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. De 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, calculates that major countries like the DRC and Indonesia would not qualify for payments due to high deforestation rates, and would be missing out on annual deals worth $400 million and $450 million respectively.
On the other hand, Papua New Guinea would benefit greatly if the TFFF goes 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 protection measures in place. In these cases, countries would get their payments cut by the same ratio as they lose forests.
Yet once they do receive 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 markets to keep rainforest standing appeared first on Climate Home News.
Explainer: Brazil’s “right answer” to forest finance turns to markets to keep rainforest standing
Doubts over whether governments will maintain ambitious targets on boosting the use of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) are a threat to the industry’s growth and play into the hands of fossil fuel companies, investors warned this week.
Several executives from airlines and oil firms have forecast recently that SAF requirements in the European Union, United Kingdom and elsewhere will be eased or scrapped altogether, potentially upending the aviation industry’s main policy to shrink air travel’s growing carbon footprint.
Such speculation poses a “fundamental threat” to the SAF industry, which mainly produces an alternative to traditional kerosene jet fuel using organic feedstocks such as used cooking oil (UCO), Thomas Engelmann, head of energy transition at German investment manager KGAL, told the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Investor conference in London.
He said fossil fuel firms would be the only winners from questions about compulsory SAF blending requirements.
The EU and the UK introduced the world’s first SAF mandates in January 2025, requiring fuel suppliers to blend at least 2% SAF with fossil fuel kerosene. The blending requirement will gradually increase to reach 32% in the EU and 22% in the UK by 2040.
Another case of diluted green rules?
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, CEO of French oil and gas company TotalEnergies Patrick Pouyanné said he would bet “that what happened to the car regulation will happen to the SAF regulation in Europe”.
The EU watered down green rules for car-makers in March 2025 after lobbying from car companies, Germany and Italy.
“You will see. Today all the airline companies are fighting [against the EU’s 2030 SAF target of 6%],” Pouyanne said, even though it’s “easy to reach to be honest”.
While most European airline lobbies publicly support the mandates, Ryanair Group CEO Michael O’Leary said last year that the SAF is “nonsense” and is “gradually dying a death, which is what it deserves to do”.
EU and UK stand by SAF targets
But the EU and the British government have disputed that. EU transport commissioner Apostolos Tzitzikostas said in November that the EU’s targets are “stable”, warning that “investment decisions and construction must start by 2027, or we will miss the 2030 targets”.
UK aviation minister Keir Mather told this week’s investor event that meeting the country’s SAF blending requirement of 10% by 2030 was “ambitious but, with the right investment, the right innovation and the right outlook, it is absolutely within our reach”.
“We need to go further and we need to go faster,” Mather said.
SAF investors and developers said such certainty on SAF mandates from policymakers was key to drawing the necessary investment to ramp up production of the greener fuel, which needs to scale up in order to bring down high production costs. Currently, SAF is between two and seven times more expensive than traditional jet fuel.
Urbano Perez, global clean molecules lead at Spanish bank Santander, said banks will not invest if there is a perceived regulatory risk.
David Scott, chair of Australian SAF producer Jet Zero Australia, said developing SAF was already challenging due to the risks of “pretty new” technology requiring high capital expenditure.
“That’s a scary model with a volatile political environment, so mandate questioning creates this problem on steroids”, Scott said.
Others played down the risk. Glenn Morgan, partner at investment and advisory firm SkiesFifty, said “policy is always a risk”, adding that traditional oil-based jet fuel could also lose subsidies.
Asian countries join SAF mandate adopters
In Asia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand and Japan have recently adopted SAF mandates, and Matti Lievonen, CEO of Asia-based SAF producer EcoCeres, predicted that China, Indonesia and Hong Kong would follow suit.
David Fisken, investment director at the Australian Trade and Investment Commission, said the Australian government, which does not have a mandate, was watching to see how the EU and UK’s requirements played out.
The US does not have a SAF mandate and under President Donald Trump the government has slashed tax credits available for SAF producers from $1.75 a gallon to $1.
Is the world’s big idea for greener air travel a flight of fancy?
SAF and energy security
SAF’s potential role in boosting energy security was a major theme of this week’s discussions as geopolitical tensions push the issue to the fore.
Marcella Franchi, chief commercial officer for SAF at France’s Haffner Energy, said the Canadian government, which has “very unsettling neighbours at the moment”, was looking to produce SAF to protect its energy security, especially as it has ample supplies of biomass to use as potential feedstock.
Similarly, German weapons manufacturer Rheinmetall said last year it was working on plans that would enable European armed forces to produce their own synthetic, carbon-neutral fuel “locally and independently of global fossil fuel supply chain”.
Scott said Australia needs SAF to improve its fuel security, as it imports almost 99% of its liquid fuels.
He added that support for Australian SAF production is bipartisan, in part because it appeals to those more concerned about energy security than tackling climate change.
The post Doubts over European SAF rules threaten cleaner aviation hopes, investors warn appeared first on Climate Home News.
Doubts over European SAF rules threaten cleaner aviation hopes, investors warn
Climate Change
Southern Right Whales Are Having Fewer Calves; Scientists Say a Warming Ocean Is to Blame
After decades of recovery from commercial whaling, climate change is now threatening the whales’ future.
Southern right whales—once driven to near-extinction by industrial hunting in the 19th and 20th centuries—have long been regarded as a conservation success. After the International Whaling Commission banned commercial whaling in the 1980s, populations began a slow but steady rebound. New research, however, suggests climate change may be undermining that recovery.
Southern Right Whales Are Having Fewer Calves; Scientists Say a Warming Ocean Is to Blame
Climate Change
Analysis: Constituency of Reform’s climate-sceptic Richard Tice gets £55m flood funding
The Lincolnshire constituency held by Richard Tice, the climate-sceptic deputy leader of the hard-right Reform party, has been pledged at least £55m in government funding for flood defences since 2024.
This investment in Boston and Skegness is the second-largest sum for a single constituency from a £1.4bn flood-defence fund for England, Carbon Brief analysis shows.
Flooding is becoming more likely and more extreme in the UK due to climate change.
Yet, for years, governments have failed to spend enough on flood defences to protect people, properties and infrastructure.
The £1.4bn fund is part of the current Labour government’s wider pledge to invest a “record” £7.9bn over a decade on protecting hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses from flooding.
As MP for one of England’s most flood-prone regions, Tice has called for more investment in flood defences, stating that “we cannot afford to ‘surrender the fens’ to the sea”.
He is also one of Reform’s most vocal opponents of climate action and what he calls “net stupid zero”. He denies the scientific consensus on climate change and has claimed, falsely and without evidence, that scientists are “lying”.
Flood defences
Last year, the government said it would invest £2.65bn on flood and coastal erosion risk management (FCERM) schemes in England between April 2024 and March 2026.
This money was intended to protect 66,500 properties from flooding. It is part of a decade-long Labour government plan to spend more than £7.9bn on flood defences.
There has been a consistent shortfall in maintaining England’s flood defences, with the Environment Agency expecting to protect fewer properties by 2027 than it had initially planned.
The Climate Change Committee (CCC) has attributed this to rising costs, backlogs from previous governments and a lack of capacity. It also points to the strain from “more frequent and severe” weather events, such as storms in recent years that have been amplified by climate change.
However, the CCC also said last year that, if the 2024-26 spending programme is delivered, it would be “slightly closer to the track” of the Environment Agency targets out to 2027.
The government has released constituency-level data on which schemes in England it plans to fund, covering £1.4bn of the 2024-26 investment. The other half of the FCERM spending covers additional measures, from repairing existing defences to advising local authorities.
The map below shows the distribution of spending on FCERM schemes in England over the past two years, highlighting the constituency of Richard Tice.
By far the largest sum of money – £85.6m in total – has been committed to a tidal barrier and various other defences in the Somerset constituency of Bridgwater, the seat of Conservative MP Ashley Fox.
Over the first months of 2026, the south-west region has faced significant flooding and Fox has called for more support from the government, citing “climate patterns shifting and rainfall intensifying”.
He has also backed his party’s position that “the 2050 net-zero target is impossible” and called for more fossil-fuel extraction in the North Sea.
Tice’s east-coast constituency of Boston and Skegness, which is highly vulnerable to flooding from both rivers and the sea, is set to receive £55m. Among the supported projects are beach defences from Saltfleet to Gibraltar Point and upgrades to pumping stations.
Overall, Boston and Skegness has the second-largest portion of flood-defence funding, as the chart below shows. Constituencies with Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs occupied the other top positions.
Overall, despite Labour MPs occupying 347 out of England’s 543 constituencies – nearly two-thirds of the total – more than half of the flood-defence funding was distributed to constituencies with non-Labour MPs. This reflects the flood risk in coastal and rural areas that are not traditional Labour strongholds.
Reform funding
While Reform has just eight MPs, representing 1% of the population, its constituencies have been assigned 4% of the flood-defence funding for England.
Nearly all of this money was for Tice’s constituency, although party leader Nigel Farage’s coastal Clacton seat in Kent received £2m.
Reform UK is committed to “scrapping net-zero” and its leadership has expressed firmly climate-sceptic views.
Much has been made of the disconnect between the party’s climate policies and the threat climate change poses to its voters. Various analyses have shown the flood risk in Reform-dominated areas, particularly Lincolnshire.
Tice has rejected climate science, advocated for fossil-fuel production and criticised Environment Agency flood-defence activities. Yet, he has also called for more investment in flood defences, stating that “we cannot afford to ‘surrender the fens’ to the sea”.
This may reflect Tice’s broader approach to climate change. In a 2024 interview with LBC, he said:
“Where you’ve got concerns about sea level defences and sea level rise, guess what? A bit of steel, a bit of cement, some aggregate…and you build some concrete sea level defences. That’s how you deal with rising sea levels.”
While climate adaptation is viewed as vital in a warming world, there are limits on how much societies can adapt and adaptation costs will continue to increase as emissions rise.
The post Analysis: Constituency of Reform’s climate-sceptic Richard Tice gets £55m flood funding appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Constituency of Reform’s climate-sceptic Richard Tice gets £55m flood funding
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits