCP Ministry of Finance
MRV Measurement, Reporting, and Verification
MS Minimum Safeguards
NACE Nomenclature generale des Activites
economiques dans les Communautes
Europeennes – Statistical Classificationof Economic Activities in theEuropean Community
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development
SISCLIMA National Climate Change System ofColombia
SFC Colombian Superintendency of Finance
SFDR Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation
TSC Technical Screening Criteria

Disclaimer
This publication was funded by the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of Climate Bonds Initiative and Ambire Global and do not reflect the views of the European Union. This report presents atechnical comparison between the Colombian Green Taxonomy and the EU Taxonomy with no legal effect. The findings do not represent either a common or a single taxonomy, nor do they represent a view of theequivalence between the two initiatives. This report represents the comparison of the current version of each taxonomy as of June 2023 when the report was developed, however, as taxonomies may update theirtechnical criteria, the report should be updated respectively. The present report does not include the European Commission Environmental Delegated Act adopted on 27 June 2023*.The views and findings expressedin the current report are the author’s own.
The information contained in this communication does not constitute investment advice in any form and neither Climate Bonds Initiative nor Ambire Global (the consortium) is an investment adviser. Any reference toa financial organisation, debt instrument or investment product is for information purposes only. Links to external websites are for information purposes only. The consortium accepts no responsibility for content on
external websites. The consortium is not endorsing, recommending, or advising on the financial merits or otherwise of any debt instrument or investment product and no information within this communication should betaken as such, nor should any information in this communication be relied upon in making any investment decision. Certification under the Climate Bond Standard only reflects the climate attributes of the use ofproceeds of a designated debt instrument. It does not reflect the credit worthiness of the designated debt instrument, nor its compliance with national or international laws. The decision to invest in anything is solely
yours. The consortium accepts no liability of any kind for any investment an individual or organisation makes, nor for any investment made by third parties on behalf of an individual or organisation, based in whole or inpart on any information contained within this, or any other Climate Bonds Initiative public communication.

* Commission Delegated Regulation of 27.6.2023 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing the technical screening criteria for determining the conditions

under which an economic activity qualifies as contributing substantially to the sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources, to the transition to a circular economy, to pollution prevention and control,or to the protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems and for determining whether that economic activity causes no significant harm to any of the other environmental objectives and amending DelegatedRegulation (EU) 2021/2178 as regards specific public disclosures for those economic activities, C(2023) 3851 final.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative2

Report Summary
The purpose of this report is to provide acomparison between the EU and Colombian
Green Taxonomy to bring clarity andtransparency to EU and international investors
about investments that could be consideredgreen in both jurisdictions. This aims to lower
transaction and research costs
for international and EU investors, which will
facilitate cross-border financial flows between
the EU and Colombia to help achieve a green andsustainable transition.
This assessment has benefitted from resources
including the Colombian Green Taxonomy Tool
published by the Colombian Superintendency ofFinance (SFC) and the Ministry of Finance(MHCP), as well as the South African Green
Taxonomy comparison report developed by theEuropean Commission and the South Africa
National Treasury. This activity is part of theEuropean Union Climate Dialogues Project(EUCDs).1
The review contains a side-by-side comparisonof the key taxonomy elements, theirdevelopment process, and their governancemechanisms. The analysis of technical screening
criteria of the economic activities is based on thematching of 51 economic activities from theColombian Green Taxonomy with 74 economic
activities covered by the EU Taxonomy. It also
covers an in-depth comparison of the Do No
Significant Harm (DNSH) and Minimum
Safeguards (MS) criteria.
A key finding from this review is that bothtaxonomies have a high degree of similarity withsome exceptions that mainly relate to theregional context (e.g., the Colombian Green
Taxonomy specifically addresses three land use
sectors, two of which, agriculture and livestock,
are not yet addressed in the EU Taxonomy). Bothtaxonomies also identify sectors and activities
relevant to decarbonisation given its substantial
contribution to climate change mitigation.

In terms of substantial contribution to climatechange adaptation, only the EU Taxonomy
addresses this objective, which the Colombian
Green Taxonomy is yet to develop. In the
Colombian Green Taxonomy, the climate
adaptation objective is addressed in two ways.
First, as an overall co-dependent objective
throughout the principle of DNSH for activities with
substantial contribution to climate change
mitigation. Second, as an independent objectivethat is integrated with other environmental
objectives for implementing sustainable
management and best practices in land use
sectors. At the same time, both taxonomies ensure
to Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) to otherenvironmental objectives and include
requirements for activities to adhere to minimum
safeguards (MS).
The overall results show that the Technical
Screening Criteria (TSC) defined for the substantial
contribution to climate change mitigation are very
similar for 47% (24 activities) of all matchedeconomic activities. The sectors with the mostsimilarities include Energy and Manufacturing. For
example, in the Energy sector, the TSC are similar
for activities such as: electricity generation fromsolar photovoltaic power, concentrated solar
power, wind power, ocean energy, hydroelectric
power, and geothermal energy. For the
Manufacturing sector, the TSC for manufacture of
low-carbon technologies and the components forthe manufacturing of cement, aluminium, iron, andsteel are also very similar.
Colombia’s TSC are less ambitious for 27% (14activities) of the economic activities assessed;
involving six activities in the water and waste
sectors, and a total of eight activities within
the Energy, Transport, ICT and Construction
sectors. Only 6% (3) of the economic activities in
the Colombian Green Taxonomy have more
ambitious or stringent criteria than those indicatedin the EU taxonomy, specifically in the Waste
sector: collection and separate transportation of

Table 1 Overall results by sector
Sector

Incomparable

Less
stringent/ambitious
and/orlessdetailedMore
stringent/ambitious
and/ormore
detailedVerysimilar

N/A*

Total
activities

Energy

0

4

0

14

0

18

Construction

0

2

0

1

0

3

Waste

0

3

3

1

1

8

Water

0

3

0

0

1

4

Transport

2

1

0

2

0

5

ICT

1

1

0

0

0

2

Manufacturing

1

0

0

6

0

7

Forestry

4

0

0

0

0

4

*Activities that are not covered by both taxonomies are excluded from the analysis.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative

Average proportion of categories
for the comparison of TSC ofclimate change mitigation between
the Colombian and EU Taxonomies
More stringent/ ambitious and/or more detailed 6%
N.A.
4%
Incomparable
16%
Very
Similar
47%
Less stringent/ambitious and/ or
less detailed 27%

Source: Climate Bonds Initiative

non-hazardous waste in the segregated fraction
at source, composting of organic waste, andrecovery of non-hazardous waste material.
Due to the different approach adopted by each
TSC, it is not possible to compare 16% of thematching activities which lie in the Forestry sector,
where the Colombian Green Taxonomy uses abest practice focused pathway for their TSC toaddress the five environmental objectives in atransversal manner. In contrast, the EU Taxonomy
focuses on a calculation of carbon stocks andthe requirement to include a forest management
plan involving some sections that are not requiredin the Colombian Green Taxonomy (i.e., climate
benefit analysis, guarantee of permanence, audit,
and group assessment).
Additionally, 4% (two activities) of the Colombian
Green Taxonomy were not included in the analysis
contained in this document because they are notincluded in the EU Taxonomy: Energy production
from non-recyclable waste fractions or thermal
treatments (RC6), and investments for efficientefficient water use (A4). These activities arelabelled N/A in the table 1. Likewise, the EU
taxonomy has 20 activities that could not bematched. These include new transition activities
in the energy sector associated with the use of
gaseous fossil fuels for power generation andnuclear energy which are activities not covered in
the Colombian Green Taxonomy. Also, the EU
Taxonomy addresses more activities in the
Manufacturing sector such as carbon black, soda
ash, nitric acid, and anhydrous ammonia
manufacturing; activities related to low-carbon
airport infrastructure and restoration of
wetlands; and research, development, andinnovation for direct air capture of CO2, which are
not yet developed in the Colombian Green
Taxonomy.
3

Average proportion of categories
for the comparison of DNSHof climate change mitigation
between the ColombiaN and
EU taxonomies

Table 2 Overall results by DNSH
Incomparable

Less
stringent/ambitious
and/orlessdetailedMore
stringent/ambitious
and/ormore
detailedVerysimilar

Climate change
adaptation

45

4

0

0

2

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

6

3

6

34

2

Water management

3

6

3

37

2

Circular economy

4

6

25

14

2

Pollution control andprevention

6

15

7

21

2

DNSH

N.A.
4%
Incomparable
25%

Very
Similar
42%

N.A.
4%

Less stringent/ambitious and/ or
less detailed 13%
More stringent/ ambitious and/or more detailed 16%

N/A** DNSH labelled with N/A belong to the activities that are only covered by the Colombian Green Taxonomy.

Source: Climate Bonds Initiative

Regarding DNHS criteria results, 42% (106 DNSH
criteria) are very similar among bothtaxonomies. The sectors with the mostsimilarities include Energy and Waste. For
example, in the Energy sector, DNSH criteria onconservation of ecosystems and biodiversity, onwater management, on circular economy and on
pollution control and prevention are similar for
activities such as: electricity generation fromsolar photovoltaic power, concentrated solar
power, ocean energy, transmission anddistribution of electricity from renewablesources and storage of thermal energy. For the
Waste sector, DNSH criteria are also similar in
activities as sewage sludge treatment, separate
collection and transport of non-hazardous waste
in the segregated fraction at source, andcomposting of organic waste, just to mention a
few.

Colombian Green Taxonomy DNSH are more
stringent/ambitious and/or more detailed for 16%(41 DNSH criteria), mainly the one related to circular
economy due to the EU Taxonomy currently notincluding an Appendix or generic criteria for circular
economy. However, the EU Taxonomy has specific
DNSH criteria on circular economy for certain
manufacturing and energy activities. On the other
hand, Colombian Green Taxonomy DNSH are lessstrict/ambitious and/or less detailed for 13% (34DNSH criteria), especially for the DNSH on pollution
control and prevention.
Due to that some DNHS are addressed differently,
25% (64 DNSH criteria) are incomparable, mostly
related to climate change adaptation. For example,
regarding the specific DNSH on adaptation toclimate change, only the activities in theconstruction sector in the Colombian Green
Taxonomy requires to implement measures toincrease their resilience to extreme weather events(including floods and flooding) and adaptation to
future temperature rises in terms of internal
comfort conditions (possible use of artificial air
conditioning systems). In other sectors in the
Colombian Green Taxonomy only mentions a
generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while
the EU Taxonomy goes further on this point andmentions a classification of climate-related hazards
so as to not do any harm (criteria set out inAppendix A - Generic criteria for DNSH to climatechange adaptation).
Finally, 4% (10 DNSH criteria) are labelled as N/Abecause these specific requirements correspond to
the activities that were also labelled as such.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative4

1. Background information
Overview of development process, governance, and legal structure
Colombia
After recognising theimperative of investingin sustainable and lowcarbon technologies,
services, andinfrastructure to achieve
climate change and biodiversity goals, Colombia
has made notable strides in creating a conducive
environment for sustainable finance throughvarious initiatives, including the SISCLIMA
Financial Management Committee, the National
Climate Finance Strategy, Green Protocol, theResponsible Investment Task Force, and thecreation of the Colombian Green Taxonomy.
These frameworks support public and private
actors, both domestically and internationally, inmaking environmentally sustainable investmentsin the country. By prioritising green investments,
Colombia aims to enhance its competitiveness,foster climate-resilient development, achieve
low-carbon growth, and fulfil its commitments
under international agreements.2
The governance structure for developing theColombian Green Taxonomy comprised threelevels: the Supervisory Committee, coordinators,
and technical experts. The Supervisory
Committee, consisting of the Colombian
Superintendency of Finance (SFC), the Ministryof Finance (MHCP), the National Planning
Department (DNP), the Department of Statistics ofColombia (DANE), and the Ministry of Environment
and Sustainable Development (MADS), oversaw
and guided the entire taxonomy development
process. These government institutions
collaborated to establish a common language
and classification system for green investments
in Colombia concerning policies, regulations,international taxonomies, and the investment
tracking system.
To coordinate the construction of the Colombian
Green Taxonomy, the five entities formed a joint
working group called the Institutional Taxonomy
Supervisory Committee. This committee
identified the country’s environmental
objectives and priorities in alignment with
Colombia’s commitments, strategies, andpolicies in the field. The Colombian financial
regulator, SFC, and the Ministry of Finance(MHCP), with support from the coordinators (theWorld Bank Group and Climate Bonds), took thelead in developing the current version.
The SFC coordinated the taxonomy development
for seven economic sectors: Construction,
Energy, ICT, Industry, Transport, Water Resources,
and Waste while the MHCP was responsible for
Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use, referred to as
the AFOLU sector. The Supervisory Committee

received assistance from coordinators andconsultants throughout the coordination
process. In total, 257 technical experts andstakeholders representing 53 entities fromthe private and public sectors, academia andinternational organisations participated in thetaxonomy process.

evaluation that verifies the alignment of the issuer’svalue with the economic activities or assets with thecorresponding eligibility criteria specified in the
Colombian Green Taxonomy. Alternatively,
compliance with international standards andindicators is acceptable for economic activities orassets not covered by the country’s Green Taxonomy.

The Colombian Green Taxonomy was released by
MHCP on 13 April 2022 to provide guidelines forvoluntary use and currently lacks a legal status.
However, there are regulations in place to support
its implementation, although these do not impose
specific disclosure obligations. The SFC has issued
external circulars (or rules) that encourage theuse of the taxonomy for labelling green bonds,
ESG portfolio labelling and voluntary labellingfor pension funds. Although market participants
are not obliged to issue green bonds or label
these other products, when they do, these can bealigned with the Colombian Green Taxonomy.

European Union

The only official regulatory framework for the
adoption of the Colombian Green Taxonomy
is the SFC’s External Circular 005 of 20223 which
provides instructions for adoption. It allows
entities supervised by the SFC the option ofusing the taxonomy for various purposes,
including identifying financing and investment
opportunities for supporting the transition toa sustainable economy, measuring portfolioalignment with green assets and activities,
structuring green products and solutions,and enhancing disclosure and transparency
practices. The external circular includes threeannexes specifying: the use of the taxonomy forinvestment portfolios, green bond issuers, andvoluntary pension funds.
For green bonds, the circular recommends using
the taxonomy for project selection, evaluation,and identifying the use of funds and recipientsof proceeds. In the case of voluntary pension
funds, if the portfolios are designated with names
related to ESG dimensions or sustainability, thepension fund manager must clearly justify suchdesignations using a classification system or arecognised taxonomy. Additionally, the circularsuggests classifying portfolio assets based on
relevant factors, including alignment with arecognised taxonomy, if ESG strategies and factors
are incorporated into the investment policy.
Recently, the SFC introduced Resolution 0586 of
20234, aiming to incentivise the issuance ofthematic instruments and promote the utilisationof the Colombian Green Taxonomy. Under thisresolution, issuances of green credit instruments
can be exempt from offering fees, subject tocertain conditions. These conditions include
the issuer’s compliance with the prospectus
requirements and the presence of an external

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative

The development of
the EU Taxonomy forsustainable activities
involved multiple
stages and governancestructures. The process
began with the establishmentof the High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) in 2016,
consisting of senior experts from civil society, thefinance sector, academia, and observers from
European and international institutions. The HLEG
provided advice to the European Commission
informing the adoption of an “Action Plan on
Financing Sustainable Growth” 5, that set out acomprehensive strategy connecting finance withsustainability. In the first action of the 2018 Action
Plan, the Commission committed to establish an EUclassification system for sustainable activities, the socalled the EU Taxonomy.
Following the HLEG's work, a Technical Expert Group(TEG) was formed in March 2018. The group wascomprised of 35 members and observers from civilsociety, academia, business, and the financial sector.
The TEG assisted the Commission in implementing the2018 Action Plan and developing a series of legislative
proposals, including the EU Taxonomy, determining
whether an economic activity is environmentally
sustainable; an EU Green Bond Standard;
methodologies for EU climate benchmarks anddisclosures for benchmarks; and guidance to improve
corporate disclosure of climate-related information.6,7
On June 22, 2020, the EU Taxonomy Regulation was
adopted by the European Parliament and Council of
the EU, and it entered into force on July 12, 2020. The
Taxonomy Regulation establishes a broad framework
for the EU Taxonomy, outlining six climate andenvironmental objectives: (1) mitigating climatechange, (2) adapting to climate change, (3) sustainably
using and protecting water and marine resources, (4)transitioning to a circular economy, (5) preventing andcontrolling pollution, and (6) protecting and restoring
biodiversity and ecosystems. It also sets out four
overarching conditions that an economic activity mustmeet to qualify as environmentally sustainable: a.
contributes substantially to one or more of theenvironmental objectives; b. does not significantly
harm any of the environmental objectives; c. is carriedout in compliance with the minimum safeguards; andd. complies with technical screening criteria defined inCommissionʼs Delegated Regulations thatcomplement the Taxonomy Regulation.
5

To date, under the Taxonomy Regulation, the Commission has
adopted a Climate Delegated Act8 defining technical screening criteria
for economic activities substantially contributing to the climatechange mitigation and adaptation environmental objectives, which
was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 9 December 2021
and is applicable since January 2022. Additionally, in January 2023 a
Complementary Climate Delegated Act9 became effective. This was
published on July 15, 2022, to incorporate specific nuclear and gas
energy activities as transitional activities into the EU taxonomy's list ofcovered economic activities, under strict conditions. Finally, on June27, 2023 the Commission officially adopted a Taxonomy
Environmental Delegated Act10, including a new set of EU taxonomy
criteria for economic activities making a substantial contribution to
one or more of the non-climate environmental objectives. The
Commission has also adopted amendments to the Taxonomy Climate
Delegated Act11, which expand on economic activities contributing toclimate change mitigation and adaptation not included so far, in the
manufacturing and transport sectors. The Delegated Acts are currently
subject to a scrutiny period by the European Parliament and theCouncil of the EU.

Guidingprinciples
Both taxonomies
operate in paralleland share similar guiding
principles when defining environmentally sustainable sectors andeconomic activities. These principles serve as general rules thatprovide direction and ensure consistency within the establishedtaxonomies or frameworks.12

That said, both taxonomies lean towards generating a substantial
contribution to climate change mitigation and address similar
environmental objectives that are well defined and which ensurethat eligible activities do not cause significant harm. The EU
Taxonomy also makes a substantial contribution to climate change
adaptation, with the adoption in 2023 of a delegated act approving a
new set of EU Taxonomy criteria for economic activities making asubstantial contribution to one or more of the non-climate
environmental objectives: sustainable use and protection of waterand marine resources, transition to a circular economy, pollution
prevention and control, protection and restoration of biodiversity
and ecosystems. The Colombian Green Taxonomy also addresses
five different environmental objectives as a substantial contribution
on land use sectors.
In addition, both taxonomies seek to ensure that the technicalscreening criteria are based on science to ensure a credible
transition of the hard-to-abate sectors. The taxonomy development
process engaged with technical and sectoral experts and involved
multiple stakeholders through a public consultation phase. Finally,both taxonomies indicate the need for periodic review to adapt the
document to changes in policies and technologies that point
towards best practices available in the market.
Overall, the parallel nature of these taxonomies and theirshared guiding principles ensures a consistent approach indefining and promoting environmentally sustainable economic
activities.
By adhering to these guiding principles, Colombia and the LAC
region aim to develop robust and effective taxonomies that alignwith global standards, promote sustainability goals, and provide atransparent and accountable framework for sustainable finance.

Similary, both taxonomies have a robust and decentralised
governance structure that allows for transparency andcontinuity of all initiatives arising from the development of thetaxonomy through the input from appropriate stakeholders. Also, bothtaxonomies seek interoperability with other taxonomies andframeworks to facilitate cross-border cooperation. The interoperability
implies ensuring comparability with other taxonomies by using similar
guiding principles and having a similar design of the core taxonomy
elements: objectives, classification systems to define sectors andactivities, and methodology to define science-based screening criteriausing metrics and thresholds with similar approaches.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative6

2. Comparison of key taxonomy elements
Objectives

Illustration 1: Environmental objectives of the EU and Colombian taxonomies

Both taxonomies address similar climate andenvironmental objectives that respond to the key
national and international environmental/climate
commitments and targets (such as those of the Paris
Agreements, SDGs and NDCs). The objectives of bothtaxonomies are described below:

EU taxonomy objectives

Colombian Green
Taxonomy objectives

Climate change mitigation

Climate change mitigation

Substantial contribution to climate change
mitigation is addressed as the main objective for theselection of seven economy sectors in the Colombian
Green Taxonomy, which includes 47 activities/assets(excluding the AFOLU sector); as well as for theselection of nine economic sectors in the EU
Taxonomy, which include 94 activities/assets.13

Climate change adaption

Climate change adaption

Protection and restoration of
biodiversity and ecosystems

Ecosystem and biodiversity
conservation

Sustainable use and protectionof water and marine resources

Water management

In addition, the Colombian Green Taxonomy alsoestablished an innovative way to address five crosscutting environmental objectives as a substantial
contribution in three land-use sectors: Forestry,
Agriculture and Livestock, throughout theimplementation of sustainable management andbest practices.14 These three sectors are highly
relevant in the Colombian Green Taxonomy and are
addressed differentially to the other sectors, giventhat they contribute to 59% of the country’s GHG
emissions.
In both taxonomies, the sectors and activities
selected under substantial contribution to climatechange mitigation must also comply with theassessment of DNSH to other environmental
objectives, including adaptation objectives, as wellas ensure compliance with the minimum safeguards
requirements.15

Transition to a circular economy

Pollution prevention
and control

Source: author, based on both taxonomies

In terms of substantial contribution to climatechange adaptation, the EU Taxonomy addresses
the development of this objective for 13

Climate change mitigation
EU Taxonomy

Colombian Green Taxonomy

Construction and real estate

Construction

EnergyEnergyTransport

Transport

Water supply, sewerage,
waste management and remediation

Water supply and treatment

Manufacturing

Waste management andemission capture

Forestry

Manufacturing

Information and communication

Information and communication

Professional, scientificand technical activities

Circular economy

Pollution prevention
and control

Illustration 2: Linking the mitigation objective to the economic sectors of
the EU and Colombian taxonomies

Environment protection
and restoration activities

Soil management

47 activities or assets

94 activities or assets
Source: author, based on both taxonomies*The Colombian Green Taxonomy additionally recognises support activities, called complementary individual measures. Such measuresassociated with the creation of intangible assets, innovation, research, and development that facilitates compliance with the eligibility criteria inthe different economic sectors are eligible.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative

economic sectors, while the Colombian Green
Taxonomy is yet to develop this objective. The
Colombian Green Taxonomy addresses theadaptation objective in two ways. First, as an
overall co-dependent objective throughout the
principle of DNSH for activities with substantial
contribution to climate change mitigation.
Second, as an independent objective integrated
with other environmental objectives for
implementation of sustainable management andbest practices in the Agriculture, Forestry, andLivestock sectors.
The sectors and activities selected undersubstantial contribution to climate change
adaptation in the EU Taxonomy must also
comply with the assessment of DNSH to theother environmental objectives, including climatechange mitigation, as well as ensure compliancewith Minimum Safeguards (MS) requirements.
Finally, both the EU and the Colombian
government authorities have been working
on the development of other environmental
objectives. For example, on 27 June 2023, theEuropean Commission adopted a delegated act
with TSC for economic activities substantiallycontributing to the four environmental objectives
under the Taxonomy Regulation ("Taxonomy
Environmental Delegated Act"10), while the SFC in
Colombia has explored the possibility ofdeveloping a biodiversity taxonomy.16,17

7

Illustration 3: Linking the adaptation objective to the economic sectorsof the EU and Colombian taxonomies

by the EU Taxonomy. Similarly, some activities
contained in the EU Taxonomy are not includedin the Colombian Green Taxonomy such as:

Climate change adaptation• Generation of electricity from nuclear energy
and fossil fuels.

EU Taxonomy

Colombian Green Taxonomy

Construction and real estate

Not developed/finalised

EnergyTransport
Water supply, sewerage,
waste management and remediation

Professional, scientificand technical activities

Manufacturing

Financial and insurance activities

Forestry

Education

Information and communication

Human health and social work activities

Environment protection
and restoration activities

Arts, entertainment and recreation

101 activities or assets

Source: author, based on both taxonomies

for climate change mitigation and 11 further
activities from three land use sectors, in which
environmental objectives other than climatechange mitigation were also covered. Hence, theColombian Green Taxonomy covers a total of ten
sectors with 58 economic activities.

Scope
Both taxonomies cover economic sectors andactivities that are relevant for decarbonisation,with climate change mitigation being one of the
primary objectives for defining sectors andactivities with substantial contribution.
The sectors and the number of activities coveredby both the Colombian and EU Taxonomies forclimate change mitigation are presented below:
Both taxonomies cover a similar range of
economic activities across sectors for climatechange mitigation, with some exceptions. The
EU Taxonomy covers 94 economic activities
from nine economic sectors. In comparison,
the Colombian Green Taxonomy covers 47
economic activities from seven economic sectors

Differences in the total number of activities andsectors measured by the two taxonomies result
from the consolidation of some activities andsectors. To give an example, the urban public
transportation activity in the Colombian Green
Taxonomy consolidates five activities, which arelisted individually within the EU Taxonomy,
according to transport mode. Additionally, theactivity of energy production from nonrecyclable waste fractions (thermal treatment)
and the agriculture and livestock sectors are notyet covered .

Table 2. Number of economic activities by sector in both taxonomies
Colombian Green Taxonomy

EU Taxonomy

SectorNumber of
economic
activities

SectorNumber of
economic
activities

Energy18

Energy31

Construction

3

Construction and real estate

7

Waste management andemissions capture

8

12Water supply and treatment

4

Water supply, sewerage,
waste management andremediation

Transport

5

Transport

17

ICT

2

ICT

2

Manufacturing

7

Manufacturing

17

Forestry5

Forestry4

Agriculture

5

Environmental protection
and restoration activities

1

Livestock

1

Professional, scientific andtechnical activities

3

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative• Electricity generation, production of heat/cool, cogeneration of heat/cool and powerfrom renewable and low-carbon gases andliquid fuels, including the transmission anddistribution networks for renewable and lowcarbon gases and liquid fuels.
• Restoration of wetlands, and activities in theprofessional, scientific, and technical activities
sector. Colombia’s Taxonomy does not
specifically establish a sector for professional,
scientific, and technical activities; however, it iscovered transversally. Some complementarymeasures associated with the creation of
intangible assets, innovation, research anddevelopment, which facilitate compliance withthe eligibility criteria in the different economic
sectors are considered eligible. Nevertheless, theColombian Green Taxonomy lacks the specificeligibility criteria provided by the EU Taxonomy,
which includes three activities in this sector:• Manufacturing of carbon black, soda ash, nitricacid and anhydrous and ammonia,• Low carbon airport infrastructure,• Research, development, and innovation for
direct air capture of CO2.
Finally, both taxonomies have a similar
screening approaches:
1. Substantial contribution to one of theobjectives defined in the taxonomy. Activities
that make a substantial contribution define theireligibility based on TSC, which include qualitativeor quantitative metrics and thresholds. For
example, in both taxonomies, the hydrogenproduction activity must meet a quantitative
threshold based on the CO2e intensity of theactivity, while the eligibility of activities such ascomposting is determined according to a list ofrequirements that ensure the effectiveness of theprocess.
2. Compliance re quire me nts for DNSH toothe r e nvironme ntal obje ctive s. Furthermore,
activities must comply with the DNSH
requirements for other environmental objectives
defined in the taxonomies. Both taxonomies havegeneric DNSH requirements for all activities andspecific requirements for certain activities. Whenan activity does not have specific requirements
then generic DNSH requirements must be
followed.
3. Avoid negative social impact. Bothtaxonomies require that the activity with
substantial contribution does not generate anegative social impact through minimum
safeguards (MS) criteria.
8Additionally, the Colombian Green Taxonomy
has certain requirements associated with thecountry’s minimum enabling regulations and theinclusion of an environmental land management
plan. Furthermore, general and sectoral eligibility
criteria must be met to deem the activity eligible
for land use sectors.

Activities covered andprioritisation of sectors
Industrial codes were used in both taxonomies
to map sectors and activities (ISIC code for the
Colombian Green Taxonomy and NACE for the
EU Taxonomy). The Colombian Green Taxonomy
also evaluated other taxonomies and frameworks
from the EU and Climate Bonds, and comparedthem with the national Measurement, Reporting,and Verification (MRV) system to identify the listof sectors and activities.

Additionally, the Colombian Green Taxonomy
integrated both GHG emissions data andeconomic parameters such as the GDP
contribution of each sector, use of proceeds, andcapital flows to validate the sector prioritisation.
Both taxonomies also included enabling sectorsthat are necessary to achieve decarbonisation(e.g., activity of data-driven climate solutions
under the ICT sector).
Furthermore, both taxonomies address activities
that have a viable transition pathway to achieve
the taxonomy ambition over a defined period.
These activities have a potential technologicalpathway for significantly improving theirperformance with an urgent transition to prevent
and avoid negative damage, which is the casefor activities in the manufacturing sector such as
cement and aluminium manufacturing.

After identification, both taxonomies prioritised
sectors with high climate change mitigationneed and potential, based on the assessment of
quantitative data. The selection of sectors under
the EU Taxonomy for climate change mitigation
objective was based on emissions data, where
the contribution of GHG emissions per sector andtheir potential to reduce emissions was analysed.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative9

3. Comparison of Technical Screening Criteria,
Do No Significant Harm, and Minimum Safeguards
Methodology

Analysis by sector

The comparison of TSC, DNSH, and MS wasmade by matching the economic activitiesof the Colombian Green Taxonomy with thecorresponding activities in the EU Taxonomy
for each of the sectors. Within each matchedsector, similar activities based on their names
and descriptions were identified in both thetaxonomies. Certain activities had more than one
match that was considered for comparison.

Energy:The TSC comparison was carried out for both
qualitative and quantitative thresholds of thetwo taxonomies. Both specific requirements(wherever applicable) and generic requirements
were used for DNSH comparisons, whileassessment of the requirements for bothtaxonomies was carried out for MS.
Both taxonomies refer to specific regulations
in respective jurisdictions, however, a detailed
comparison of related laws is outside the scopeof this study. The assessment focuses on the
climate change mitigation objective because theColombian Green Taxonomy still does not address
climate change adaptation as a substantial
contribution. The comparison exercise mapped
the analysis into the following scenarios:

TSC assessment: In general,
all 18 energy sector activities
within the Colombian Green
Taxonomy can be mapped to
the 21 activities within the EU
Taxonomy. For approximately 78% of the matchedeconomic activities (14 out of 18), the criteria ofboth taxonomies are very similar, while 22% (4 out
of 18) of the Colombian Green Taxonomy criteria
are less stringent/ambitious and/or less detailed
compared to the EU Taxonomy. However, the EU
Taxonomy has included specific nuclear and gas
energy activities in the list of economic activities
that are not included in the Colombian Green
Taxonomy. The EU activities related to renewablenon-fossil gaseous and liquid fuels (4.7 Electricity
generation from renewable non-fossil gaseousand liquid fuels, 4.19 Cogeneration of heat/cooland power from renewable non-fossil gaseousand liquid fuels, and 4.23 Production of heat/coolfrom renewable non-fossil gaseous and liquid
fuels) were not considered in the analysis because
they do not include electricity generation fromthe exclusive use of biogas and bioliquid fuels.

Figure 1: Levels of comparison between the Colombianand EU taxonomies

INCOMPARABLE
Neither of the two
taxonomies has
any similar numberof requirementsor thresholds incommonLESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILED

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

Colombian Green
Taxonomy criteria
are less stringent/ambitious and/or less detailed asdemonstrated by
fewer or less detailed
requirements and/or
thresholds

Colombian Green
Taxonomy criteria
are more stringent/ambitious and/or
more detailed asdemonstrated bya higher number
or more detailed
requirements and/or
higher thresholds

Colombian Green Taxonomy

VERY SIMILAR
Both taxonomies
have a similar
number of
requirements andsimilar thresholds

Source: author, based on both taxonomies

EU Taxonomy

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative

DNSH assessment: For all activities, the
DNSH criteria on climate change adaptation isincomparable due to the different approaches
adopted by each taxonomy. The Colombian
Green Taxonomy does not address theadaptation objective while the EU Taxonomy
covers a classification of climate-related hazards
to economic activities. For the conservation of
ecosystems and biodiversity DNSH, 78% of theactivities have very similar criteria, while 22%of those in the Colombian Green Taxonomy are
more ambitious. For water management, 84%
are very similar and 16% are less stringent/ambitious and/or less detailed. In circular
economy, 50% are very similar and the otherhalf are more stringent/ambitious and/or
more detailed because the Colombian Green
Taxonomy has specific requirements. In pollution
control and prevention, 61% are similar and 39%
are less stringent/ambitious and/or less detailed.
Finally, for the one incomparable activity, allcriteria were incomparable.

Construction:
TSC assessment: All threeconstruction sector activities
within the Colombian Green
Taxonomy can be matchedwith the seven construction
activities and one energy sector activity in the
EU Taxonomy (4.16 Installation and operation ofelectric heat pumps). Only one economic activity
has very similar criteria, while the remaining two
are less strict/environmental and/or less detailed.
This is a consequence of an EU requirement for
an official energy performance certificate and thefact that the EU taxonomy is based on near-zeroenergy building (NZEB) requirements.
The Colombian Green Taxonomy considers
optional, complementary individual measuresthat contribute to achieving the eligibility criteria
for activities involving the construction andrenovation of new buildings at the building
level. Although the EU Taxonomy has individual
activities that cover similar aspects, theColombian Green Taxonomy is more stringent/environmental and/or detailed because it
provides more individual measures.
DNSH assessment: All activities in the
Colombian Green Taxonomy relating toadaptation to climate change are less stringent,ambitious, or less detailed. The DNSH criteria areincomparable for conservation of ecosystems
and biodiversity. The first two activities inColombia’s taxonomy have criteria relating towater management, circular economy, andpollution control and prevention that are lessstringent, ambitious, or less detailed. However,the criteria relating to both circular economy
10and pollution for the third activity, acquisitionand ownership of buildings, are more stringent,ambitious, or detailed . This results from specificrequirements contained in the Colombian
Green Taxonomy pertaining to the recovery ofa percentage of the construction materials andcompliance with prerequisites established forthe construction and renovation of buildings.
Although the additional analysis on individualcomplementary measures presents variations,the criteria are generally very similar, withthe exception of the DNSH of climate change
adaptation, which is incomparable because of thedifferent approaches adopted by both taxonomies

Waste
management andemissions capture:
TSC assessment: All but oneof the eight activities in thewaste sector of the Colombian Green Taxonomy
can be matched with the eight activities inthe EU Taxonomy. For approximately 37.5% of
the matched economic activities, Colombia’s
criteria are more stringent/environmental and/or detailed because there are more requirements
relating to activities that facilitate the use andutilisation of biogas, such as dehydration,
compression or similar. In contrast, for another37.5 % of the activities, the Colombian Green
Taxonomy criteria are less stringent/ambitious
and/or less detailed compared to the EU
Taxonomy, which does not allow biogas flaring.
The Colombian Green Taxonomy activity relating
to artificial capture, transport, and storage or
use of GHGs (RC8) is very similar, while activity
relating to energy production from non-recyclable
waste fractions (thermal treatments RC6) was notconsidered in the assessment because it is anadditional activity for this taxonomy.
DNSH assessment: For all activities, the DNSH
criteria for climate change adaptation are
incomparable as these are addressed differently.
Relating to conservation of ecosystems andbiodiversity, 86% of the Colombian Green
Taxonomy DNSH criteria are very similar while
13% are more stringent/ambitious and/or moredetailed. For water management, 100% arevery similar. Only one similarity was identified
for the circular economy objective, and 86% of
the Colombian criteria were more stringent/ambitious and/or more detailed. On pollution
control and prevention, 57% of the activities
were assessed as very similar, 29% as more
ambitious and/or more detailed and 14% asless stringent/ambitious and/or less detailed
compared to the EU Taxonomy.

Water supply andtreatment:
TSC assessment: All
activities in the water sectorof the Colombian Green

Taxonomy are less stringent/ambitious and/or less detailed compared with four activities
within the EU Taxonomy. The Colombian Green
Taxonomy activity relating to investments for
efficient water use (A4) was not considered in theassessment because it is an additional activity forthis taxonomy.
Although in some activities the taxonomies
define eligibility criteria for new or existing
systems, there are no major similarities. The
EU Taxonomy criteria consider average net
energy consumption per cubic metre of watersupply produced, as well as verification of GHG
reductions. In contrast, the EU taxonomy does
not differentiate for sewerage systems, while
Colombia does and implements qualitative
criteria relating to sanitary and combined
sewerage systems (A2).
DNSH assessment: For all activities, the DNSH
criteria on climate change adaptation are
incomparable as these are addressed differently.
The DNSH criteria relating to conservationof ecosystems and biodiversity, and water
management are very similar for three activities.
However, the criteria relating to circular economy
for three activities were more stringent/ambitious
and/or more detailed in the Colombian Green
Taxonomy, which has specific requirements
related to an appropriate management plan forthe disposal and treatment of sludge and waste.
The DNSH criteria for pollution control andprevention are quite variable across activities:
one is very similar and two are less stringent thanthe EU Taxonomy.

Transportation:
TSC assessment: The
Colombian Green Taxonomy
has 5 activities for this sector
that have equivalence with
16 activities from the EU
Taxonomy. While the TSC are very similar for
40% of the activities relating to micromobility(T2) and transport infrastructure (T3), another
40% relating to urban public transportation (T1)
and interurban transport (passengers and cargo)(T4) are incomparable, due to the different
approach taken by each taxonomy to themeasurement of the criteria. The remaining 10%of the activities relating to private use transport(T5) have less ambitious and/or less detailed
criteria than those of the EU Taxonomy, which
includes more detailed TSC for hybrid cars. Only
one activity from the EU Taxonomy, relating to
low-carbon airport infrastructure (6.17), was
not considered on the basis that it does notcorrespond to any of the activities from theColombian Green Taxonomy.
DNSH assessment: For all the activities, the DNSH
criteria of both water management and circular
economy are very similar. However, the DNHS
criteria in 60% of the activities are incomparable

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative

for pollution control and prevention since bothtaxonomies have different requirements forthe activities related to water transport. For
conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity, the
DNHS criteria are variable across activities.

ICT:
TSC assessment: There are
two matched activities in this
sector for both taxonomies.
The activity relating to dataprocessing, hosting, and related activities (TIC1)
can be classified as incomparable since bothtaxonomies approach the measurement of the TSC
differently. The criteria defined by the Colombian
Green Taxonomy for the activity relating to datadriven solutions for GHG emissions reductions(TIC2) is less ambitious and/or less detailed thanthose of the EU Taxonomy, which include a moredetailed TSC with recommended guidelines
for ICT solutions that calculate life-cycle GHG
emissions and net emissions.
DNSH assessment: For both activities, the
DNSH criteria in the Colombian Green Taxonomy
defined for circular economy are less ambitious,or less detailed than the EU Taxonomy, since theColombian Green Taxonomy addresses theserequirements from the generic DNSH. However,the DNSH criteria for pollution control andprevention are more ambitious or more detailed
given that the Colombian Green Taxonomy has
specific requirements not included in the EU
Taxonomy. In both taxonomies, the DNSH criteria
for water management and conservation of
ecosystems and biodiversity are very similar.

Manufacturing:
TSC assessment: The
Colombian Green Taxonomy
has seven activities in this
sector which can be mappedwith 10 activities in the EU
Taxonomy. The TSC for approximately 86% of
the Colombian Green Taxonomy activities arevery similar to the ones proposed by the EU
Taxonomy. The remaining 14% of activities
relating to components for the manufacture oforganic basic chemicals (M6) have incomparable
criteria because the EU taxonomy includes
the manufacturing of certain chemicals thatare not relevant for Colombia’s economy suchas HVC, styrene, and aromatics. Furthermore,
there are six activities in the EU Taxonomy that
do not correspond to any of the activities in
the Colombian Green Taxonomy for this sector,
which include the manufacture of batteries, otherlow-carbon technologies, carbon black, soda
ash, anhydrous ammonia, and nitric acid.
DNSH assessment: The DNSH criteria in
the Colombian Green Taxonomy for water
management and conservation of ecosystems
and biodiversity are very similar for 86% of the11activities defined for this sector. However, forcircular economy, the DNSH criteria are more
ambitious and/or more detailed for 86% of theactivities. In contrast, the Colombian Green
Taxonomy DNSH criteria for pollution control andprevention are less ambitious, or less detailed for
57% of the activities because they lack the specificrequirements contained in the EU Taxonomy.

Forestry:
TSC assessment: Although
the four activities in the
Colombian Green Taxonomy
match the four activities fromthe EU Taxonomy, the TSC
are incomparable for two reasons. First, the main
objective for this sector in the EU Taxonomy isclimate change mitigation, while the Colombian
Green Taxonomy addresses five environmental
objectives in a transversal manner: climatechange mitigation, adaptation to climate change,soil management, biodiversity and ecosystemservices, and water management. Second, theColombian Green Taxonomy requires compliancewith a series of sustainable management andbest practices, while the EU Taxonomy requires
the inclusion of carbon stock calculation.
DNSH assessment: The DNSH criteria forclimate change adaptation and pollution control
and prevention are less ambitious, or lessdetailed in the Colombian Green Taxonomy as
the EU Taxonomy requires more assessments
and controls. However, the DNSH criteria are
more ambitious, or more detailed for water
management since the Colombian Green
Taxonomy requires implementation of practices
oriented towards water-use efficiency andwater bodies restoration. Although the DNSH
criteria are incomparable for circular economy
due to the different approaches taken by eachtaxonomy, they are similar for conservation of
ecosystems and biodiversity.

Minimum Safeguards
assessment:This analysis is general for all sectors andactivities since the MS in the taxonomies
are addressed in a cross-cutting approach.
Although both taxonomies address the MS,
Colombia focuses on compliance with six IFC
performance standards, without mentioningor adding any relevant regulatory framework
or policy in this regard. In contrast, the EU
Taxonomy integrates four core topics that arealigned with the standards referenced in Article
18 of the Taxonomy Regulation,18 which renders
the Colombian Green Taxonomy less strict,ambitious, or less detailed.
Both taxonomies adhere to international
standards and guidelines for the MS
requirements. The Colombian Green Taxonomy
considers the IFC Performance Standards
while the EU Taxonomy refers to the OECDMNE Guidelines, the UN Guiding Principles on
Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) which
include the principles and rights set out in theeight fundamental conventions identified in
the Declaration of the International Labour
Organisation on Fundamental Principles andRights at Work, and the International Bill of
Human Rights.19,20,21 In addition, the EU
Taxonomy is linked to the Sustainable Finance
Disclosure Regulation (SFDR)22, the Corporate
Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)23, andthe Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence
Directive (CSDDD).24

The MS in Colombia are assessed at theeconomic activity or asset level while the EU
applies MS at the economic-activity level, andcompliance might be partially assessed at thecompany level to explain the observance of
safeguards at the activity level.

For more details on the TSCs and
DNHSs of each taxonomy, click on
the following links:

Colombian: https://www.taxonomiaverde.
gov.co/webcenter/ShowProperty?nodeId=/
ConexionContent/WCC_CLUSTER-191401

EU: https://ec.europa.eu/sustainablefinance-taxonomy/taxonomy-compass/
the-compass

Both taxonomies assess performance criteria
against different topics. The Colombian Green
Taxonomy addresses: i. Assessment andmanagement of environmental and social risks
and impacts, ii. Labour and working conditions,iii. Community health and safety, iv. Landacquisition and involuntary resettlement, v.
Indigenous peoples, and vi. Cultural heritage.
While the EU Taxonomy covers: i. Human rights,
including workers’ rights, ii. Bribery/corruption,iii. Taxation, and iv. Fair competition.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative12

4. Application and disclosure requirements
Colombia

European Union

The current
implementation of
the Colombian Green
Taxonomy does notmandate disclosure
obligations for corporates
or financial market participants regarding thealignment of their activities and investments withthe taxonomy. The guidelines set forth by thefinancial regulator (SFC) primarily promote thevoluntary use of the taxonomy for purposes suchas labelling green bonds, identifying potential
financing opportunities, assessing portfolioalignment, and improving entity disclosure andtransparency practices.

In the EU, bothfinancial market
participants andlarge companies(including financial andnon-financial undertakings)
are required to disclose sustainability aspects
on their activities and investments. Article 8 of
the Taxonomy Regulation requires companies
falling under the scope of the Corporate
Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) todisclose the proportion of economic activities
that align with the EU Taxonomy. Morespecifically, large undertakings that are required
to publish non-financial information pursuant to
the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD)(amended by the CSRD) shall disclose
information to the public on how and to what
extent their activities are associated witheconomic activities that qualify asenvironmentally sustainable.

The financial regulator (SFC) issued External
Circulars 005 and 008 in 2022, through which (i)the Colombian Green Taxonomy was adopted,
and (ii) the minimum information requirements
for the issuance of bonds linked to sustainable
performance were standardised, establishing
the Colombian Green Taxonomy as a nationallyrecognised classification system.
Colombia’s Taxonomy has different potential
users such as companies, investors, financial
institutions, public and private entities, financial
consumers, among other actors. The
applications are as follows:• To facilitate the classification of green activities
in financial instruments such as bonds,
credit/leasing portfolios, titles derived fromsecuritisation processes, investment funds,
investment portfolios and stock market indices,among others.
• To identify risk differentials between green andnon-green financial products.
• To manage risks and opportunities that
may arise from climate change, for the
management of fiduciary business and/or
investment portfolios.
• To structure green insurance products that
support the adaptation of different sectors to
climate change.
• To support the monitoring and tracking ofgreen investments and green public spendingthat target environmental sustainability goals,
as well as the identification of activities withpotential and gaps for resource targeting.
Finally, as the adoption of the taxonomy
progresses, it will be important to implement thenecessary measures to facilitate its applicationin the financial system and to monitor thedevelopment of disclosure requirements forenvironmental information by entities operatingin the country.

Finally, the EU Commission has adopted a
Sustainable Finance package in June 2023 tostrengthen and expand the foundations of theEU sustainable finance framework. The package
aims to support companies and the financial
sector by promoting private funding fortransition projects and technologies andfacilitating sustainable investments. It includes
additions to the EU Taxonomy and proposed
regulations for ESG rating providers to enhancetransparency in the market. The objective is tomake the framework more accessible forcompanies investing in sustainability and tocontribute to the goals of the European Green
Deal.27

The Disclosures Delegated Act,25 applicable since
January 2022, supplements Article 8 of theTaxonomy Regulation specifying the content andpresentation of information to be disclosed byfinancial and non-financial undertakings
concerning economic activities under the EU
Taxonomy, and further specify the methodology
to comply with that disclosure obligation.
In addition, according to Articles 5 and 6 of theTaxonomy Regulation, financial market
participants have to disclose how theirunderlying assets are aligned with the EU
Taxonomy if their financial product falls under
the disclosure requirements of Article 8 and 9 of
the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation(SFDR).
The EU Taxonomy also mandates the use of thecriteria when Member States and the Union set
out EU or national labels and standards forfinancial products and corporate bonds, which
are then made available to investors as“environmentally sustainable”. In this context,
the EU Taxonomy is a reference for climatetransition and Paris-aligned benchmarks and for
the European Green Bond Standard (EUGBS).
More specifically on the EUGBS, the proposal fora Regulation that will create a voluntary highquality standard for green bonds provides thatthe standard will be open to companies andpublic entities seeking to raise capital on
financial markets for their green projects while
adhering to strict sustainability criteria. To qualify
for EUGBS, bond issuers will have to ensure thatat least 85% of the raised funds are allocated toeconomic activities that align with the Taxonomy
Regulation.26

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative13

Annex 1: Comparison tables by activity
The following tables provide a summary of theassessment for TSC and DNSH criteria for eacheconomic activity. Please note that the climatechange adaptation objective was not included inis this assessment.

Energy:Colombianactivity

EGE1. Electricity generation from photovoltaic solar energy

EU activity

4.1 Electricity generation using solar photovoltaic technology

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements and eligibility criteria:• Both taxonomies propose direct eligibility for power generation from solar energy andcurrently, they do not require a PCF or GHG lifecycle assessment to be performed.
• In both taxonomies, this activity is subject to a periodic review according to the current
threshold for energy generation (100gCO2e/kWh).
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy considers the activity of purchasing renewable energy
to be eligible if it has a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) and has a Renewable Energy
Certificate (REC).

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not do any
harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Circular economy

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both have the same criteria: The activity assesses availability of and, where feasible,
uses equipment and components of high durability and recyclability, which are easy todismantle and refurbish.
Note: The Colombian Green Taxonomy includes the requirements set out in the generic
DNSH, while the EU Taxonomy makes use of specific requirements.

Pollution control
and prevention

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative14

Colombian
activity

EGE2. Electricity generation from concentrated solar power

EU activity

4.2 Electricity generation using concentrated solar power(CSP) technology

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements and thresholds:• Both taxonomies propose direct eligibility for power generation from solar energy and theactivity is currently derogated from performing a PCF or GHG lifecycle assessment, subject toregular review in accordance with the declining threshold.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy considers the activity of purchasing renewable energy
to be eligible if it has a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) and has a Renewable Energy
Certificate (REC).

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes further
on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both taxonomies have similar generic DNSH.
• Both taxonomies have a specific requirement to ensure impacts to birdlife from the hightemperatures generated by the plant is avoided.

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both have the same criteria: The activity assesses availability of and, where feasible,
uses equipment and components of high durability and recyclability, which are easy todismantle and refurbish.
• Note: The Colombian Green Taxonomy includes the requirements set out in the generic
DNSH, while the EU Taxonomy makes use of specific requirements.

Circular economy

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both have the same criteria: The activity assesses availability of and, where feasible,
uses equipment and components of high durability and recyclability, which are easy todismantle and refurbish.
Note: the Colombian Green Taxonomy includes the requirements set out in the generic DNSH,
while the EU Taxonomy makes use of specific requirements.

Pollution control
and prevention

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative15

Colombian
activity

EGE3. Electricity generation from wind power

EU activity

4.3 Electricity generation from wind power

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements and thresholds:• Both taxonomies propose direct eligibility for power generation from wind energy and theactivity is currently derogated from performing a PCF or GHG lifecycle assessment subject
to regular review in accordance with the declining threshold.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy considers the activity of purchasing renewable energy eligible
if it has a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) and has a Renewable Energy Certificate (REC).

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILED

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes further
on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not do any harm.
The EU Taxonomy has more detailed requirements:• Both taxonomies have similar generic DNSH.
• Both taxonomies have a specific requirement to ensure the possible disturbance,
displacement, or collision of birds by the construction and operation of wind farms isavoided. The EU Taxonomy includes bats.
• Both taxonomies have a specific requirement to ensure the possible visual impacts createdby landscape change by the installation of wind turbines is avoided.
• The EU Taxonomy requires taking appropriate measures to prevent or mitigate impacts inrelation to seafloor integrity.

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both taxonomies contain the requirement to avoid underwater noise created during the
installation of bottom-fixed offshore wind turbines. This requirement is addressed in the
DNSH on pollution in the Colombian Green Taxonomy.

Circular economy

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has more requirements:• Both taxonomies assess availability of and, where feasible, use equipment andcomponents of high durability and recyclability, which are easy to dismantle and refurbish.
• Both taxonomies have a requirement to avoid waste generated by wind turbine blades atthe end of their lifetime.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy additionally requires an appropriate disposal of lubricantsand coolants used by wind power systems.

Pollution control
and prevention

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both taxonomies have a requirement to avoid underwater noise created during the
installation of bottom-fixed offshore wind turbines. This requirement is addressed in the
DNSH on water for the EU Taxonomy.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative16

Colombian
activity

EGE4. Electricity generation from ocean power

EU activity

4.4 Electricity generation from ocean energy technologies

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements and thresholds:• Both taxonomies propose direct eligibility for power generation from ocean energy and theactivity is currently derogated from performing a PCF or GHG lifecycle assessment subject toregular review in accordance with the declining threshold.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy considers the activity of purchasing renewable energy to beeligible if it has a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) and a Renewable Energy Certificate (REC).

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes further
on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both taxonomies have similar generic DNSH.
• Both taxonomies have the requirement to avoid possible negative impacts on marine
ecosystems and biodiversity.

Water management

Circular economy

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILEDVERY SIMILAR

The EU Taxonomy has specific requirements:• The EU Taxonomy requires appropriate measures to prevent or mitigate impacts in relation
to the introduction of energy, including underwater noise, to levels that do not adversely
affect the marine environment.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both have the same criteria: The activity assesses availability of and, where feasible,
uses equipment and components of high durability and recyclability, which are easy todismantle and refurbish.
Note: The Colombian Green Taxonomy includes the requirements set out in the generic
DNSH, while the EU Taxonomy makes use of specific requirements.

Pollution control
and prevention

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both have measures in place to avoid possible contamination by anti-fouling paint. The
Colombian Green Taxonomy also mentions lubricants while the EU Taxonomy mentions biocides.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative17

Colombian
activity

EGE5. Electricity generation from hydropower

EU activity

4.5 Electricity generation from hydropower

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements and thresholds:• Both taxonomies select hydropower facilities with a power density above 5Wm2..
• For both taxonomies, facilities operating at life cycle emissions lower than 100g CO2e/kWhare eligible.
• The acceptable methodologies are ISO 14067 G-res tool and the IEA Hydro Framework.
• The criteria also apply to pumped-storage facilities.
• The EU Taxonomy includes a declining threshold to net-0gCO2e/kWh by 2050 that will be reduced
every five years. For activities which go beyond 2050, it must be technically feasible to reach netzero emissions.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy includes alignment with the parameters established by local
authorities to be eligible, specifically for run-of-river hydroelectric power plants.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILED

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes further
on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both taxonomies have similar generic DNSH.
• Both taxonomies have a requirement to avoid impacts on biodiversity associated withfragmentation of ecosystems and changes to habitat, hydrological and hydrogeologicalregimes, water chemistry, and interference with species migration pathways because of theestablishment and operation of the installation.
The Colombian Green Taxonomy has some general requirements while
the EU Taxonomy has more detailed requirements for this activity:• Both taxonomies have a requirement to ensure implementation of a River Basin Management
Plan according to applicable regulations.
• For both taxonomies, the operation of the hydro power plant must adhere to the principlesof the UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary, Watercourses andInternational Lakes.
• The EU Taxonomy defines requirements for existing operations* and new projects**.
*For operation of existing hydropower plants, including refurbishment activities to enhancerenewable energy or energy storage potential, all necessary mitigation measures should be
implemented to reach good ecological status or potential, in particular regarding ecologicalcontinuity and ecological flow. The Colombian Green Taxonomy considers this requirement.
**For new projects, prior to construction, an impact assessment must be carried out to assess
all potential impacts on the status of water bodies.
• For the EU Taxonomy, construction of new hydropower should not lead to increased fragmentationof rivers, consequently refurbishment of existing hydropower plant and rehabilitation of existing
barriers should be prioritised. Construction of small hydropower (<10MW) should be avoided.

Circular economy

Pollution control
and prevention

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has generic requirements while the EU Taxonomy
does not have generic DNSH on circular economy:

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

• Both taxonomies have a requirement to avoid emissions to water and generation of waste
during construction.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative18

Colombian
activity

EGE6. Electricity generation from geothermal power

EU activity

4.6 Electricity generation from geothermal energy

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements and thresholds:• Both taxonomies propose a threshold below 100gCO2e/kWh for electricity generationfrom geothermal energy, through compliance with ISO 14067 or a GHG protocol productsuch as the PCF.
• The EU Taxonomy includes a declining threshold to net-0gCO2e/kWh by 2050 that will be
reduced every 5 years. For activities which go beyond 2050, it must be technically feasible toreach net-zero emissions.
• For both taxonomies, combined heat and power is covered under construction and operationof a facility used for cogeneration of heat/cooling and power threshold.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Circular economy

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes further
on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Pollution control
and prevention

VERY SIMILAR

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has generic requirements while the EU Taxonomy
does not have generic DNSH on circular economy:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both taxonomies require control and prevention of emissions of non-condensable
geothermal gases with specific environmental threats, such as H2S, CO2, and CH4, which areoften released from flash-steam and dry-steam power plants.
• For both taxonomies the binary plants ideally represent closed systems and no steam is emitted.
• Both taxonomies require avoiding possible emissions to surface and underground water.
• Both taxonomies require the prevention of thermal anomalies associated with thedischarge of waste heat, which should not exceed 3°K for groundwater environments or
1.5°K for surface water environments, respectively.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative19

Colombian
activity

EGE7. Biomass, biofuel and biogas-based electricity generation

EU activity

4.8 Electricity generation from bioenergy

TSC comparison
Summary

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has more detailed requirements and thresholds:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy proposes a threshold below 100gCO2e/kWh throughcompliance with ISO 14067 or a GHG protocol product such as the PCF.
• The EU Taxonomy includes the criteria for biomass from agriculture set out in Article 29 of
Directive (EU) 2018/2001.
• The EU Taxonomy also provides rules for calculating the greenhouse gas impact of
biomass fuels and their fossil fuel comparators (at least 80 % in relation to the GHG saving
methodology).
• Where the installations rely on anaerobic digestion of organic material, the production of thedigestate must meet the criteria in the anaerobic digestion of bio-waste activity.
• For electricity generation installations with a total rated thermal input from 50 to 100 MW, theactivity applies high-efficiency cogeneration technology, or, for electricity-only installations,the activity meets an energy efficiency level associated with the best available techniques(BAT-AEL) ranges set out in the latest relevant techniques (BAT) conclusions.
• For electricity generation installations with a total rated thermal input above 100 MW, theactivity must comply with one of the criteria defined on a list established in the taxonomy.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes further
on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not do any harm.
The Colombian Green Taxonomy has specific requirements:
Colombia includes requirements for raw material such as biomass (excluding industrial andmunicipal biowaste). It requires that:• Full traceability of the supply through the relevant chain of custody management system
must be established. Additionally, adherence to general as well as AFOLU sector-specificcompliance requirements must be demonstrated through appropriate verification systems.
• All forest biomass used in the process must comply with the forestry regulatory frameworkand the criteria established in the forestry sector.
• The biomass used should conform to the requirements defined in the national biomass andbiofuels regulations, and to those requirements defined in the forestry section of the Taxonomy.

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Circular economy

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has specific requirements:
Colombia includes requirements for raw material such as industrial biowaste (including foodindustry waste) or municipal biowaste. It requires that:• Solid biowaste should emerge from source-separated waste streams and be collected separately.
• Biowaste must comply with the waste regulatory framework and with national, regional,
and local waste management plans.
• Where municipal biowaste is used as feedstock, the project is complementary to and does
not compete with the existing municipal biowaste management infrastructure.
• If the raw material is biogas, it must meet the eligibility criteria and compliancerequirements set in waste management and emissions capture.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative20

Colombian
activity

EGE7. Biomass, biofuel and biogas-based electricity generation

EU activity

4.8 Electricity generation from bioenergy

Do No Significant Harm
Pollution control
and prevention

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has specific requirements:• For installations falling within the scope of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council, emissions are within or lower than the emission levels
associated with the best available techniques (BAT-AEL) ranges.
• For combustion plants with thermal input greater than 1 MW but which are below thethresholds that would cause the BAT conclusions for large combustion plants to apply,
emissions are below the emission limit values set out in Directive (EU) 2015/2193.
• For plants in zones or parts of zones not complying with the air quality limit values laid
down in Directive 2008/50/EC, measures are implemented to reduce emission levels.
• For anaerobic digestion of organic material, where the produced digestate is used as
fertiliser or soil improver, either directly or after composting or any other treatment, it
meets the requirements for fertilising materials set out in Component Material Categories(CMC) 4 and 5 in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 or national rules on fertilisers or soil
improvers for agricultural use.
• For anaerobic digestion plants treating over 100 tonnes per day, emissions to air and water
are within or lower than the emission levels associated with the best available technique(BAT-AEL) ranges set for anaerobic treatment of waste in the latest relevant best available
technique (BAT) conclusions.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative21

Colombian
activity

EP8. Low-carbon hydrogen production

EU activity

3.10 Manufacture of hydrogen

TSC comparison

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILED

Summary

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has more detailed requirements and thresholds:• Both taxonomies propose the same threshold of GHG emissions lower than 3tCO2e/tH2 (forColombia the threshold will be reviewed once the corresponding regulation is issued). The
EU Taxonomy also refers to the threshold in terms of the life-cycle GHG emissions savings
requirement of 73.4% for hydrogen.
• For the EU Taxonomy, the activity also complies with the life-cycle GHG emissions savings
requirement of 70% for hydrogen-based synthetic fuels relative to a fossil fuel comparator of
94gCO2e/MJ.
• For Colombia, hydrogen produced from fossil fuels or natural gas is not eligible.
• The EU Taxonomy proposes to calculate the life-cycle GHG emissions savings using themethodology referred to in Directive (EU) 2018/2001 or, alternatively, using ISO 14067:2018 or
ISO 14064-1:2018.
• Where the CO2 that would otherwise be emitted from the manufacturing process is captured
for the purpose of underground storage, the CO2 is transported and stored underground, in
accordance with the technical screening criteria set out in Sections 5.11 and 5.12, respectively,of (EU) 2021/2139.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes further
on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Circular economy

Pollution control
and prevention

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has specific requirements:

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has more requirements:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy indicates that waste and by-products from the
manufacturing process should be treated according to the waste hierarchy, and ideallyrecycled in the same process (closed loop).

• The EU requires compliance with the criteria set out in Appendix C.
• The EU Taxonomy requires that emissions are within or lower than the emission levels
associated with the best available techniques (BAT-AEL) ranges set out in the latest relevant
best available techniques (BAT) conclusions.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative22

Colombian
activity

ETD9. Transmission and distribution of electricity
from renewable sources

EU activity

4.9 Transmission and distribution of electricity

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements and thresholds:
Both taxonomies propose:• All electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure or equipment in systems which
are on a trajectory to full decarbonisation* are eligible, except for infrastructure that isdedicated for creating a direct connection, or expanding an existing direct connection
between a power production plant that is more CO2 intensive than 100gCO2e/kWh,measured on a life-cycle energy (LCE) basis, and a substation or network.
*The conditions for considering a system on a decarbonisation trajectory are the same. The
EU Taxonomy adds a region specification (interconnected European system).
• Transmission/distribution infrastructure that supports the consolidation of microgrids in
non-interconnected areas is eligible.
• All activities related to the transmission and distribution network are similar.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:
The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes further
on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both taxonomies have similar generic DNSH.
• Both taxonomies have the requirement to avoid possible negative impacts of undergroundpower lines on marine and terrestrial ecosystems (proven by an environmental impact study).
Additionally, to avoid routes with strong associated negative environmental impacts.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy respects applicable rules and regulations to limit the
impact of electromagnetic radiation on human health, particularly those established by
the International Commission for Protection against Non-Ionizing Radiation, in the case ofhigh-voltage overhead lines. This requirement is addressed in the DNSH on pollution for
the EU Taxonomy.

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Circular economy

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both taxonomies require that a waste management plan is in place and ensures maximal
reuse or recycling at end-of-life in accordance with the waste hierarchy, including
through contractual agreements with waste management partners, reflected in financial
projections or official project documentation. The Colombian Green Taxonomy includes
the requirements set out in the generic DNSH, while the EU Taxonomy makes use of specificrequirements.

Pollution control
and prevention

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• For both taxonomies, the activities must respect applicable norms and regulations to limit
the impact of electromagnetic radiation on human health. This requirement is addressed in
the DNSH to conservation for the Colombian Green Taxonomy.
• Both have a requirement not to use equipment, such as transformers or generators that
contain electrical fluid based on polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative

23

Colombian
activity

EA10. Storage of electricity

EU activity

4.10 Storage of electricity

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements and thresholds:• All electricity storage activities are eligible and are subject to regular review. Pumped
hydro storage is also included. For the Colombian Green Taxonomy, the criteria for theactivity of generating electricity from hydroelectric energy must be met.
• Eligibility criteria for demand side management (load shedding and load shifting) activities
are available under the transmission and distribution of electricity criteria.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILED

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
The EU Taxonomy has specific requirements:• In the case of pumped hydropower storage not connected to a river body, the activity
complies with the criteria set out in Appendix B.
• In the case of pumped hydropower storage connected to a river body, the activity complies
with the criteria for DNSH to sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources
specified in electricity production from hydropower.

Circular economy

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both have the same criteria: The activity assesses availability of and, where feasible,
uses equipment and components of high durability and recyclability, which are easy todismantle and refurbish.
Note: The Colombian Green Taxonomy includes the requirements set out in the generic
DNSH, while the EU Taxonomy makes use of specific requirements.

Pollution control
and prevention

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative24

Colombian
activity

EA11. Storage of thermal energy

EU activity

4.11 Storage of thermal energy

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements and thresholds:• All thermal energy storage is eligible under the Taxonomy including Underground
Thermal Energy Storage (UTES) or Aquifer Thermal Energy Storage (ATES), subject
to regular review.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Circular economy

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both have the same criteria: The activity assesses availability of and, where feasible,
uses equipment and components of high durability and recyclability, which are easy todismantle and refurbish.
Note: The Colombian Green Taxonomy includes the requirements set out in the generic
DNSH, while the EU Taxonomy makes use of specific requirements.

Pollution control
and prevention

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative25

Colombian
activity

EA12. Low-carbon hydrogen storage

EU activity

4.12 Storage of hydrogen

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements and thresholds:• Both taxonomies cover construction of hydrogen storage assets. The EU Taxonomy
considers specifics on conversion of existing underground gas storage facilities into storage
facilities dedicated to hydrogen storage; and operation of hydrogen storage facilities where
the hydrogen stored in the facility meets the criteria for the manufacture of hydrogen.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Circular economy

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both have the same criteria: The activity assesses availability of and, where feasible,
uses equipment and components of high durability and recyclability, which are easy todismantle and refurbish.
Note: The Colombian Green Taxonomy includes the requirements set out in the generic
DNSH, while the EU Taxonomy makes use of specific requirements.

Pollution control
and prevention

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has specific requirements:• In the case of storage above five tonnes, the activity complies with Directive 2012/18/EU.
There are no specific requirements for pollution control and prevention in the Colombian
Green Taxonomy.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative26

Colombian
activity

EM13. Manufacture of biomass, biofuels and biogas

EU activity

4.13 Manufacture of biogas and biofuels for use
in transport and of bioliquids

TSC comparison
Summary

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has more detailed requirements and thresholds:• Although the activities have different uses, both are aimed at the manufacture of biomass,
biofuels, and biogas.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy indicates that raw material must meet the eligibility
criteria established for the Waste Management and Emissions Capture sector and AFOLU
sector. While the EU Taxonomy provides specific requirements for this feedstock according
to its origin. It also includes some thresholds related to the reduction of GHG emissions(at least 65% in relation to the GHG saving methodology and the relative fossil fuelcomparator set out in Annex V to Directive (EU) 2018/2001) and criteria for the production of
biodigestate when the biogas produced is based on anaerobic digestion.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes further on
this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards not to do any harm.
The Colombian Green Taxonomy has specific requirements:• Colombia includes requirements for raw material such as is biomass (excluding industrial
and municipal biowaste). It requires that:• Full traceability of the supply through the relevant chain of custody management system
must be established and adherence to general as well as AFOLU sector-specific compliancerequirements must be demonstrated through appropriate verification systems.
• All forest biomass used in the process must comply with the forestry regulatory frameworkand the criteria established in the forestry sector.
• The biomass used should conform to the requirements defined in the national biomass andbiofuels regulations, and to those requirements defined in the forestry section of the Taxonomy.

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Circular economy

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has specific requirements:
Colombia includes requirements for raw material such as industrial biowaste (including foodindustry waste) or municipal biowaste. It requires that:• Solid biowaste should emerge from source-separated waste streams and be collected separately.
• Biowaste must comply with the waste regulatory framework and with national, regional,
and local waste management plans.
• Where municipal biowaste is used as feedstock, the project is complementary to and does
not compete with the existing municipal biowaste management infrastructure.
• If the raw material is biogas, it must meet the eligibility criteria and compliancerequirements set in waste management and emissions capture.

Pollution control
and prevention

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has specific requirements:• For biogas production, a gas-tight cover on the digestate storage is applied.
• For anaerobic digestion plants treating over 100 tonnes per day, emissions to air and water
are within or lower than the emission levels associated with the best available techniques(BAT-AEL) ranges set for anaerobic treatment of waste in the latest relevant best available
techniques (BAT) conclusions.
• For anaerobic digestion of organic material, where the produced digestate is used as fertiliser orsoil improver, either directly or after composting or any other treatment, it meets the requirements
for fertilising materials set out in Component Material Categories (CMC) 4 and 5 in Annex II toRegulation (EU) 2019/1009 or national rules on fertilisers or soil improvers for agricultural use.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative27

Colombian
activityEC14. Cogeneration of heat/cooling and powerfrom concentrated solar energy

EU activity

4.17 Cogeneration of heat/cool and power from solar energy
4.21 Production of heat/cool from solar thermal heating

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements and thresholds:• For both taxonomies this activity is directly eligible and is exempted from performing a life
cycle assessment.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards so as not to
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this. The Colombian Green
Taxonomy specifies avoiding impact to birdlife from the high temperatures generated
by the plant.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both taxonomies have similar generic DNSH. The Colombian Green Taxonomy specifies
avoiding impact from the cooling system on water resources.

Circular economy

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both have the same criteria: The activity assesses availability of and, where feasible,
uses equipment and components of high durability and recyclability, which are easy todismantle and refurbish.
Note: The Colombian Green Taxonomy includes the requirements set out in the generic
DNSH, while the EU Taxonomy makes use of specific requirements.

Pollution control
and prevention

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative28

Colombian
activityEC15. Cogeneration of heat/cooling and powerfrom geothermal energy

EU activity

4.18 Cogeneration of heat/cool and power from geothermal energy
4.22 Production of heat/cool from geothermal energy

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements and thresholds:• For both taxonomies any cogeneration technology can be included if it can bedemonstrated, using an ISO 14067 or a GHG Protocol Product Lifecycle Standard-compliant
Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) assessment, that the life cycle impacts for producing 1 kWhof heat/cool and power are below the declining threshold. The full PCF assessment shall be
subjected to review.
• The EU Taxonomy includes a declining threshold to net-0gCO2e/kWh by 2050 that will be
reduced every five years. For activities which go beyond 2050, it must be technically feasible
to reach net-zero emissions.
Note: The Cogeneration threshold is the combined heat/cool and power threshold of
100gCO2e/kWh.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Circular economy

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has generic requirements while the EU Taxonomy
does not have generic DNSH on circular economy:

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Pollution control
and prevention• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

• Both taxonomies require control and prevent emissions of non-condensable geothermalgases with specific environmental threats, such as H2S, CO2, and CH4, which are often
released from flash-steam and dry-steam power plants.
• For both taxonomies the binary plants ideally represent closed systems, and no steam is emitted.
• Both require avoiding possible emissions to surface and underground water.
• Both require the prevention of thermal anomalies associated with the discharge of waste
heat, which should not exceed 3°K for groundwater environments or 1.5°K for surface water
environments, respectively.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative29

Colombian
activityEC16. Cogeneration of heat/cold and energy
from biomass, biofuels and biogas

EU activity

4.20 Cogeneration of heat/cool and power from bioenergy
4.24 Production of heat/cool from bioenergy

TSC comparison
Summary

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has more detailed requirements and thresholds:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy proposes a threshold below the current threshold(100gCO2e/kWh) to produce 1 kWh of heat/cool and electricity through compliance with ISO
14067 or a GHG protocol product such as the PCF.
• The EU Taxonomy includes the criteria for biomass from agriculture set out in Article 29 of
Directive (EU) 2018/2001.
• The EU Taxonomy also provides rules for calculating the greenhouse gas impact of biomass
fuels and their fossil fuel comparators (at least 80% in relation to the GHG saving methodology).
• Where the cogeneration installations rely on anaerobic digestion of organic material,
the production of the digestate must meet the criteria relating to anaerobic digestion of
biowaste activity. These points do not apply to heat generation installations with a total
rated thermal input below 2MW and using gaseous biomass fuels.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
The Colombian Green Taxonomy has specific requirements:
Colombia includes requirements for raw material such as is biomass (excluding industrial andmunicipal biowaste). It requires that:• Full traceability of the supply through the relevant chain of custody management system
must be established as well as adherence to general compliance requirements and
AFOLU sector-specific compliance requirements, which must be demonstrated throughappropriate verification systems.
• All forest biomass used in the process must comply with the forestry regulatory frameworkand the criteria established in the forestry sector.
• The biomass used should conform to the requirements defined in the national biomass andbiofuels regulations, and to those requirements defined in the forestry section of the Taxonomy.

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Circular economy

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has specific requirements:
Colombia includes requirements for raw material such as industrial biowaste (including foodindustry waste) or municipal biowaste. It requires that:• Solid biowaste should emerge from source-separated waste streams and be collected
separately.
• Biowaste must comply with the waste regulatory framework and with national, regional,
and local waste management plans.
• Where municipal biowaste is used as feedstock, the project is complementary to and does
not compete with the existing municipal biowaste management infrastructure.
• If the raw material is biogas, it must meet the eligibility criteria and compliancerequirements set out in waste management and emissions capture.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative30

Colombian
activityEC16. Cogeneration of heat/cold and energy from biomass,
biofuels and biogas

EU activity

4.20 Cogeneration of heat/cool and power from bioenergy
4.24 Production of heat/cool from bioenergy

Do No Significant Harm
Pollution control
and prevention

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has specific requirements:• For installations falling within the scope of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council, emissions are within or lower than the emission levels
associated with the best available techniques (BAT-AEL) ranges.
• For combustion plants with thermal input greater than 1 MW but which are below thethresholds that would cause the BAT conclusions for large combustion plants to apply,
emissions are below the emission limit values set out in Directive (EU) 2015/2193.
• For plants in zones or parts of zones not complying with the air quality limit values laid
down in Directive 2008/50/EC, measures are implemented to reduce emission levels.
• For anaerobic digestion of organic material, where the produced digestate is used as
fertiliser or soil improver, either directly or after composting or any other treatment, it
meets the requirements for fertilising materials set out in Component Material Categories(CMC) 4 and 5 in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 or national rules on fertilisers or soil
improvers for agricultural use.
• For anaerobic digestion plants treating over 100 tonnes per day, emissions to air and water
are within or lower than the emission levels associated with the best available techniques(BAT-AEL) ranges set for anaerobic treatment of waste in the latest relevant best available
techniques (BAT) conclusions.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative31Colombian
activity

EP17. Production of heat/cold and energy using waste heat

EU activity

4.25 Production of heat/cool using waste heat

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements and eligibility criteria:• All recovery of waste heat is eligible.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Circular economy

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both have the same criteria: The activity assesses availability of and, where feasible,
uses equipment and components of high durability and recyclability, which are easy todismantle and refurbish.
Note: The Colombian Green Taxonomy includes the requirements set out in the generic
DNSH, while the EU Taxonomy makes use of specific requirements.

Pollution control
and prevention

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has specific requirements:
The specific requirements depend on the activity:• from geothermal: For the operation of high-enthalpy geothermal energy systems, adequate
abatement systems are in place to reduce emission levels in order not to hamper theachievement of air quality limit values set out in Directives 2004/107/EC and 2008/50/EC.
• from bioenergy: Emissions are within or lower than the emission levels associatedwith the best available techniques (BAT-AEL) ranges set out in the latest relevant best
available techniques (BAT) conclusions. This includes the best available techniques(BAT) conclusions for large combustion plants, ensuring that no significant cross-media
effects occur. Anaerobic digestion of organic material follows the requirements set out in
Component Material Categories (CMC).

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative32

Colombian
activity
EU activity

EDT18. Thermal districts
4.15 District heating/cooling distribution

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements and thresholds:• For both taxonomies construction and operation of pipelines and associated infrastructure
for distributing heating and cooling is eligible if the system complies with current
regulations regarding energy efficiency.
• The following activities are always eligible:*Modifications to lower temperature regimes*Advanced control and energy management systems (e.g., Internet of Things,
automated measurement)

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Circular economy

Pollution control
and prevention

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILEDLESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has generic DNSH requirements on circular
economy while the EU Taxonomy does not:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
The EU taxonomy has specific requirements:• Fans, compressors, pumps, and other equipment, which is covered by the Ecodesign
Directive must comply, where relevant, with the top class requirements of the energy label.
In all other ways it must comply with the latest implementing measures of the Ecodesign
Directive and represent the best available technology.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative

33

Construction
Colombianactivity

C1. Construction of new buildings

EU activity

7.1 Construction of new buildings

TSC comparison
Summary

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has more detailed requirements:• Both taxonomies use metrics associated with energy efficiency, given in kWh/m² year with
reduction percentages.
• The threshold for the Colombian Green Taxonomy has been expressed with respect to theguidelines given by the Sustainable Construction Resolution 0549 of 2015. The threshold for
the EU Taxonomy is based on ‘near-zero energy building’ (NZEB) requirements, which aredefined in national regulations implementing the EPBD and are mandatory from 2021.
• Both taxonomies have to comply with the directives and regulations related to the context
of each jurisdiction however the EU Taxonomy requires the Energy Performance Certificate(EPC) where the near-zero consumption is endorsed, while the Colombian Green Taxonomy
indicates that the builder can certify the savings in energy consumption by the method
established in the Resolution.
• In Colombia, if the project has a sustainable construction certification with percentage savings inenergy consumption criteria equal to or greater than the eligibility criteria measured against thebaseline of the Sustainable Construction Resolution, the building is considered eligible.
• The EU Taxonomy requires that any deviation in the levels of performance set out at thedesign stage or defects in the building envelope are disclosed to investors and clients. Thisrequirement is for buildings larger than 5,000m2.
• In the EU Taxonomy, for buildings larger than 5,000m2, the life-cycle Global Warming
Potential (GWP) of the building resulting from its construction is calculated for each stage inthe life cycle. This can be disclosed to investors and clients on demand.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has specific requirements:• From the generic DNSH, the Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation
objective. While it mentions it in a general way, the EU Taxonomy has gone deeper on thispoint and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not do significant harm.
The classification includes hazards that are temperature-related, wind-related, water-related,and solid mass-related (the list of climate-related hazards provided is non-exhaustive, andconstitutes only an indicative list of the most widespread hazards that are to be taken into
account as a minimum in the climate risk and vulnerability assessment).
• From specific DNSH, the Colombian Green Taxonomy requires the implementation of
measures to increase resilience to extreme weather events (including floods and flooding)and adaptation to future temperature rises in terms of internal comfort conditions(including the use of artificial air conditioning systems).

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

INCOMPARABLE

Both taxonomies address DNSH on conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity differently:• Both taxonomies have similar generic DNSH but specific criteria are different for both taxonomies.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires at least 15% of all wood products used in new
construction for structures, cladding and finishes must have been recycled or reused, or
sourced from sustainably managed forests, as certified by third party audits conducted byaccredited certification bodies. It must ensure that there is no deforestation or significant
indirect damage to forest ecosystems at the source of timber products.
• The EU taxonomy indicates that new construction cannot be built on:i. arable land and crop land with a moderate to high level of soil fertility and below
ground biodiversity;ii. greenfield land of recognised high biodiversity value and land that serves as habitat ofendangered species; andiii. land matching the definition of forest as set out in national law used in the national greenhousegas inventory, or where not available, in accordance with the FAO definition of forest.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative34

Colombian
activity

C1. Construction of new buildings

EU activity

7.1 Construction of new buildings

Do No Significant Harm
Water management

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has specific requirements:• Both taxonomies require relevant water appliances (shower solutions, mixer showers,
shower outlets, taps, WC suites, WC bowls and flushing cisterns, urinal bowls and flushingcisterns, and bathtubs). In Colombia, the water savings established in Resolution 0549 of2015 must be guaranteed, while the EU requires a building certification or an existing EU
product label, in accordance with the technical specifications laid down in Appendix E.
Note: This excludes installations in residential building units.
• The EU Taxonomy mentions thresholds for wash hand basin taps and kitchen taps,
showers, WCs, suites, bowls, flushing cisterns and urinals.
• The EU Taxonomy complies with the criteria set out in Appendix B to avoid impact from theconstruction site.

Circular economy

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILEDThe EU taxonomy has specific requirements:• Colombia mentions the recovery of a percentage of the construction materials andprioritises the use of recycled/recyclable materials. However, the EU Taxonomy requires
the reuse, recycling, and recovery of other materials of at least 70% (by weight) of the
non-hazardous construction and demolition waste generated on site, including backfilling
operations that use waste to substitute other materials.
• The EU requires building designs and construction techniques that support circularity anddemonstrate, with reference to ISO 20887 or other standards for assessing the disassemblyor adaptability of buildings, how they are designed to be more resource-efficient,
adaptable, flexible, and able to be dismantled to enable reuse and recycling.

Pollution control
and prevention

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has more detailed requirements:• Both require ensuring that building components and materials do not contain asbestos orsubstances of very high concern as identified on the basis of the Authorisation List of the
REACH Regulation. Colombia cites national regulation (Ley 1968 de 2019).
• Both taxonomies require that all materials, including waste and reused materials, mustbe fit for purpose and ensure no significant adverse impacts on human health or theenvironment. The EU Taxonomy specifies content of less than 0.06 mg of formaldehyde
per m³ of material or component and less than 0.001 mg of other categories of 1A and 1B
carcinogenic volatile organic compounds per m³ of material or component.
• Where the new construction is located on a potentially contaminated site (brownfieldsite) or the site has been subject to an investigation for potential contaminants, the EU
Taxonomy suggests using standard ISO 18400.
• The EU Taxonomy requires measures to reduce noise, dust and pollutant emissions during
construction or maintenance works.
• The EU Taxonomy requires compliance with the criteria set out in Appendix C for building
components and materials used in construction.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative35

Colombian
activity

C2. Renovation of existing buildings

EU activity

7.2 Renovation of existing buildings

TSC comparison
Summary

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has more detailed requirements:• Both taxonomies use metrics associated with energy efficiency, given in kWh/m² year with
reduction percentages.
• In both taxonomies the project must demonstrate that once the renovation is completed,the percentage of savings in energy consumption will meet the threshold that applies
according to the eligibility criteria relating to the construction of new buildings.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires verification that the installation of renewableenergy generation systems allows a percentage of savings in final energy consumption
equivalent to 10% with respect to the Resolution. However, the EU Taxonomy requires
verification that the renovation achieves savings in net Primary Energy Demand of at least
30% in comparison to the baseline performance of the building before the renovation.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILEDEU Taxonomy has specific requirements:• From the generic DNSH, the Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation
objective. While it mentions it in a general way, the EU Taxonomy has gone deeper on thispoint and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not do significant harm.
The classification includes hazards that are temperature-related, wind-related, water-related,and solid mass-related (the list of climate-related hazards provided is non-exhaustive, andconstitutes only an indicative list of the most widespread hazards that are to be taken into
account as a minimum in the climate risk and vulnerability assessment).
• From the specific DNSH, the Colombian Green Taxonomy requires implementation of
measures to increase resilience to extreme weather events (including floods and flooding)and adaptation to future temperature rises in terms of internal comfort conditions(including use of artificial air conditioning systems).

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

INCOMPARABLE

Both taxonomies address DNSH on conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity differently:• Both taxonomies have similar generic DNSH but specific criteria are different for both taxonomies.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires at least 15% of all wood products used in new
construction for structures, cladding and finishes must have been recycled or reused, or
sourced from sustainably managed forests, as certified by third party audits conductedby accredited certification bodies. It requires that there is no deforestation or significant
indirect damage to forest ecosystems at the source of timber products.
• The EU Taxonomy indicates that new construction cannot be built on:i. arable land and crop land with a moderate to high level of soil fertility andbelow ground biodiversity;ii. greenfield land of recognised high biodiversity value and land that serves as habitat ofendangered species; andiii. land matching the definition of forest as set out in national law used in the national greenhousegas inventory, or where not available, is in accordance with the FAO definition of forest.

Water management

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has specific requirements:• Both taxonomies require relevant water appliances (shower solutions, mixer showers,
shower outlets, taps, WC suites, WC bowls and flushing cisterns, urinal bowls and flushingcisterns, and bathtubs). In Colombia, the water savings established in Resolution 0549 of2015 must be guaranteed, while the EU requires a building certification or an existing EU
product label in accordance with the technical specifications laid down in Appendix E.
Note: Except for renovation works in residential building units.
• The EU Taxonomy mentions thresholds for wash hand basin taps and kitchen taps,
showers, WCs, including suites, bowls and flushing cisterns, and urinals.
• The EU Taxonomy includes complies with the criteria set out in Appendix B to avoid impact
from the construction site.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative36

Colombian
activity

C2. Renovation of existing buildings

EU activity

7.2 Renovation of existing buildings

Do No Significant Harm
Circular economy

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has specific requirements:• Colombia mentions the recovery of a percentage of the construction materials andprioritises the use of recycled/recyclable materials. However, the EU Taxonomy requires
the reuse, recycling, and recovery of other materials of at least 70% (by weight) of
the non-hazardous construction and demolition waste generated on site, including
backfilling operations that use waste to substitute other materials.
• The EU requires building designs and construction techniques that support circularity anddemonstrate, with reference to ISO 20887 or other standards for assessing the disassemblyor adaptability of buildings, how they are designed to be more resource efficient, adaptable,
flexible and able to be dismantled to enable reuse and recycling.

Pollution control
and prevention

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has more requirements:• Both require ensuring that building components and materials do not contain asbestos nor
substances of very high concern as identified on the basis of the “Authorization List” of the
REACH Regulation. Colombia suggests national regulation (Ley 1968 de 2019).
• Both taxonomies require that all materials, including waste and reused materials, must be fit
for purpose and ensure no significant adverse impacts on human health or the environment.
The EU Taxonomy specifies levels less than 0.06 mg of formaldehyde per m³ of material orcomponent and less than 0.001 mg of other categories 1A and 1B carcinogenic volatile organic
compounds per m³ of material or component.
• The EU Taxonomy requires measures to reduce noise, dust, and pollutant emissions during
construction or maintenance works.
• The EU Taxonomy requires compliance with the criteria set out in Appendix C for building
components and materials used in the construction.
• Colombia requires a building inspection in accordance with national legislation, performed bya specialist trained in asbestos surveys and in the identification of other materials containing
substances of concern.
• Colombia specifies that any removal of cladding that contains or may contain asbestos (such as
removal or modification of insulation boards, shingles and other asbestos-containing materials)
must be carried out by trained personnel, with sanitary surveillance before, during and after thework, and in accordance with applicable regulations.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative37

Colombian
activity

C3. Acquisition and ownership of buildings

EU activity

7.7 Acquisition and ownership of buildings

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements and eligibility criteria:
For both taxonomies, the acquisition or ownership of buildings may be eligible
in three cases, as follows:
1. For buildings built after 31 December 2020, the building meets the criteria specified in‘Construction of new buildings’ that are relevant at the time of the acquisition. For the EU
Taxonomy, large non-residential buildings must meet an additional requirement: efficientbuilding operations must be ensured through dedicated energy management.
2. For buildings built before 31 December 2020 (Colombia considers between 31 December
2015 and 31 December 2020), the building or real estate property must have a percentage ofsavings in energy consumption that is 15% higher. For the Colombian Green Taxonomy thismust be with respect to the consumption defined in the energy consumption baseline of
the Resolution, while in the EU Taxonomy the building has at least an Energy Performance
Certificate (EPC) class A.
3. The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires that for buildings constructed before 31
December 2015, the savings obtained with respect to energy consumption must be
demonstrated according to the constructive characteristics of the reference building, as
defined in Annex 1 of the Resolution. For the EU Taxonomy where the building is a large nonresidential building it should be efficiently operated through energy performance monitoring
and assessment.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has specific requirements:• From the generic DNSH, the Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation
objective. While it mentions it in a general way, the EU Taxonomy has gone deeper on thispoint and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not do significant harm. The
classification includes temperature-related; wind-related; water-related; and solid massrelated (the list of climate-related hazards provided is non-exhaustive, and constitutes only anindicative list of most widespread hazards that are to be taken into account as a minimum inthe climate risk and vulnerability assessment).
• From specific DNSH the Colombian Green Taxonomy requires implementation of measures
to increase resilience to extreme weather events (including floods and flooding) andadaptation to future temperature rises in terms of internal comfort conditions (including
use of artificial air conditioning systems).

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

INCOMPARABLE

Both taxonomies address DNSH on conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity differently:• Both taxonomies have similar generic DNSH but specific criteria are different for both taxonomies.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires at least 15% of all wood products used in new
construction for structures, cladding and finishes must have been recycled or reused, or
sourced from sustainably managed forests, as certified by third party audits conductedby accredited certification bodies. It requires that there is no deforestation or significant
indirect damage to forest ecosystems at the source of timber products• The EU Taxonomy indicates that new construction cannot be built on:i. arable land and crop land with a moderate to high level of soil fertility and below
ground biodiversity;ii. greenfield land of recognised high biodiversity value and land that serves as habitat ofendangered species; andiii. land matching the definition of forest as set out in national law used in the national greenhousegas inventory, or where not available, is in accordance with the FAO definition of forest.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative38

Colombian
activity

C3. Acquisition and ownership of buildings

EU activity

7.7 Acquisition and ownership of buildings

Do No Significant Harm
Water management

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has specific requirements:• Both taxonomies require relevant water appliances (shower solutions, mixer showers,
shower outlets, taps, WC suites, WC bowls and flushing cisterns, urinal bowls and flushingcisterns, and bathtubs). In Colombia, the water savings established in Resolution 0549 of2015 must be guaranteed, while the EU requires a building certification or an existing EU
product label, in accordance with the technical specifications laid down in Appendix E.
Note: This excludes installations in residential building units.
• The EU Taxonomy mentions thresholds for wash hand basin taps and kitchen taps,
showers, WCs, suites, bowls, flushing cisterns, and urinals.
• The EU Taxonomy complies with the criteria set out in Appendix B to avoid impact from theconstruction site.

Circular economy

Pollution control
and prevention

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has specific requirements

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has specific requirements:• Colombia mentions the recovery of a percentage of the construction materials andprioritises the use of recycled/recyclable materials. However, the EU Taxonomy does nothave specific DNSH on circular economy.

• For Colombia the acquisition and ownership of low-carbon and efficient buildings is subject
to meeting the compliance requirements established for the construction and renovationof buildings. However, the EU Taxonomy does not have specific DNSH on pollution control
and prevention.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative39

Colombian
activity

C1-C2. Complementary individual measures

EU activity

7.3 Installation, maintenance and repair of energy
efficiency equipment
7.4 Installation, maintenance and repair of charging stations for electricvehicles in buildings (and parking spaces attached to buildings)
7.5 Installation, maintenance and repair of instruments and devices formeasuring, regulation and controlling energy performance of buildings
7.6 Installation, maintenance and repair of renewable energy technologies
4.16 Installation and operation of electric heat pumps
9.3 Professional services related to energy performance of buildings

TSC comparison
Summary

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has more requirements:• Colombia considers optional complementary individual measures that contribute toachieving the eligibility criteria for the activities relating to the construction of newbuildings and renovation of buildings at the building level. The EU Taxonomy has individual
activities that cover similar aspects.
• Within the individual measures, both taxonomies include measures to reduce energy
consumption and emissions during the operational phase of buildings, as well as
professional services related to technical consultations linked to individual measures,
accredited energy audits and building performance assessments.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy provides individual measures to building level and city,
municipality or locality level, and specifies which require evidence of reduction and which do not.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy provides more individual measurements, some of which
are also related to the ICT sector.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Circular economy

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective and it only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation. However, the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards so as to do no
significant harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Pollution control
and prevention

VERY SIMILAR

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has DNSH generic requirements on circular economy
while the EU Taxonomy does not:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative40

WasteColombianactivity

RC1. Sewage sludge treatment

EU activity

5.6 Anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge

TSC comparison
Summary

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy is more stringent:• Although the taxonomies have similar thresholds on several points, the Colombian Green
Taxonomy adds that in cases where the systems include only biogas flaring, they must havea transition program to other types of use in the medium term (less than three years). In
contrast, the EU Taxonomy does not allow biogas flaring.
• Both taxonomies consider facilities for the treatment of sewage sludge by anaerobic
digestion with the resulting production and utilisation of biogas or chemicals.
• For both taxonomies, the treatment of sludge with anaerobic digestion systems should include
a monitoring and contingency plan in order to minimise methane leakage at the facility.
• For both taxonomies, the biogas produced must be used for electricity or heat generation,
or transformed into biomethane for injection into the natural gas grid. It can also be used
as fuel for vehicles or as a raw material in the chemical industry.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires that digestate produced is used as fertilizer.
• In Colombia, activities that facilitate the use and utilisation of biogas, such as dehydration,
compression or similar, are also eligible.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Circular economy

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not do any
harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Pollution control
and prevention

VERY SIMILAR

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has generic DNSH requirements on circular economy
while the EU Taxonomy does not:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both taxonomies require emissions within or below the ranges established according to theregulations of each country or region. Colombia considers Law 142 of 1994 and Decree 1287 of2014 while the EU considers the best available techniques (BAT-AEL) ranges set for anaerobic
treatment of waste in the latest relevant best available techniques (BAT) conclusions.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires that air emissions (such as SOx, NOx, andparticulate matter) generated by biogas combustion are controlled and reduced (whennecessary), within the limits established by regulations.
• For both taxonomies, the digestate resulting from this activity, which is used as a fertilizer orsoil improver, must meet the standards of each country or region. The EU Taxonomy requires
this to be communicated to the buyer or the entity in charge of collecting the digestate.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative41

Colombian
activity

RC2. Separate collection and transport of non-hazardous
waste in the segregated fraction at source

EU activity

5.5. Collection and transport of non-hazardous waste
in source segregated fractions

TSC comparison
Summary

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has detailed requirements:• Both taxonomies consider all non-hazardous waste collected and transported separatelythat is separated at source and destined for preparation for reuse or recycling operations.
The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires:• Facilities that optimise transportation, such as transfer stations, are included.
• Investments are made in compaction, shredding and other activities that improve logistical
capacity in transportation.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Circular economy

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both taxonomies avoid mixing separately collected waste fractions so that they are not mixed at
the waste storage and transfer facilities with other waste or materials with different properties.

Pollution control
and prevention

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has specific requirements:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires compliance with regulations related to the proper
handling of leachate during the separate transportation of waste.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative42

Colombian
activity

RC3. Anaerobic digestion of organic wastewith methane capture or use

EU activity

5.7. Anaerobic digestion of biowaste

TSC comparison
Summary

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy is more stringent:• Although the taxonomies have similar thresholds on several points, the Colombian Green
Taxonomy adds that in cases where the systems include only biogas flaring, they must havea transition program to other types of use in the medium term (less than three years). In
contrast, the EU Taxonomy does not allow biogas flaring.
• For both taxonomies, the biowaste that is used for anaerobic digestion is source segregatedand collected separately.
• Both taxonomies require a monitoring and contingency plan is in place in order tominimise methane leakage at the facility.
• For both taxonomies, the biogas produced should be used directly for the generationof electricity or heat, or upgraded to biomethane for injection in the natural gas grid.
Additionally, it can be used as vehicle fuel or as feedstock in the chemical industry.
• For both taxonomies, the digestate produced is used as fertiliser or soil improver, either
directly or after composting or any other treatment.
• In Colombia, activities that facilitate the use and utilisation of biogas, such as dehydration,
compression or similar, are also eligible.
• In the dedicated biowaste treatment plants, organic waste constitutes an important partof the input feedstock. Co-digestion is eligible with a minor share of advanced bioenergy
feedstock (up to 30% of the input feedstock in Colombia, while in the EU it is 10%).
Colombia considers the eligibility criteria for the agricultural sector.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has specific requirements:

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires that the origin of inputs coming fromagricultural/agro-industrial activity must comply with the eligibility criteria established in
the AFOLU sector.
• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Circular economy

Pollution control
and prevention

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has generic requirements while the EU Taxonomy
does not have generic DNSH on circular economy:

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

• Both taxonomies require emissions within or below the ranges established according to theregulations of each country or region. Colombia considers Law 142 of 1994 and Decree 1287 of2014 while the EU considers the best available techniques (BAT-AEL) ranges set for anaerobic
treatment of waste in the latest relevant best available techniques (BAT) conclusions.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires that air emissions (such as SOx, NOx andparticulate matter) generated by biogas combustion are controlled and reduced (whennecessary), within the limits established by regulations.
• For both taxonomies, the digestate resulting from this activity, which is used as a fertilizer orsoil improver, must meet the standards of each country or region. The EU Taxonomy requires
this to be communicated to the buyer or the entity in charge of collecting the digestate.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative43

Colombian
activity

RC4. Composting of organic waste

EU activity

5.8. Composting of biowaste

TSC comparison
Summary

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has more requirements:• For both taxonomies, the facilities for the treatment of separately collected biowaste
through composting (aerobic digestion) with the resulting production and utilisation ofcompost is eligible if:• The organic waste is segregated and collected separately.
• The compost produced is used as fertiliser or soil improver and meets the requirements for
fertilising materials set out in the specific regulations.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy includes minimising methane losses in the composting process.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Circular economy

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has generic requirements while the EU Taxonomy
does not have generic DNSH on circular economy:

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Pollution control
and prevention• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

• Both taxonomies require a management plan to be in place or that emissions to air andwater for composting plants treating over 75 tonnes per day are within or lower than theemission levels associated with the best available techniques (BAT-AEL).
• Both taxonomies require a system in place that prevents leachate reaching groundwater.
• For both taxonomies, the compost produced must meet the requirements for fertilisingmaterials set out in the regulations.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative44

Colombian
activity

RC5. Use of non-hazardous waste material

EU activity

5.9. Material recovery from non-hazardous waste

TSC comparison
Summary

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has more requirements:• Both taxonomies consider facilities for the sorting and processing of separately collected
non-hazardous waste and conversion into secondary raw materials involving mechanicalreprocessing. This activity is eligible if:• it produces secondary raw materials suitable for the substitution of virgin materials in
production processes.
• The activity converts at least 50%, in terms of weight, of the processed separately collected
non-hazardous waste into secondary raw materials.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy includes assets for mechanised separation andtransformation activities, which increase the value and usability of the material.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has generic requirements while the EU Taxonomy
does not have generic DNSH on circular economy:

Pollution control
and prevention

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:

Colombianactivity

RC6. Energy production from non-recyclable waste
fractions (thermal treatment)

EU activity

N/A

Circular economy• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

TSC comparison
Summary

N/A

This is an additional activity contained only within the Colombian Green Taxonomy and istherefore not taken into account in the analysis.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative45

Colombian
activity

RC7. Capture and utilisation of landfill gas

EU activity

5.10. Landfill gas capture and utilisation

TSC comparison
Summary

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy is more stringent:• Although the taxonomies have similar thresholds on several points, the Colombian Green
Taxonomy adds that in cases where the systems include only biogas flaring, they musthave a transition program to other types of use in the medium term (less than 3 years). In
contrast, the EU taxonomy does not allow biogas flaring.
• For both taxonomies, capture and utilisation of landfill gas are directly eligible if:• The landfill is permanently closed.
• The landfill where the gas capture system is newly installed, extended, or retrofitted ispermanently closed and is not taking in further waste.
• The produced landfill gas is used for the generation of electricity or heat as biogas, or
upgraded to biomethane for injection in the natural gas grid. Additionally, it can be used as
vehicle fuel or as feedstock in chemical industry.
• Methane emissions from the landfill and leakages from the landfill gas collection andutilisation facilities are subject to control and monitoring procedures.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Circular economy

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has generic requirements while the EU Taxonomy
does not have generic DNSH on circular economy:

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has more detailed requirements:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Pollution control
and prevention• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

• The Colombian Green Taxonomy contains a specific requirement related to controllingemissions of SOx, NxOy and particulate matter, reducing them (when necessary), andmonitoring them within the limits established by current regulations.
• The EU Taxonomy specifies requirements for the permanent closure and remediation as
well as the after-care of old landfills, where the landfill gas capture system is installed. This
must be carried out in accordance with the Directive 1999/31/EC (Annex I and II).

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative46

Colombian
activity
EU activity

RC8. Artificial capture, transport and storage/use of GHGs
5.11 Transport of CO2
5.12. Underground permanent geological storage of CO2

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has more requirements:
Both taxonomies consider requirements for the transport, storage, and use of captured GHG.
Colombia also has specific requirements to capture it while the EU does not.
* For capture (only The Colombian Green Taxonomy):• All activities related to capture of GHGs from the atmosphere to reduce global atmospheric
GHG concentration levels are eligible, subject to periodic review.
• Activities related to carbon sequestration in GHG emitting facilities, as long as they ensure
the capture of at least 90% of the GHG emissions generated, are eligible if they are part of the
carbon neutrality pathway defined in the GCCP. This criterion is subject to periodic review.
* For transport (both taxonomies):• The CO2 transported from the installation where it is captured to the injection point does
not lead to CO2 leakages above 0.5% of the mass of CO2 transported.
• The activity may include the installation of assets that increase the flexibility and improvethe management of an existing network.
• Appropriate leak detection systems are applied and a monitoring plan is in place, with thereport verified by an independent third party.
* For storage (both taxonomies):• The operation of a permanent CO2 storage facility is directly eligible if the facility complies
with ISO 27914 criteria.
• The EU Taxonomy includes a characterisation and assessment of the potential storage
complex and surrounding area.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy defines that activities that use captured GHG as feedstock
to generate new products or materials are directly eligible.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
The Colombian Green Taxonomy has specific requirements:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires capture to decrease additional abstraction
requirements for capture plants in order to avoid reductions in waterbody flows.
• For storage, it requires avoidance of water pollution from spills from earthworks, accidental
spills, wastewater discharges, etc.
• For storage, it requires protection of groundwater hydrology and aquatic ecology during
plant construction and operation of the catchment plants.

Circular economy

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has specific requirements:
The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires:• Selection of equipment based on environmental impact criteria and performing a chemicalrisk assessment.
• Avoidance of the hazardous solvent waste amine and carbon use.
• Compliance with current regulations regarding the use of carbon.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative47

Colombian
activity
EU activity

RC8. Artificial capture, transport and storage/use of GHGs
5.11 Transport of CO2
5.12. Underground permanent geological storage of CO2

Do No Significant Harm
Pollution control
and prevention

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has specific requirements:
The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires:• Prevention of the release of GHG emissions during operation by implementing detection systems.
• Prevention of the loss of ammonia during operation.
• Minimising the formation of secondary aerosols and tropospheric ozone production.
• To have fans, compressors, pumps and other equipment used for the used for CO2 transportthat are as efficient as possible in the consumption of electricity required for their operation.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative48

WaterColombianactivity

A1. Aqueduct systems

EU activity

5.1 Construction, extension and operation of water collection,
treatment and supply systems
5.2 Renewal of water collection, treatment and supply systems

TSC comparison
Summary

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy is more stringent and detailed:• Both taxonomies have requirements for new and existing systems, however, requirements
for new systems are different and for existing system have some similarities.
*For new systems:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy thresholds are based on the average carbon intensityof energy (equal to or less than 100 gCO2/ kWh), and also mention leakage limitationand maintenance measures taking into account local regulations (Reglamento de Aguay Saneamiento Básico (RAS)). The EU Taxonomy bases its thresholds on the average net
energy consumption (0.5 kWh) per cubic metre of water supply produced and provides
for additional reduction measures in source control and energy generation. For leakage, it
provides a methodology calculation (ILI) and thresholds that must be applied to the entire
extent of the supply network.
*For existing systems:• Both taxonomies require the decrease of the net average energy consumption of thesystem by at least 20%, measured in kWh per cubic metre of produced water supply. They
also aim to reduce leakage levels, however, the Colombian Green Taxonomy refers to anindex included in its regulation (IPUF), while the EU suggests the Infrastructure Leakage
Index ILI. Colombia adds a requirement to increase the coverage of existing systems that
already meet target value leakage according to the IPUF.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Circular economy

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has generic DNSH requirements on circular economy
while the EU Taxonomy does not:VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Pollution control
and prevention• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative49Colombian
activity

A2. Sanitary and combined sewage systems

EU activity

5.3 Construction, extension and operation of waste watercollection and treatment
5.4. Renewal of waste water collection and treatment

TSC comparison
Summary

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILED• In activity 5.3 within the EU Taxonomy, specifically for wastewater collection systems(sewerage), it states that for the construction and extension of a wastewater treatment plantwith a collection system, a verification of GHG reduction is required. Likewise, activity 5.4
in the EU Taxonomy states that for the renovation of a collection system, energy efficiency
improvement must be demonstrated by decreasing an average energy consumption by 20%.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy does not indicate quantitative compliance thresholds forthis activity, basing its eligibility on a list of requirements to ensure process efficiency.
Therefore, the eligibility criteria associated with wastewater collection systems (sewerage) areless stringent in the Colombian Green Taxonomy as they do not require the GHG verificationand energy efficiency improvement requested by the EU.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Circular economy

Pollution control
and prevention

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILEDLESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has specific requirements:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires an appropriate management plan for the
disposal and treatment of sludge and waste.
The EU Taxonomy has more specific requirements:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires an appropriate management plan for the
disposal and treatment of used oils and lubricants while the EU Taxonomy establishes
requirements for discharges into waterways.
• The EU Taxonomy includes a requirement to implement measures to prevent andmitigate excessive storm water overflows from the wastewater collection system,
which may include nature-based solutions, separate storm water collection systems,
holding tanks, and first flush treatment.
• In the EU Taxonomy the sewage sludge should be used in accordance with Council Directive
86/278/EEC or with the provisions of national legislation concerning the spreading of sludge
on land.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative50

Colombian
activity

A3. Wastewater treatment systems

EU activity

5.3 Construction, extension and operation of wastewatercollection and treatment
5.4. Renewal of wastewater collection and treatment

TSC comparison
Summary

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy is more stringent and detailed:• Both taxonomies have requirements for new and existing systems, however, requirements
for both are different. The Colombian Green Taxonomy also includes anaerobic systems
and focuses on two types of systems: centralised wastewater treatment, and alternative
or individual wastewater treatment. However, the EU Taxonomy focuses on just one:centralised wastewater treatment, which it proposes specific criteria for.
*For new systems:• Both taxonomies refer to the substitution of emission-intensive systems, while the EU defines
additional thresholds based on net energy consumption depending on the treatment plant capacity.
*For existing systems:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy focuses on investments that increase the treated flow
capacity and reduce energy consumption or favour the use of renewable sources. The EU
Taxonomy requires that the renovation improves energy efficiency and for this purpose,
establishes reduction thresholds with respect to its own performance reference. The net
energy consumption of the system is calculated in kWh per population equivalent per
annum of the wastewater collected or effluent treated.
* Anaerobic systems:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy defines additional criteria such as monitoring plans formethane leakage and the use of biogas for electricity generation. Additionally, it includes
feedstock in the chemical industry and activities that facilitate the use or exploitation of biogas.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Circular economy

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Pollution control
and prevention

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has specific requirements:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires an appropriate management plan for the
disposal and treatment of sludge and waste.
The EU Taxonomy has more specific requirements:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires an appropriate management plan for the
disposal and treatment of used oils and lubricants while the EU Taxonomy establishes
requirements for discharges to waterways.
• The EU Taxonomy includes a requirement to implement measures to prevent and mitigate
excessive storm water overflows from the wastewater collection system,
which may include nature-based solutions, separating storm water collection systems,
holding tanks, and first flush treatment.
• In the EU Taxonomy, the sewage sludge should be used in accordance with Council
Directive 86/278/EEC or with the provisions of national legislation concerning the spreadingof sludge on land.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative51

Colombian
activity

A4. Investments for efficient water use

EU activity

N/A

TSC comparison
Summary

N/A

This is an additional activity included in only the Colombian Green Taxonomy and istherefore not taken into account in the analysis.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative52

Transport
Colombianactivity

T1. Urban Public Transportation

EU activity

6.3. Urban and suburban transport, road passenger transport
6.7. Inland passenger water transport
6.9. Retrofitting of inland water passenger and freight transport
6.11. Sea and coastal passenger water transport
6.12. Retrofitting of sea and coastal freight and passenger

TSC comparison
Summary

INCOMPARABLE

Both Taxonomies address this activity differently.
• Both taxonomies consider zero direct emission transport as directly eligible.
• For retrofitting, the Colombian Green Taxonomy expresses the screening criteria in gCO2e/pkm, while the EU Taxonomy expresses most of the thresholds in % of fuel savings.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy does not have specific DNSH requirements on
circular economy while the EU Taxonomy does:

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:

Circular economy

VERY SIMILAR• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.

• The EU Taxonomy has a requirement to follow the Directive 2008/56/EC (Marine Strategy
Framework Directive), requiring that the appropriate measures are taken to prevent or
mitigate impacts in relation to that Directive’s descriptors 1 (biodiversity), 2 (non-indigenous
species), 6 (seabed integrity), 8 (contaminants), 10 (marine litter), and 11 (Noise/Energy)• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
The Colombian Green Taxonomy addresses these requirements from the generic
DNSH while EU Taxonomy makes use of the specific requirements on circular
economy for this activity:• In both taxonomies, measures are in place to manage waste, in accordance with the wastehierarchy, both in the use phase (maintenance) and the end-of-life, including through reuse andrecycling of batteries and electronics (in particular, those containing critical raw materials).

Pollution control
and prevention

INCOMPARABLE

Both taxonomies have different requirements in pollution control and prevention
for this activity:• Both taxonomies have requirements related to noise and atmospheric contamination.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy also has requirements regarding a management plan for
hazardous waste.
• The EU Taxonomy includes requirements for wastewater discharge from ships and also forcontrol of harmful anti-fouling systems on ships.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative53

Colombian
activity

T2. Micromobility

EU activity

6.4. Operation of personal mobility devices, cycle logistics

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements and thresholds:• The propulsion of personal mobility devices comes from the physical activity of the user,from a zero-emissions motor, or a mix of zero-emissions motor and physical activity.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Circular economy

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
The Colombian Green Taxonomy addresses these requirements from the generic
DNSH while the EU Taxonomy makes use of the specific requirements on circular
economy for this activity:• In both taxonomies, measures are in place to manage waste in accordance with the wastehierarchy, both in the use phase (maintenance) and the end-of-life, including through reuse andrecycling of batteries and electronics (in particular those containing critical raw materials).

Pollution control
and prevention

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative54

Colombian
activity

T3. Transport Infrastructure

EU activity

6.13. Infrastructure for personal mobility, cycle logistics
6.14. Infrastructure for rail transport
6.15. Infrastructure enabling low-carbon road transport and public transport
6.16. Infrastructure enabling low-carbon water transport

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements and thresholds:• Both taxonomies consider the infrastructure for the mobilisation of the types of transport
stated in the other activities from this sector.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
The Colombian Green Taxonomy has more requirements:• Both taxonomies require mitigation measures to avoid wildlife collisions.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy also requires measures to avoid the fragmentation anddegradation of ecosystems as well as the natural and urban landscape. Additionally, it statesthat possible negative impacts on aquatic ecosystems caused by tunnels that cause changes
and degradation of the hydromorphological conditions of water masses must be avoided.

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Circular economy

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Both taxonomies state that the non-hazardous construction and demolition waste
generated on the construction site is prepared for reuse, recycling, and other material
recovery (the EU Taxonomy states that it must be at least 70%).
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy also has a requirement to reuse parts and use recycledmaterial during the renovation, improvement and construction of the infrastructure.

Pollution control
and prevention

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Measures are taken to reduce noise, dust and pollutant emissions during construction or
maintenance works.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative55

Colombian
activity

T4. Interurban transport (passengers and cargo)

EU activity

6.1. Passenger interurban rail transport
6.2. Freight rail transport
6.6. Freight transport services by road
6.7. Inland passenger water transport
6.8. Inland freight water transport
6.10. Sea and coastal freight water transport, vessels for port
operations and auxiliary activities
6.11. Sea and coastal passenger water transport

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address this activity differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy expresses the screening criteria in gCO2e/pkm or gCO2/
tkm, while the EU Taxonomy expresses most of them in % of fuel saving.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy allows the use of biofuel, while the EU Taxonomy does not.
• Both taxonomies state that the transportation of fossil fuel is a non-eligible activity.
• Both taxonomies consider zero direct emission transport as directly eligible.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy does not have specific DNSH requirements while the
EU Taxonomy does on conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity:

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.

• The EU Taxonomy has a requirement to follow Directive 2008/56/EC (Marine Strategy
Framework Directive), requiring that the appropriate measures are taken to prevent or
mitigate impacts in relation to that Directive’s descriptors 1 (biodiversity), 2 (non-indigenous
species), 6 (seabed integrity), 8 (contaminants), 10 (marine litter), and 11 (Noise/Energy).
• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Circular economy

VERY SIMILAR

The Colombian Green Taxonomy addresses this requirement from the generic DNSH
while EU Taxonomy makes use of the specific requirements on circular economy
for this activity:• In both taxonomies, measures are in place to manage waste in accordance with the wastehierarchy, both in the use phase (maintenance) and the end-of-life, including through reuse andrecycling of batteries and electronics (in particular those containing critical raw materials).

Pollution control
and prevention

INCOMPARABLE

Both taxonomies have different requirements in pollution control and prevention
for this activity:• Both taxonomies have requirements related to noise and atmospheric contamination.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy also has requirements regarding a management plan for
hazardous waste.
• The EU Taxonomy includes a requirement for wastewater discharge from ships and also forcontrol of harmful anti-fouling systems on ships.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative56

Colombian
activity

T5. Private use transport

EU activity

6.5. Transport by motorbikes, passenger cars
and light commercial vehicles

TSC comparison
Summary

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has less detailed TSC:
• The EU Taxonomy is more detailed in the thresholds allowed for hybrid vehicles.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy states that hybrid vehicles are only eligible up to 2025.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation different-ly:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It
mentions it in a general way to do no significant harm in this respect, while the EU
Taxonomy has gone deeper on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related
hazards to not do significant harm.
Both Taxonomies have similar requirements• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on thisBoth taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on thisCircular economy

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has more specific DNSH on circular economy for this activity:• The EU Taxonomy states that vehicles of categories M1 and N1 are both of the following:i. reusable or recyclable to a minimum of 85% by weight;
ii. reusable or recoverable to a minimum of 95% by weight.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy addresses these requirements from the generic DNSH while
EU Taxonomy makes use of the specific requirements on circular economy for this activity:

Pollution control
and prevention

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• The requirements in both taxonomies seek to prevent atmospheric and noise pollution.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative

57

ICT
Colombianactivity

TIC1. Data processing, hosting, and related activities

EU activity

8.1. Data processing, hosting, and related activities

TSC comparison
Summary

INCOMPARABLE

Both Taxonomies address this activity differently:• Both criteria seek to have energy efficient data centres.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy has a specific threshold (the highest rate on any energy
efficiency certification as well as its energy efficiency use of less than 1.5 PUE).
• The EU Taxonomy refers to its best practice standard (European Code of Conduct on Data
Centre Energy Efficiency or other equivalent sources) that has to be validated through an
independent third-party and audited at least every three years. The EU taxonomy also hasan additional requirement for the refrigerants used in the data centre cooling system to not
exceed 675 Global Warming Potential (GWP).

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Circular economy

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy does not have specific DNSH requirements while EU
Taxonomy does on circular economy for this activity:• For servers and data storage products, the equipment should meet the requirementsin accordance with Directive 2009/125/EC (the framework for the setting of eco-design
requirements for energy-related products).
• The equipment used must not contain or does not exceed the concentration of restricted
substances listed in Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU (restriction of the use of certain
hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment) such as lead, mercury,cadmium, hexavalent chromium, PBB and PBDE.
• A waste management plan is in place and ensures maximal recycling at end-of-life ofelectrical and electronic equipment.
• At its end-of-life, the equipment undergoes preparation for reuse, recovery or recycling
operations; or proper treatment, including the removal of all fluids; and a selective
treatment in accordance with Annex VII to Directive 2012/19/EU (waste electrical andelectronic equipment - WEEE).

Pollution control
and prevention

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR MORE DETAILED

The Colombian GreenTaxonomy has specific requirements while the EU Taxonomy
does not have DNSH on pollution control and prevention for this activity:• The refrigerants used in the data centre cooling system must comply with national
regulations for fluorinated gases.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires that every data-driven solution for GHG
emission reductions must comply with national regulations regarding the managementof waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and comply with extended producer
responsibility standards.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative58

Colombian
activity

TIC2. Data-driven solutions for GHG emission reductions

EU activity

8.2. Data-driven solutions for GHG emission reductions

TSC comparison
Summary

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has less detailed TSC:
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy considers eligible any activity, app, equipment or
integrated system aimed at the provision of data and analytics enabling GHG emission
reductions or the in-crease of resilience and adaptation.
• The EU Taxonomy includes more detailed TSC such as recommended guidelines
for ICT solutions that calculate life-cycle GHG emissions and net emissions, such as
Recommendation 2013/179/EU, ETSI ES 203 199, ISO 14067:2018 or ISO 14064-2:2019.
The EU Taxonomy also states that quantified lifecycle GHG emission reductions should beverified by an independent third party.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Circular economy

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR LESS DETAILED

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
The Colombian Green Taxonomy does not have specific DNSH requirements while EU
Taxonomy does on circular economy for this activity:• For servers and data storage products, the equipment should meet the requirementsin accordance with Directive 2009/125/EC (the framework for the setting of eco-design
requirements for energy-related products).
• The equipment used must not contain or does not exceed the concentration of restricted
substances listed in Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU (restriction of the use of certain
hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment) such as lead, mercury,cadmium, hexavalent chromium, PBB and PBDE).
• A waste management plan is in place and ensures maximal recycling at end-of-life ofelectrical and electronic equipment.
• At its end-of-life, the equipment undergoes preparation for reuse, recovery or recycling
operations; or proper treatment, including the removal of all fluids; and a selective
treatment in accordance with Annex VII to Directive 2012/19/EU (waste electrical andelectronic equipment - WEEE).

Pollution control
and prevention

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has specific requirements on pollution control andprevention for this activity while the EU Taxonomy does not:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires that every data-driven solution for GHG
emission reduction must comply with national regulations regarding the management ofwaste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and comply with extended producer
responsibility standards.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative59

Manufacturing
Colombianactivity

M1. Manufacture of low-carbon technologies

EU activity

3.1. Manufacture of renewable energy technologies
3.2. Manufacture of equipment for the production and use of hydrogen3.3. Manufacture of low-carbon technologies for transport
3.5. Manufacture of energy efficiency equipment for buildings

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar activities, requirements, and thresholds:
The Colombian Green Taxonomy addresses similar activities for the manufacturing of:i. renewable energy technologies (e.g., manufacturing of solar panels).
ii. sustainable transport (e.g., manufacturing of zero direct emission transport).
iii. green buildings (e.g., manufacturing of building management systems for the control andmoni-toring of temperature, energy use and water).

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

The Colombian GreenTaxonomy has specific DNSH requirements on conservation of
ecosystems and biodiversity for this activity while the EU Taxonomy does:

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:

Circular economy

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILED• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.

• The Colombian Green Taxonomy has a requirement to manage the demand and chainof custody for certain metals and materials that are in limited supply; in particular, thosethat are extracted from strategic ecosystems, avoiding significant negative environmental
impacts and the loss of biodiversity.
• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
The Colombian Green Taxonomy addresses these requirements from the generic
DNSH while EU Taxonomy makes use of the specific requirements on circular
economy for this activity:
The activity assesses the availability of and, where feasible, adopts techniques that support:• Reuse and use of secondary raw materials and re-used components in products manufactured;• Design for high durability, recyclability, easy disassembly and adaptability of
products manufactured;• Waste management that prioritises recycling over disposal, in the manufacturing process;• Information on and traceability of substances of concern throughout the life cycle of the
manufactured products (The Colombian Green Taxonomy addresses this from the DNSH toecosystem protection and restoration).

Pollution control
and prevention

INCOMPARABLE

Both Taxonomies have very different criteria on pollution control and prevention
for this activity:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires compliance with the requirements contained in
REACH7 or equivalent (e.g. responsible care) for the manufactured projects.
• In the EU Taxonomy, regarding low-carbon technologies for transport, where applicable,
vehicles do not contain lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium and cadmium, in accordancewith Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative60

Colombian
activity

M2. Components for the manufacturing of cement

EU activity

3.7. Manufacture of cement

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirement and thresholds:• For grey cement clinker where the specific GHG emissions are lower than: 0.8 (Colombian
Green Taxonomy) or 0.722 (EU Taxonomy) tCO2e per tonne of grey cement clinker.
• For cement from grey clinker or alternative hydraulic binder, where the specific GHG
emissions from the clinker and cement or alternative binder production are lower than:
0.6 (Colombian Green Taxonomy) or 0.469 (EU Taxonomy) tCO2e per tonne of cement oralternative binder manu-factured.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Circular economy

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has generic requirements while the EU Taxonomy
does not have generic DNSH on circular economy:

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILED• The EU taxonomy has more detailed requirements:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Pollution control
and prevention• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

• Both taxonomies state that for manufacture of cement employing hazardous wastes asalternative fuels, measures are in place to ensure the safe handling of waste.
The EU Taxonomy also states that:• Emissions are within or lower than the emission levels associated with the best available
techniques (BAT-AEL) ranges set out in the latest relevant best available techniques (BAT)
conclusions for the production of cement, lime and magnesium oxide. Additionally, no
significant cross-media effects should occur.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative61

Colombian
activity

M3. Components for the manufacturing of aluminium

EU activity

3.8. Manufacture of aluminium

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements and thresholds:
The activity manufactures one of the following:a. Primary aluminium where the economic activity complies with two of the following criteria
until 2025 (year restriction only for the EU Taxonomy) and with all of the following criteria
after 2025:
i. the GHG emissions do not exceed 1.5 (Colombian Green Taxonomy) or 1.484 (EU Taxonomy)
tCO2e per ton of aluminium manufactured;ii. the average carbon intensity for the indirect GHG emissions does not exceed 100g CO2e/kWh;iii. the electricity consumption for the manufacturing process does not exceed 15.3
(Colombian Green Taxonomy) or 15.5 (EU Taxonomy) MWh/t Al.
b. Secondary aluminium.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Circular economy

Pollution control
and prevention

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has generic requirements while the EU Taxonomy
does not have generic DNSH on circular economy:

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

• The requirements on both taxonomies seek to control the level of emissions in air and water.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative

62

Colombian
activity

M4. Components for the manufacturing of iron and steel

EU activity

3.9. Manufacture of iron and steel

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirement and thresholds:
The activity manufactures one of the following:a. Iron and steel where GHG emissions do not exceed the following values applied to thedifferent manufacturing process steps:
i. hot metal = 1.328 (Colombian Green Taxonomy) or 1.331 (EU Taxonomy) tCO2e/t product;
ii. sintered ore = 0.171 (Colombian Green Taxonomy) or 0.163 (EU Taxonomy) tCO2e/t product;iii. coke (excluding lignite coke) = 0.287 (Colombian Green Taxonomy) or 0.144 (EU Taxonomy)
tCO2e/t product;
iv. iron casting = 0.325 (Colombian Green Taxonomy) or 0.299 (EU Taxonomy) tCO2e/t product;
v. electric arc furnace (EAF) high alloy steel = 0.352 (Colombian Green Taxonomy) or 0.266 (EUTaxonomy) tCO2e/t product;vi. electric arc furnace (EAF) carbon steel = 0.283 (Colombian Green Taxonomy) or 0.209(EU Tax-onomy) tCO2e/t product;b. steel in electric arc furnaces producing EAF carbon steel or EAF high alloy steel where thesteel scrap input relative to product output is not lower than:i. 70% for the production of high alloy steel (only for the EU Taxonomy);ii. 90% for the production of carbon steel (both taxonomies).

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has specific requirements while the EU Taxonomy
does not have specific DNSH on water management:

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has generic requirements while the EU Taxonomy
does not have generic DNSH on circular economy:

Circular economy

Pollution control
and prevention

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

VERY SIMILAR• The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires the assessment of emissions of hydrocarbons
and suspended solids into water, as well as for the control of waste and products from cokeand smelting operations, including tar and benzol.

• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• The requirements on both taxonomies seek to control the level of emissions in air.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative

63

Colombian
activity

M5. Manufacture of chlorine

EU activity

3.13. Manufacture of chlorine

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirement and thresholds:• Electricity consumption for electrolysis and chlorine treatment is equal or lower than 2.5(Colombian Green Taxonomy) or 2.45 MWh (EU Taxonomy) per tonne of chlorine.
• Average life-cycle GHG emissions of the electricity used for chlorine production are at or
lower than 100gCO2e/kWh (both taxonomies).
• The EU Taxonomy suggests different methodologies to calculate the lifecycle GHG
emissions, and also states that quantified life-cycle GHG emissions are verified by anindependent third party.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Circular economy

Pollution control
and prevention

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has generic requirements while the EU Taxonomy
does not have generic DNSH on circular economy:

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy does not have specific DNSH requirements on
pollution control and prevention while the EU Taxonomy does:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

• Emissions are within or lower than the emission levels associated with the best available
techniques (BAT-AEL) ranges set out in the latest relevant best available techniques (BAT)
conclusions for the production of chlor-alkali, and for common wastewater and waste gas
treatment/management systems in the chemical sector. Additionally, no significant crossmedia effects should occur.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative64Colombian
activity

M6. Components for the manufactureof organic basic chemicals

EU activity

3.14. Manufacture of organic basic chemicals

TSC comparison
Summary

INCOMPARABLE

Both taxonomies address this activity differently:• The screening criteria in the Colombian Green Taxonomy are mainly focused on the
production of organic chemicals produced from biomass; while the EU Taxonomy, in
addition to addressing these criteria, also states the maximum of GHG emissions for the
production of: HVC, aromatics, vinyl chloride, styrene, ethylene oxide/ethylene glycols andadipic acid. The Colombian Green Taxonomy does not address the manufacturing of thesechemicals since they are not relevant for the country’s economy.
• Both taxonomies recommend methodologies to calculate life-cycle GHG emissions (the ISO
14067:2018 is recommended in both taxonomies and Recommendation 2013/179/EU oralternatively ISO 14064-1:2018 is only recommended in the EU Taxonomy).

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
The Colombian Green Taxonomy has generic requirements while the EU Taxonomy
does not have generic DNSH on circular economy:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Circular economy

Pollution control
and prevention

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has generic requirements while the EU Taxonomy
does not have generic DNSH on circular economy:

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy does not have specific DNSH requirements on
pollution control and prevention while the EU Taxonomy does:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

• Emissions are within or lower than the emission levels associated with the best available
techniques (BAT-AEL) ranges set out in the latest relevant best available techniques (BAT)
conclusions for the production of large volumes of organic chemicals, and for common
waste water and waste gas treatment/management systems in the chemical sector.
Additionally, no significant cross-media effects should occur.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative65Colombian
activity

M7. Components involved in the manufactureof plastics in primary form

EU activity

3.17. Manufacture of plastics in primary form

TSC comparison
Summary

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirement and thresholds:• Plastic in primary form is fully manufactured by mechanical recycling of plastic waste.
• If mechanical recycling is not possible, the plastic in primary form is fully manufactured bychemical recycling of plastic waste and the life-cycle GHG emissions of the manufactured
plastic are lower than the life-cycle GHG emissions of the equivalent plastic in primary form
manufactured from fossil fuel feedstock.
• Both taxonomies propose guidelines to calculate the life-cycle GHG emissions, where ISO
14067:2018 is suggested in both taxonomies.
• Both taxonomies state criteria for agricultural biomass used for the manufacture of plastic
in its primary form.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

INCOMPARABLE

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Water management

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies address DNSH on CC adaptation differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy still does not address the adaptation objective. It only
mentions a generic DNSH to climate change adaptation, while the EU Taxonomy goes
further on this point and mentions a classification of climate-related hazards to not
do any harm.
Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
The Colombian Green Taxonomy has generic requirements while the EU Taxonomy
does not have generic DNSH on circular economy:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.

Circular economy

Pollution control
and prevention

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILEDLESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has generic requirements while the EU Taxonomy
does not have generic DNSH on circular economy:• Please refer to the comparison of the generic DNSH criteria on this.
The Colombian Green Taxonomy does not have specific requirements while the EU
Taxonomy does have specific DNSH on pollution control and prevention:• Emissions are within or lower than the emission levels associated with the best available
techniques (BAT-AEL) ranges set out in the latest relevant best available techniques (BAT)
conclusions, including:i. the Best Available Techniques Reference Document (BREF) for the Production of Polymers;
ii. the best available techniques (BAT) conclusions for common wastewater and waste gas
treatment/management systems in the chemical sector.
Additionally, no significant cross-media effects should occur.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative66

Forestry
Colombianactivity

Investments to strengthen the sustainable forestry sector:
Reduction of deforestation, degradation of natural forestsand other forestry risk
Technological development, technical assistanceand basic infrastructure

EU activity

1.3. Forest management

TSC comparison
Summary

INCOMPARABLE

Both taxonomies address this sector differently:• In the EU Taxonomy, the main objective is mitigation, while the Colombian Green
Taxonomy addresses five environmental objectives in a transversal manner: a) climatechange mitigation, b) adaptation to climate change, c) soil management, d) biodiversity
and ecosystem services, and e) water management.
• Both taxonomies require a forest management plan or an equivalent instrument. The EU
Taxonomy has a requirement for several sections within the plan that are not required in
the Colombian Green Taxonomy (climate benefit analysis, guarantee of permanence, audit
and group assessment).
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy stipulates different levels of practices or technologies(basic, intermediate, and advanced) aimed at ensuring the sustainability of the activity inrelation to the five environmental objectives.

Colombianactivity

Restoration of degraded forest soils

EU activity

1.2. Rehabilitation and restoration of forests, including
reforestation and natural forest regeneration after an
extreme event

TSC comparison
Summary

INCOMPARABLE

Both taxonomies address this sector differently:• In the EU Taxonomy, the main objective is mitigation, while the Colombian Green
Taxonomy addresses five environmental objectives in a transversal manner: a) climatechange mitigation, b) adaptation to climate change, c) soil management, d) biodiversity
and ecosystem services, and e) water management.
• Both taxonomies require a forest management plan or an equivalent instrument. The EU
Taxonomy has a requirement for several sections within the plan that are not required in
the Colombian Green Taxonomy (climate benefit analysis, guarantee of permanence, audit
and group assessment).
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy states different levels of practices or technologies (basic,
intermediate and advanced) aimed at ensuring the sustainability of the activity relating to
the five environmental objectives.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative67

Colombian
activity

Conservation, management and leverage of natural forests

EU activity

1.4. Conservation forestry

TSC comparison
Summary

INCOMPARABLE

Both taxonomies address this sector differently:• In the EU taxonomy, the main objective is mitigation, while the Colombian Green Taxonomy
addresses five environmental objectives in a transversal manner: a) climate change
mitigation, b) adaptation to climate change, c) soil management, d) biodiversity andecosystem services, and e) water management.
• Both taxonomies require a forest management plan or an equivalent instrument. The
EU Taxonomy has a requirement to include several sections within the plan that are
not required in the Colombian Green Taxonomy (climate benefit analysis, guarantee of
permanence, audit and group assessment).
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy states different levels of practices or technologies (basic,
iintermediate and advanced) aimed at ensuring the sustainability of the activity in relation
to the five environmental objectives.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative

68Colombian
activity

Reforestation with commercial purposes

EU activity

1.1. Afforestation

TSC comparison
Summary

INCOMPARABLE

Both taxonomies address this sector differently:• In the EU Taxonomy, the main objective is mitigation, while the Colombian Green
Taxonomy addresses five environmental objectives in a transversal manner: a) climatechange mitigation, b) adaptation to climate change, c) soil management, d) biodiversity
and ecosystem services, and e) water management.
• Both taxonomies require a forest management plan or an equivalent instrument. The
EU Taxonomy has a requirement to include several sections within the plan that are
not required in the Colombian Green Taxonomy (climate benefit analysis, guarantee of
permanence, audit and group assessment).
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy states different levels of practices or technologies (basic,
intermediate and advanced) aimed at ensuring the sustainability of the activity in relation to
the five environmental objectives.

Do No Significant Harm
Climate change
adaptation

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has some general DNSH requirements on water
while the EU Taxonomy does not:• Both taxonomies require the implementation of practices to reduce the physical risks
associated with the activity.
• The EU Taxonomy require a climate risk and vulnerability assessment which is
proportionate to the scale of the activity and its expected lifespan.

Conservation of
ecosystems andbiodiversity

VERY SIMILAR

Both taxonomies have similar requirements:• In areas designated by the national competent authority for conservation or in habitats thatare protected, the activity is in accordance with the conservation objectives for those areas(addressed as a normative requirement in the Colombian Green Taxonomy).
• Provisions for maintaining and possibly enhancing biodiversity in accordance with national
and local provisions (addressed as generic requirements for AFOLU sector in the Colombian
Green Taxonomy), for example:
i. Ensuring the good conservation status of habitat and species.
ii. The exclusion of the use of non-native species unless it leads to favourable and appropriate
ecosystem conditions.
iii. Ensuring the maintenance and improvement of the physical, chemical, and biologicalquality of the soil.
iv. Promoting biodiversity-friendly practices that enhance forests’ natural processes.
v. The exclusion of the conversion of high-biodiverse ecosystems into less biodiverse ones.
vi. Ensuring the diversity of associated habitats and species linked to the forest (addressedfrom sectorial practices in the Colombian Green Taxonomy).
vii. Ensuring the diversity of stand structures and maintenance, or enhancing of mature stage
stands and dead wood.

Water management

MORE STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
MORE DETAILED

The Colombian Green Taxonomy has more detailed requirements on water
for this activity:• Both taxonomies require the implementation of water use/conservation management
plans, in accordance with the applicable normative.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires the implementation of practices that enhancewater-use efficiency.
• The Colombian Green Taxonomy requires the implementation of practices to restore water bodies.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative69

Colombian
activity

Reforestation with commercial purposes

EU activity

1.1. Afforestation

Do No Significant Harm
Circular economy

INCOMPARABLE

Both taxonomies approach circular economy in forestry differently:• The Colombian Green Taxonomy in relation to sectorial practices proposes the generationof biofuel and fertilizers from organic waste.
• The EU Taxonomy in the specific DNSH requires that the silvicultural change induced by theactivity on the area covered by the activity is not likely to result in a significant reduction ofsustainable supply of primary forest biomass suitable for the manufacturing of wood-based
products with long-term circularity potential.

Pollution control
and prevention

LESS STRINGENT/AMBITIOUS AND/OR
LESS DETAILEDThe EU Taxonomy has more detailed requirements on pollution control andprevention in forestry:• Both taxonomies mandate that the pollution of water and soil is prevented; however, the EU
Taxonomy also requires that cleaning up measures are undertaken when pollution occurs.
• Both taxonomies require that the use of pesticides and fertilizers is reduced.
• The EU Taxonomy also prohibits the use of manure and provides guidance on forbidden
chemicals in pesticides.

Annex 2: Comparison tables by activity (with full criteria)
The content of Annex 2 can be found in thefollowing link: Comparison tables by activity
with full criteria. This annex provides the full
TSC and DNSH criteria for each economic
activity. The TSC in both the taxonomies, aresupplemented by detailed footnotes, which forthe sake of simplicity have not been included inthis document. The Annexes referred to in thecomparison tables refer to the Annexes in the EU
Climate Delegated Act. Please note that when an
activity does not have specific DNSHs, the generic
DNSHs are parsed instead.
Annex 2_English

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative70

Endnotes
1. The EU Climate Dialogues (EUCDs) project aims to support theEUʼs bilateral relations with external partners on climate-related
policies and to promote the effective implementation of the Paris
Agreement. Its objective is to foster ambitious climate policies andinvestment in economies outside the EU, and avail EU expertise andpolicy experience in the area of climate-related economic activity.
Additionally, the project works on reinforcing climate-related bilateral
trade, investment, and innovation while enhancing public awareness,
including the business community.
2. Gobierno de Colombia. 2022. Taxonomía Verde de Colombia.
https://www.taxonomiaverde.gov.co/
3. Superintendencia Financiera de Colombia. 2022. Circular externa
005 -2022. https://www.cerlatam.com/normatividad/superfinancieracircular-externa-005-de-2022/#:~:text=La%20SuperFinanciera%20
adopta%20la%20Taxonom%C3%ADa,movilizar%20recursos%20
hacia%20sectores%20sostenibles.
4. Superintendencia Financiera de Colombia. 2023.
Resolucion 0586 - 2023. https://www.superfinanciera.gov.co/jsp/10112935
5. Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Central
Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee and theCommittee of the Regions, Action Plan: Financing Sustainable
Growth, COM/2018/097 final, 8.3.2018.
6. Europe an Commission we bsite : https://finance .e c.e uropa.e u/publications/te chnical-e xpe rt-groupsustainable -finance -te g_e n
7. Register expert groups website: https://ec.europa.eu/
transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-groups/consult?
lang=en&do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3588
8. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 of 4 June 2021
supplementing Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliamentand of the Council by establishing the technical screening criteria for
determining the conditions under which an economic activity
qualifies as contributing substantially to climate change mitigation or
climate change adaptation and for determining whether that
economic activity causes no significant harm to any of the otherenvironmental objectives, OJ L 442, pp. 1–349.
9. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 of 9 March 2022
amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 as regards economic
activities in certain energy sectors and Delegated Regulation (EU)2021/2178 as regards specific public disclosures for those economic
activities, OJ L 188, pp. 1–45.

10.Commission Delegated Regulation of 27.6.2023 supplementing
Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of theCouncil by establishing the technical screening criteria for
determining the conditions under which an economic activity
qualifies as contributing substantially to the sustainable use andprotection of water and marine resources, to the transition to acircular economy, to pollution prevention and control, or to theprotection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems and for
determining whether that economic activity causes no significant
harm to any of the other environmental objectives and amending
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178 as regards specific public
disclosures for those economic activities, C(2023) 3851 final.
11. Commission Delegated Regulation of 27.6.2023 amending
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 establishing additional
technical screening criteria for determining the conditions underwhich certain economic activities qualify as contributing
substantially to climate change mitigation or climate change
adaptation and for determining whether those activities cause no
significant harm to any of the other environmental objectives,C(2023) 3850 final.
12. Both, the LAC Common Framework principles and the G20
guiding principles which were considered, follow the same guiding
principles of the EU and Colombian Taxonomies.
13. Including the six transitional activities in the energy sector addedby the Complementary Climate Delegated Act:re-commercial stagesof advanced technologies to produce energy from nuclear processes
with minimal waste from the fuel cycle; Construction and safe
operation of new nuclear power plants, for the generation ofelectricity and/or heat, including for hydrogen production, using
best-available technologies; Electricity generation from nuclear
energy in existing installations; Electricity generation from fossil
gaseous fuels; High-efficiency co-generation of heat/cool and powerfrom fossil gaseous fuels; and Production of heat/cool from fossil
gaseous fuels in an efficient district heating and cooling system.
14. Climate change mitigation, Climate change adaptation, Soil
management, Water management, Ecosystem, and biodiversity
conservation.
15. Social objectives have not yet been developed in bothtaxonomies, but mainly social objectives are included throughminimum safeguards.
16. The Sustainable Finance for Biodiversity in Brazil and Colombia SF4B (2021- 2023) project, led by Fondo Acción, established theneed to promote the involvement of the financial sector in
biodiversity management in the country, highlighting theprioritisation of the following actions: developing an online courseon biodiversity finance and green taxonomies; and pilots to apply ataxonomy proposal for biodiversity.
17. Moncaleano, A. M., Rodríguez, A., Rojas, F., Valenzuela, E. May
2022. Panorama nacional de las finanzas para la biodiversidad:
Estado actual y retos en Colombia. Fondo Acción.

18. The minimum safeguards are part of the Taxonomy Regulation(TR) and are based on the recommendation from the Technical Expert Group(TEG) expressed in its report published in March 2020. This ensures that
entities which are carrying out environmentally sustainable activities, meetcertain minimum governance standards and do not violate social norms, as
laid out in Article 18.
19. The OECD MNE guidelines recommend that enterprises apply good
governance practices as set out in the Principles of Corporate Governance.
Available at: https://www.oecd.org/corporate/mne/ncps.htm
20. Pillar two of the UNGPs specifies a standard of conduct forbusiness entities to implement respect for human rights. In terms of defining
human rights, the UNGPs refer to the International Bill of Human Rights(IBHR) and the ILO Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.
Available at: https://www.ilo.org/declaration/lang--en/index.htm
21. Set of human rights instruments proclaimed by the United Nations(Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (1966), International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights (1966)) Available at: https://www. ohchr.org/en/what-arehuman-rights/international-bill-human-rights.
22. European Union. (2019). Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 on sustainability-related
disclosures in the financial services sector. Official Journal of the European
Union, L 317, pp. 1-20.
23. Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Councilof 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive
2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards
corporate sustainability reporting. Official Journal of the European Union, L
322, pp. 15–80.
24. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence and amending Directive (EU)2019/1937, COM/2022/71 final, 23.2.2022
25. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178 of 6 July 2021
supplementing Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of
the Council by specifying the content and presentation of information to bedisclosed by undertakings subject to Articles 19a or 29a of Directive 2013/34/
EU concerning environmentally sustainable economic activities, andspecifying the methodology to comply with that disclosure obligation, OJ L
443, pp. 9–67.
26. European Commission website. 2023. Sustainable Finance: Commission
welcomes political agreement on European green bond standard. https://
ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_23_1301
27. European Commission website. 2023. Sustainable Finance Package.
https://
finance.ec.europa.eu/publications/sustainable-finance-package-2023_en

Prepared by the Climate Bonds Initiative and Ambire Global in the frame of the European Union Climate Dialogues (EUCDs) project

Authors from Climate Bonds: Valeria Dagnino and Adelaida Peláez
Contributors: Matteo Bigoni, Andrés Felipe Sánchez, Iraís Vásquez andZofia Wetmańska
Authors from Ambire Global: Isabel González and Erika Porras
Contributors: Vishwas Vidyaranya and Prateek Kumar
Suggested citation: Comparison study between the Colombian and the
EU Taxonomies, Climate Bonds Initiative and Ambire Global, July 2023
Editorial support: Stephanie Edghill and Caroline Harrison
Design: Godfrey Design, Joel Milsted© Published by Climate Bonds Initiative, July 2023
Updated Edition: Approved Version - September 2023
www.climatebonds.net
Disclaimer: The information contained in this communication does not constitute investment advice in any form, and the Climate Bonds Initiative is not an investment adviser. Any reference to a financial organisation
or debt instrument, or investment product is for information purposes only. Links to external websites are for information purposes only. The Climate Bonds Initiative accepts no responsibility for the content on external
websites. The Climate Bonds Initiative is not endorsing, recommending, or advising on the financial merits or otherwise of any debt instrument or investment product, and no information within this communication
should be taken as such, nor should any information in this communication be relied upon in making any investment decision. Certification under the Climate Bond Standard only reflects the climate attributes of theuse of proceeds of a designated debt instrument. It does not reflect the credit worthiness of the selected debt instrument nor its compliance with national or international laws. A decision to invest in anything is solely
yours. The Climate Bonds Initiative accepts no liability of any kind for any investment an individual or organisation makes, nor for any investment made by third parties on behalf of an individual or organisation, basedin whole or in part on any information contained within this or any other Climate Bonds Initiative public communication.

Comparision Study between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies Climate Bonds Initiative

71