By Andressa Lima (CFC-GS/ UFPA)
When discussing climate finance, it is natural to think first about resources for clean energy, emissions reductions, forest protection, or climate change adaptation. But there is a question that comes before that: how can we know where to act, track progress, and assess results if the available information still contains gaps? How can we estimate how much a climate policy costs, what results it produces, and where resources can be better directed without systems capable of continuously producing and organizing this information?
These questions become particularly relevant in light of the findings of the first technical review of Brazil’s Biennial Transparency Report (BTR), conducted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). BTRs are part of the Enhanced Transparency Framework established under Article 13 of the Paris Agreement and are the instrument through which countries periodically report information on their greenhouse gas emissions, progress in implementing and achieving their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and other information required under international climate transparency rules. This process makes it possible to track, over time, how commitments made under the Paris Agreement are being implemented.
Brazil submitted its first BTR in December 2024, initiating the technical review process conducted by an international team of UNFCCC experts. The results of this assessment were published in January 2026 and examine the consistency of the information submitted by the country, progress in implementing and achieving its NDC, and areas for improvement and capacity-building needs. Just as relevant as the findings themselves is the expert team’s recommendation that Brazil’s next review (BTR2) be conducted in-country, with experts visiting Brazil. This recommendation reflects the complexity and significance of the gaps identified, particularly in the land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector, which accounts for the largest share of Brazil’s emissions.
The findings are presented in two complementary documents: the Technical Review Report, which brings together the main conclusions of the review, and the Addendum, which provides further detail on the areas for improvement and capacity-building needs identified by the experts. Together, the documents provide a picture not only of Brazil’s progress in tracking its climate targets, but also of the conditions required to produce the information underpinning this process. This is precisely where the review intersects with the climate finance debate, highlighting the importance of institutional and technical capacity to produce data, monitor policies, estimate their effects, and assess the results achieved.
In Brazil’s case, the review points to progress while also identifying gaps in this information infrastructure. Some of these gaps help explain why discussing climate finance also means considering the capacity to measure costs, monitor actions, and produce evidence on their results.
What do the available data tell us about Brazil?
One of the central aspects of the review is Brazil’s progress toward its NDC. The document considers the targets of limiting the country’s total net emissions to 1.32 billion tonnes of CO₂ equivalent in 2025 and 1.20 billion tonnes in 2030, corresponding to reductions of 48.4% and 53.1%, respectively, compared with 2005 levels.
Assessing this progress, however, is constrained by the availability of information. The data submitted by Brazil extend only through 2022, when net emissions were 20.4% below 2005 levels and amounted to approximately 2.04 billion tonnes of CO₂ equivalent. Although these figures indicate a reduction compared with the base year, they do not yet show how the country has progressed in subsequent years toward its 2025 and 2030 targets. For this reason, the expert review team concluded that there was not yet sufficient data to adequately assess Brazil’s progress in implementing its NDC.
This time lag reinforces the importance of continuously monitoring emissions and the results of mitigation actions. The review itself notes that regular monitoring can help identify whether adjustments to policies and measures are needed to achieve the intended reductions. More than simply determining whether emissions increased or decreased in a given year, this requires understanding the extent to which implemented actions are contributing to the country’s emissions trajectory and producing information frequently enough to inform decision-making.
Brazil reported a range of policies and measures related to the implementation of its NDC, including the 2024–2035 National Climate Change Plan, increased electricity supply from renewable sources, RenovaBio, the ABC+ Plan, plans for preventing and controlling deforestation across Brazilian biomes, and the National Plan for Native Vegetation Recovery. The review recognizes these initiatives but notes that it remains difficult to assess their contribution to emissions reductions given the information available on the expected and achieved reductions associated with these actions and policies.
This difficulty in tracking the effects of policies brings climate transparency closer to the climate finance debate. Information on results achieved, costs involved, and the evolution of emissions helps build a more consistent basis for planning climate action and evaluating implemented measures. The review shows that Brazil already has policies and monitoring systems in place, while also highlighting the need to strengthen the production and organization of the information used in this process.
Why does data also matter for climate finance?
The needs identified by the review appear across different parts of Brazil’s transparency system. The report highlights the need to strengthen the institutional arrangements responsible for preparing national greenhouse gas inventories, particularly in the industrial processes and product use (IPPU) and land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sectors. Areas identified for improvement include data collection and management, the use of more advanced methodologies, and capacity-building for the experts involved in this work.
The Addendum provides further detail on these needs and shows how they arise across different sectors. In the waste sector, for example, experts identified the systematization of databases on solid waste generation and treatment as a high-priority need, with the aim of improving the classification of disposal sites throughout the time series. The document also identifies needs related to emissions estimates, the quality of data used in calculations, and the development of systems capable of maintaining this information over time.
For the climate finance debate, one of the most relevant issues concerns the capacity to evaluate mitigation actions themselves. The review identifies a need to develop technical capacity, data collection systems, methodologies, and institutional arrangements that make it possible to understand how different policies and measures interact and influence emissions. This also involves gathering information on the costs of each action, policy, and measure, as well as their economic and social impacts. Understanding these elements improves the ability to assess not only policy performance but also the needs associated with implementation.
Building this capacity also requires resources. Brazil reported receiving USD 11.3 million in 2023–2024 as part of support related to the implementation of Article 13 of the Paris Agreement and transparency activities. Among other initiatives, this amount is associated with a Global Environment Facility (GEF) project supporting the preparation of Brazil’s fifth National Communication and its BTRs, as well as the strengthening of the national transparency system, DataClima+. The amount does not represent the total climate finance received by Brazil, but it illustrates how maintaining and improving the infrastructure needed to produce climate information also requires resources.
At the conclusion of the review, the experts identify strengthening institutional, technical, and financial capacity as one of Brazil’s main needs to ensure the timely and sustainable production of emissions projections and information on the impacts of mitigation actions. Data therefore play several roles in this discussion. They help track policies, understand costs, and assess results, while their production itself depends on investment, qualified technical teams, and institutions capable of sustaining this work over time.
The UNFCCC review shows that Brazil’s climate transition depends not only on setting targets and mobilizing resources. It also requires producing information that makes it possible to understand how much actions cost, what effects they are generating, and where further progress is needed. Data do not replace finance, but they support better-informed decisions about the implementation of the climate agenda. For Brazil, the challenge therefore involves not only expanding the resources available, but also strengthening the conditions needed to guide their use and understand their results.
References
UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC). Report on the technical expert review of the first biennial transparency report of Brazil. FCCC/ETF/TERR.1/2024/BRA. Bonn: UNFCCC, 2026. Available on the UNFCCC website. Accessed: 25 Aug. 2026.
UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC). Report on the technical expert review of the first biennial transparency report of Brazil: Addendum 1. FCCC/ETF/TERR.1/2024/BRA/Add.1. Bonn: UNFCCC, 2026. Available on the UNFCCC website. Accessed: 25 Aug. 2026.
