# Costa Rica-Colombia Taxonomy Alignment

## Overview

<table id="bkmrk-fieldvaluecountrycos"><tr><th>Field</th><th>Value</th></tr><tr><td>country</td><td>Costa Rica</td></tr><tr><td>comparison</td><td>Costa Rica GF Taxonomy vs Colombia Taxonomía Verde</td></tr><tr><td>shared\_influence</td><td>CBI, EU Taxonomy, UNEP FI LATAM Framework</td></tr><tr><td>last\_updated</td><td>2026-05-26</td></tr></table>

## Shared Foundations

Both Costa Rica and Colombia built their green finance taxonomies on common international foundations: the EU Taxonomy architecture (substantial contribution + DNSH + social safeguards), Climate Bonds Initiative sector criteria, and the UNEP FI Common Framework for Sustainable Finance Taxonomies for Latin America and the Caribbean (2023). This shared heritage means approximately 70% of eligible activities overlap between the two taxonomies, particularly in energy, transport, construction, and water sectors.

## Sector Coverage Comparison

<table id="bkmrk-sectorcolombia-tvcco"><tr><th>Sector</th><th>Colombia TVC</th><th>Costa Rica GF</th><th>Notes</th></tr><tr><td>Energy</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Both cover renewables, grid, storage. CR stronger on geothermal.</td></tr><tr><td>Transport</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Both cover electromobility. CR more advanced in EV adoption.</td></tr><tr><td>Construction</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Green buildings, energy efficiency. Similar criteria.</td></tr><tr><td>Water</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Both cover treatment and supply. CR has stronger watershed focus.</td></tr><tr><td>Waste</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Waste-to-energy, recycling, circular economy.</td></tr><tr><td>Agriculture</td><td>Y (tiered)</td><td>Y</td><td>Colombia has basic/intermediate/advanced tiers. CR uses PES framework.</td></tr><tr><td>Livestock</td><td>Y (tiered)</td><td>Y</td><td>Colombia more detailed with practice tiers for cattle.</td></tr><tr><td>Forestry</td><td>Y (tiered)</td><td>Y</td><td>Both cover reforestation. CR PES model is more established.</td></tr><tr><td>Manufacturing</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Clean industrial processes in both.</td></tr><tr><td>ICT</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Both include ICT for environmental monitoring.</td></tr></table>

## Key Differences

- **Agricultural depth:** Colombia's TVC has a three-tier practice classification (basic, intermediate, advanced) for agriculture, livestock, and forestry. Costa Rica does not tier but relies on PES eligibility and NAMA alignment.
- **Hydrogen:** Both countries are developing hydrogen roadmaps, but Colombia's is more advanced with a published strategy. Costa Rica's hydrogen activities are covered but less detailed.
- **Fossil fuel transition:** Colombia's taxonomy explicitly addresses transition activities for fossil fuels. Costa Rica, with near-100% renewable electricity, has less need for fossil transition categories.
- **Blue carbon:** Costa Rica's NDC explicitly includes blue carbon (mangroves, coastal wetlands). Colombia addresses this through biodiversity and LULUCF channels.
- **PES integration:** Costa Rica's taxonomy benefits from 25+ years of PES implementation through FONAFIFO, giving it stronger forest finance infrastructure than any other LATAM country.

## Interoperability Implications for Origo

For the Cleantech Taxonomy crosswalk, the high sector overlap means most nodes that are col\_gf\_aligned=Y will also be cr\_gf\_aligned=Y. The main divergences occur in: (a) fossil fuel transition nodes (Colombia Y, Costa Rica N), (b) carbon market nodes (neither taxonomy covers directly), and (c) advanced food-tech nodes like alternative proteins (neither covers). The EX-sector LATAM extensions (PES, agroforestry, silvopastoral) align strongly with both taxonomies.