Article Contents
Wall Street investors have earned billions financing activities linked to deforestation in the tropics, with forest loss reaching record highs last year. But a major proposal by Brazil’s COP30 presidency wants to turn financial markets into allies of the rainforest.
The Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), a proposed new fund seeking to raise cash for conservation efforts in tropical countries, is set to be launched at the COP30 climate summit in Belém later this year.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has rallied behind the initiative and secured key endorsements from the eight South American nations home to the entire Amazon Basin. Private banks and countries in the BRICS group of large emerging economies have voiced support.
COP30 president André Corrêa do Lago has said “the TFFF is the right answer for forest conservation”.
The initiative comes as developing countries have complained about being unable to access existing forest funds at the Global Environment Facility (GEF), while foreign aid budgets which have funded forest conservation shrink in the US and Europe.
Yet finance needs in developing countries are large and growing, with estimates ranging between $20 billion and $72 billion every year to protect forests. In contrast, in 2022, the total finance destined for forests was just $2.3 billion.
-
Amazon nations pledge support for Brazil’s COP30 rainforest fund
In a joint declaration issued at the Amazon summit, eight South American nations pledged to support Brazil’s Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) -
The Amazon rainforest emerges as the new global oil frontier
Half a century of oil drilling has left the world’s largest rainforest scarred by deforestation and pollution. Now it is bracing for a new wave of fossil fuel extraction -
COP30 PR firm found to be “uniquely reliant” on fossil fuel clients
Edelman relies on work with oil and gas firms like Shell and Chevron for a higher percentage of its income than any other PR agency, a new report found
What is the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF)?
The TFFF is being proposed as a blended finance instrument, with funding from both public and private sources. It would seek to directly pay tropical countries that can show effective forest protection.
On paper, the TFFF will get its money similarly to an investment fund. Donor countries and private investors put their money in the fund, which then invests the capital in financial markets. A part of the returns is used to pay back investors and what remains is allocated to forest protection in tropical countries.
“Think of a bank that runs normal market operations but that directs its profits not to shareholders but to forests,” said João Paulo de Resende, undersecretary for economic and fiscal affairs at Brazil’s Ministry of Finance.
In its most recent version, Brazilian officials propose that the fund starts with $125 billion in capital, of which $25 billion would come from donor countries and $100 billion from private investors.
The payments to forest countries would depend on the returns of the fund, but an 8% yield would allow the fund to pay at a rate of about $4 per hectare of protected forest — which in total could raise an estimated $2.8 billion for rainforests every year.
The Brazilian government has said donor countries could include the United Kingdom, Norway and the United Arab Emirates, while private investors endorsing the fund include investment managers PIMCO, Bank of America and Barclays.
Recipients would include tropical countries in major rainforest basins such as Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Indonesia, among others.
How is the TFFF different from other climate funds?
Other UN funds like the Green Climate Fund (GCF) or the GEF mostly give out one-time grants to countries that reduce emissions through projects and programmes to protect or restore forests (an approach known as REDD+). The TFFF would instead aim to reward countries that have kept their forests standing and can show results.
This “results-based payments” system is not new – the GCF, for example, gave out more than $500 million between 2015 and 2020 in this way. However, a fund solely for countries that can show success in preventing deforestation is a new way to target large intact rainforests, which struggle to receive REDD+ funding, said Torbjørn Gjefsen, international forest finance advisor at the Rainforest Foundation Norway.
“There is complementarity. It’s not competing with REDD+,” said Gjefsen. “If fully operational, it will substantially increase the amount of funding available for this kind of results-based payments.”
Amid a context of tighter foreign aid spending, another key difference is that the TFFF would seek to attract investments rather than depending on donations from public budgets.
The fund’s concept note claims that, if fully operational, the one-time investment from donor countries would allow payments to forest nations for as much as 40 years in the future.
Finally, unlike the other UN environmental funds, the TFFF is being proposed as a mechanism hosted by the World Bank outside of UN environmental conventions.
Sandra Guzman, founder of the Climate Finance Group for Latin America and the Caribbean (GFLAC), said this could potentially help convince large developing countries like China to contribute funds without having to assume donor-country responsibilities at the UN negotiations. Chinese officials have welcomed the TFFF and said they “hope it plays a positive role”.
Colombia announces fossil fuel phase-out summit to be held in 2026
How will the TFFF make money from financial markets?
In tapping financial markets, the TFFF will have to also deal with risk. If investments don’t generate the expected yields, payments to forest countries would need to be paused and paid out later, de Resende said.
The Brazilian government’s estimates show that if the TFFF had been operating in the last 20 years, it would have been under financial stress on two occasions: during the 2008 financial crisis and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The TFFF’s models project a 60% chance that payments to forest countries would need to be slightly reduced at some point in the fund’s lifespan.
The Brazilian authorities remain optimistic, as most value fluctuations are likely to be small, they say. Resende said that “over the long run, this risk is minimal.”
The TFFF’s main strategy is to get cheap money from investors and lend money to emerging economies at much higher interest rates. Emerging market bonds would account for as much as 80% of its investments.
Critics say this could be a risky strategy, which is precisely why these emerging countries pay higher interest rates. “The risk of Egypt’s state bond is just not the same as the risk of US treasury bonds,” said Max Alexander Matthey, co-founder of Climate Impact Auctions.
Another key point is that, for the fund to achieve the promised payments, it would need to borrow money at a very low cost, so it would need a top-category AAA rating from credit rating agencies. Brazilian authorities have been in discussion with agencies on this and have said they aim to receive a “shadow rating” for the TFFF before COP30.
As part of the strategy, the fund will also exclude any investments in polluting industries such as coal, oil and gas.
Can COP30 turn adaptation talks into real-world investments?
Who is allowed to receive payments from the TFFF?
According to the fund’s concept note, the 74 countries that are home to rainforests could be eligible to apply for TFFF payments if they meet the required criteria.
To access funds, tropical countries must demonstrate that they are reducing deforestation in a defined area, have a robust forest measurement system and a set of forest policies, and demonstrate that the payments will not replace national resources.
Countries would also have to commit to reserve at least 20% of payments for Indigenous people. While an important step, Guzman said this could be tricky in practice because of the challenges of directly transferring funds to these communities.
“Indigenous communities do not always have formal legal structures or administrative capacity,” she said. “It’s not easy, but it is desirable that communities start building these legal mechanisms.”
Currently not many forest countries meet the minimum requirements to be eligible for TFFF payments.
Online platform TFFF Watch, built by NGO Plant for the Planet, estimates that major countries like the DRC and Indonesia would not qualify for payments due to high deforestation rates, and would be missing on annual deals worth $400 million and $450 million respectively.
On the other hand, Papua New Guinea would be greatly benefitted if the TFFF went into operation exactly as laid out in its concept note, according to TFFF Watch. The country is already eligible for around $120 million in annual rewards, the platform estimates.
As shown by recent wildfires in the Amazon, some countries could end up losing or seeing some of their forests degraded even with robust protections. In these cases, countries would get their payments cut by the same ratio as they lose forests.
Yet once they do access TFFF funding, forest countries will have full authority over how to use the funds.
Brazilian government authorities have sent a letter of intent to the World Bank, which will have to decide by October whether it will host the TFFF. By COP30, Brazil plans to sign a declaration of intent with donor countries.
The post Explainer: Brazil’s “right answer” to forest finance turns to financial markets to keep rainforests standing appeared first on Climate Home News.
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2025/09/23/explainer-brazil-forest-finance-financial-markets-tfff-cop30/
Continue Reading
An older teaching about land acknowledgement
As I have come to understand the spirit and intention of land acknowledgement, I often return to fond memories of my grandmother and her words of wisdom. She taught that the health of the places we call home comes first, because the wellbeing of the people depends on it.
In her teaching, land acknowledgement began with the land. Long before it became a paragraph read at the start of a meeting, it was a way of recognizing a homeland: its waters, its species, its seasons, and the spirit that revealed whether the place was well.
Her teaching echoes a practice found across many Indigenous Nations. Haudenosaunee gatherings, for example, have long opened with the Ohén:ton Karihwatéhkwen, the Thanksgiving Address, often translated as “the words that come before all else.” The speaker greets and gives thanks to the people, the earth, the waters, the plants, the animals, the winds, the sun, the moon and the stars. Only after everything that sustains life has been acknowledged does the gathering turn to its own business.
That order changes what an acknowledgement is for. Its purpose was to share the story of a place with neighbours and to draw them into the work of tending it. People entered the story second, as the ones responsible for what had just been named.
Understood this way, an acknowledgement does more than open a meeting. It asks us to reconsider where we stand, and what we owe the ground beneath us.
Nations among nations
In her teaching, people are one nation among many. The salmon are a nation. So are the cedars, the bison, the medicine plants, and the pollinators. Each belongs to a place, carries its own responsibilities, and offers gifts no other nation can give.
This idea of kinship runs through many Indigenous philosophies. The phrase “all my relations,” heard in ceremonies and gatherings across Turtle Island, is a reminder that family extends beyond people to the animals, plants, waters and lands that make life possible. Some Indigenous languages carry the same understanding in their grammar, speaking of many plants, animals and natural forces as living beings rather than objects.
Sovereignty, understood through this relationship, is a kind of standing more than a form of control. Each nation belongs fully to its place and carries its share of that place’s life. No nation thrives alone, and none thrives by taking over the whole.
The land is also the source of instruction. Over generations, people watched how a river valley or a stretch of prairie kept itself well: who arrived when, who fed whom, and how much could be taken before the giving stopped. In my grandmother’s telling, those observations became instructions, and those instructions helped shape law and protocol. They guided when to harvest, where to camp, how to enter a neighbour’s territory, and what was owed in return.
Indigenous legal scholars today often describe this as law that comes from the land itself, learned by watching how living systems sustain one another. A plainer name for it is knowing how to live somewhere.
The host and the guest
One of the clearest teachings in this understanding of the world is the relationship between host and guest. My grandmother invited us to recognize that relationship in the lives of plants and animals.
A host prepares the place before anyone arrives. A beaver family dams a stream, and the pond becomes a home for fish, frogs, birds and plants. A fallen tree becomes a nurse log, feeding the next generation of seedlings as it returns to the soil.
A host offers first. A flowering plant sets out nectar. A berry bush ripens fruit. These provisions come in their own season, not whenever a visitor happens to want them.
A host also makes its presence known. Birdsong, scent and the marks left along a trail tell newcomers that a place is already inhabited. The visitor does not arrive in an empty world.
The guest has responsibilities too. A guest attends to the season and to what the place can offer. A guest does not assume that everything within reach is theirs to take. A guest leaves something that helps sustain the relationship.
A bee takes nectar and carries pollen. Read through this teaching, that exchange offers an image of visiting well: receiving a gift while helping the host continue its life.
Many Indigenous harvesting protocols carry the same ethic into daily practice: ask before taking, take only what is needed, offer thanks, and leave enough for others and for the plant or animal to recover.
None of this suggests that every relationship in nature is peaceful or generous. These are ways of seeing responsibilities that people can learn to carry.
Everyone is both
No being is only a host or only a guest.
A tree makes room for other life while depending on soil, water, sunlight, fungi, and relationships beyond itself. People, too, may welcome others into their homes while remaining dependent on the larger homeland that sustains them.
The distinction between host and guest is therefore about roles, not ranks. Everyone receives. Everyone has something to give.
The question is whether the exchange sustains the place.
A visitor who takes without restraint leaves less for those who come next. A host who neglects the place has less to offer. Both have responsibilities, and neither can fulfil them alone.
This is the heart of reciprocity, a principle found across Indigenous philosophies: relationships stay healthy when gifts move in both directions. The Haudenosaunee teaching of the seventh generation extends that exchange across time, asking that decisions made today leave the place well for those not yet born.
Mutual benefit begins here, with the recognition that different beings carry different gifts and obligations.
What people carry forward
My grandmother’s teaching connects these relationships to the ways people meet their neighbours.
The host prepares a place, offers food and rest, and explains where the visitor has arrived. The guest makes themselves known, explains why they have come, listens to the terms of the visit, and brings something in return. The gift may be material. It may also be labour, knowledge, news, or a commitment to help.
Nations around the Great Lakes carried this ethic into treaty. The Dish with One Spoon, an agreement among the Haudenosaunee, Anishinaabe and allied Nations, describes shared hunting grounds as a single dish. Everyone eats from it with one spoon, takes only what they need, leaves enough for others, and keeps the dish clean. The Two Row Wampum, between the Haudenosaunee and European newcomers, shows two vessels travelling side by side on the same river, each keeping its own ways and neither steering the other.
In this understanding, acknowledgement is more than naming the people associated with a territory. It is learning enough about a homeland to behave responsibly within it.
Whose home is this? What sustains it? What laws and agreements guide our presence? What can we receive, and what must we return?
These questions make acknowledgement a relationship rather than a recital.
They also make it diplomatic. A guest who recognizes the host’s homeland recognizes that they have entered a place with its own relationships and responsibilities. A host who welcomes the guest makes room for an encounter governed by those relationships.
Neither arrives without standing. Neither arrives without obligations.
Beginning with place
I write from the shores of the Bay of Quinte. Here, the teaching asks me to begin with the water, the shoreline, and the life they sustain. Before I describe myself, I must attend to where I am.
That does not make people or history less important. It places them within the homeland that gives them meaning. The people, their laws, their agreements, and their responsibilities all belong to the place.
In a time of longer fire seasons, troubled waters, and uncertainty about what the next season will bring, this teaching asks something difficult and useful of us: pay attention before you speak.
An acknowledgement cannot tell the story of a place if the speaker has stopped noticing it.
The land came first. Beginning there again means learning to name what sustains us, and accepting that what sustains us also asks something of us.
By Rye Karonhiowanen Barberstock
Photo by Andrik Langfield on Unsplash
The post The Land Came First appeared first on Indigenous Climate Hub.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels and cement are projected to fall by around 0.4% in 2026 to 38.2bn tonnes of CO2 (GtCO2), according to new figures from the Global Carbon Project.
This guest post is by:
- Dr Zeke Hausfather, Carbon Brief’s climate science contributor
- Prof Pierre Friedlingstein, chair of mathematical modelling of climate systems at the University of Exeter and part of the