Tropical Forests Forever? Civil Society Must Keep Watching the TFFF

By Ismail Wolff

On 26 May, investors, government representatives and financial actors gathered in Rotterdam to discuss the future of the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), a controversial forest finance proposal that continues to raise serious concerns among Indigenous Peoples, forest-dependent communities and civil society organisations worldwide.

Yet despite the significance of the meeting, very little public information has emerged about what was actually discussed, proposed or agreed behind closed doors.

What commitments were made to investors? What governance arrangements are being negotiated? What safeguards for Indigenous Peoples’ rights and community land tenure were discussed? Were civil society concerns meaningfully addressed? And why do affected communities continue to remain largely outside these conversations?

The lack of transparency surrounding the Rotterdam meeting reflects a broader problem that has characterised the development of the TFFF from the beginning.

A recent roundup by REDD-Monitor, “Tomorrow’s Tropical Forests Forever Facility”, provides an important overview of the growing debates surrounding the mechanism and the increasing involvement of financial actors. As the TFFF gains traction in international finance circles, independent scrutiny and public oversight become increasingly essential.

Can the TFFF actually deliver on its promises?

While promoters of the TFFF present it as an innovative mechanism capable of mobilising billions for tropical forest conservation, serious doubts remain over whether the proposal can realistically deliver the funding it promises.

In recent months, even analysts broadly supportive of market-based forest finance approaches have begun acknowledging major weaknesses and uncertainties surrounding the initiative.

A recent article published by the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), while generally supportive of the TFFF concept, nevertheless raises significant concerns about the mechanism’s financial architecture, political feasibility and long-term viability. The article openly questions whether the facility will actually be able to mobilise the scale of donor and investor funding required and warns that the model depends heavily on uncertain financial market conditions. This is a crucial point.

The TFFF has repeatedly been promoted as capable of mobilising up to USD 125 billion in combined public and private finance, generating billions annually for tropical forest countries. Yet concrete commitments remain far below these figures, and it remains unclear whether governments and investors are genuinely willing to provide funding at the scale required.

Even supporters of the initiative now acknowledge this challenge. The IDOS analysis notes that it remains uncertain whether the targeted donor contributions can realistically be mobilised and concludes that, because of the TFFF’s “design flaws” and “inadequate donor commitments,” it is doubtful the mechanism will deliver the “quantum leap” in tropical forest protection that its promoters promise.

Other commentators have also warned that the TFFF’s promised forest payments ultimately depend on volatile financial markets and complex investment structures that may fail to generate the expected returns.

This raises a fundamental question: why should the future of the world’s tropical forests, and the livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples and forest-dependent communities, depend on the confidence of private investors and the performance of global financial markets?

The danger is not only that the TFFF could create new risks and inequalities. It is also that the initiative could consume enormous political attention, institutional energy and public resources while ultimately failing to deliver meaningful protection for forests at all.

Another false solution for forests?

The Global Forest Coalition (GFC) and many allied organisations have repeatedly warned that the TFFF risks becoming yet another false solution, one that allows governments and corporations to continue destructive economic models while packaging forests as financial assets for investors.

For decades, forest peoples and civil society have witnessed a succession of market-based forest schemes promoted as “win-win” solutions to climate change and biodiversity loss. From carbon offsetting to REDD+, these initiatives have often failed to address the structural drivers of deforestation while creating new pressures and conflicts for Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

In many cases, they have enabled continued pollution elsewhere, commodified forests and nature, weakened customary governance systems and concentrated power in the hands of financial institutions and corporate actors.

The TFFF appears to follow many of these same dangerous pathways.

One of the central concerns is that the mechanism could further entrench the financialisation of forests by transforming standing forests into investment vehicles linked to financial returns. Rather than supporting systemic transformation and direct rights-based support for forest peoples, the TFFF risks prioritising investor confidence and market logic over ecological integrity, justice and community governance.

Who is the TFFF really designed to serve?

The growing role of private investors in shaping the TFFF raises urgent questions about whose interests are driving the initiative.

Is the priority to support forest peoples and address the root causes of deforestation? Or is the mechanism increasingly being designed around the expectations of international investors seeking new “green” financial opportunities?

GFC and allied organisations have also warned that the TFFF lacks sufficient guarantees regarding Indigenous Peoples’ rights, land tenure, participation and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). Forest conservation cannot succeed without securing collective territorial rights and supporting the leadership of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, who have consistently proven to be the most effective guardians of forests worldwide.

Another major concern is the lack of transparency and democratic oversight surrounding the development of the facility. Key decisions continue to be discussed primarily among governments, multilateral banks and private financial actors, while civil society participation remains limited and many affected communities remain excluded from meaningful engagement.

The Rotterdam meeting only deepens these concerns. If governments and financial institutions genuinely believe the TFFF represents a positive and transformative proposal, why is there still so little publicly available information about its negotiations, investor expectations and potential impacts?

What solutions are being ignored?

At the same time, the TFFF debate risks diverting political attention and public resources away from solutions that are already proven to work.

Around the world, Indigenous Peoples, peasant communities, women’s rights groups and grassroots organisations are already protecting forests through collective governance systems, agroecology, territorial defence and biodiversity-based livelihoods. Yet these approaches remain chronically underfunded compared to large-scale financial schemes and market-based mechanisms.

Real solutions to deforestation do not lie in creating new speculative financial instruments. They lie in recognising and securing rights, ending destructive extractivism and industrial agriculture, reducing overconsumption, transforming food and energy systems, cancelling unjust debt burdens and directly supporting community-led forest conservation and restoration.

If governments truly wanted to protect tropical forests, these measures could already be scaled up today — without creating another global financial mechanism dependent on investor confidence, debt markets and speculative returns.

Forests are not financial assets

As the TFFF continues to evolve through investor meetings and high-level negotiations, continued public oversight is essential. Civil society organisations, journalists, researchers and social movements must continue closely monitoring developments, asking difficult questions and challenging attempts to present the TFFF as a simple or inevitable solution. Forests are not financial assets. They are living territories, homes, cultures and ecosystems that cannot be reduced to investment portfolios or payment mechanisms.

At a time of accelerating climate breakdown, biodiversity collapse and escalating attacks on environmental defenders, the world cannot afford another false solution that protects profits while failing forests and forest peoples. Instead of repeating the mistakes of past market-based mechanisms, governments and international institutions must prioritise approaches grounded in rights, justice, territorial governance and systemic transformation. The future of the world’s forests depends on it.

Tropical Forests Forever? Civil Society Must Keep Watching the TFFF