Search Climate Insights Directory

The 2025 Forest Declaration Assessment finds that the world is significantly off track to achieve zero deforestation by 2030, with 8.1 million hectares lost in 2024. The report highlights a systemic failure where harmful agricultural subsidies (USD 409 billion annually) dwarf positive forest finance, and where corporate commitments remain largely voluntary and insufficient. While some countries like Brazil and Indonesia have shown that political will can reduce deforestation, these gains are threatened by geopolitical instability and regulatory rollbacks. The assessment emphasizes that forests are better managed when Indigenous Peoples and local communities have secure tenure rights, yet only 13 percent of customary lands in tropical forests are formally recognized. It calls for a shift from voluntary pledges to mandatory regulations and inclusive governance to prevent ecosystem collapse.

The report proposes the Reversing Deforestation Mechanism (RDM), a results-based payment system designed to scale up tropical forest restoration through jurisdictional agreements. Unlike existing frameworks like JREDD+ and TFFF, which focus on halting deforestation and maintaining standing forests, RDM incentivizes net carbon removal by compensating jurisdictions for carbon captured through restoration minus emissions from deforestation and degradation. The report simulates the potential of RDM to transform tropical forests into high-impact climate assets, highlighting its potential to generate significant revenues and carbon sequestration, particularly in the Brazilian Amazon.

The document examines the 'PRA autodeclaratório' as a mechanism to overcome administrative bottlenecks in Brazil's Forest Code implementation, specifically the slow validation of CAR registrations. It analyzes experiences in Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Goiás, and Bahia, concluding that while the model can accelerate restoration, its success depends on robust post-execution monitoring, clear result indicators, and effective accountability mechanisms to prevent the underestimation of environmental liabilities.

The report analyzes how Brazilian states in the Amazon biome are transitioning from federal dependence to active leadership in forest restoration. While states have successfully implemented mandatory restoration frameworks tied to the Forest Code and pioneered PES and REDD+ programs, the report identifies significant fragmentation. Key barriers include burdensome bureaucracy for native species forestry, a lack of integration with carbon markets (except in Pará), and inconsistent regulations across states that hinder landscape-scale projects. Pará is highlighted as the leader with the most comprehensive framework, including a dedicated State Plan for the Restoration of Native Vegetation.

Amazon deforestation reduces rainfall and river flow, leading to significant energy and revenue losses for Brazil's largest hydroelectric plants. Together, Itaipu and Belo Monte lose an estimated 3,780 GWh of generation potential annually, equating to approximately US$ 200 million in lost revenue. The report emphasizes the need to integrate forest conservation and restoration policies with energy security strategies to protect the national electricity mix.

The statement argues that large-scale forest biomass energy is not carbon neutral and actively harms the climate, biodiversity, and human rights. It claims that current carbon accounting erroneously labels biomass as zero-emission, which masks the actual greenhouse gas releases and encourages deforestation. The document further asserts that biomass energy extends the lifespan of coal plants and diverts investment from truly low-emission renewables like wind and solar. It calls on governments and financial institutions to stop the expansion of the biomass industry and eliminate related subsidies in favor of forest restoration.

An analysis of 45 forest sites and 1,500 plots in the Neotropics reveals that secondary forests are highly productive, with an average biomass recovery of 122 Mg/ha after 20 years and a median recovery time of 66 years to reach 90% of old-growth levels. Recovery rates are strongly influenced by water availability, with the highest potential in humid tropical lowland areas and the lowest in seasonally dry forest regions.

The report quantifies the economic and energetic losses at the Itaipu and Belo Monte hydroelectric plants caused by Amazon deforestation, which disrupts 'flying rivers' and reduces river flow. Together, these plants lose an estimated 3,780 GWh of electricity and R$ 1.1 billion in annual revenue. The study highlights that the loss of forest cover affects plants even those far from the biome, such as Itaipu, and suggests that the energy sector must actively support forest restoration and conservation to ensure financial sustainability and grid resilience.

The 2025 report by CPI/PUC-Rio reveals a significant but uneven acceleration in the implementation of Brazil's Forest Code. While the proportion of CAR registrations with initiated analysis rose from 15% to 24% nationally, and validated registrations nearly tripled, a deep gap remains between CAR validation and actual environmental recovery via the PRA. Progress is heavily driven by automation and 'compulsory acceptance' of corrections in states like São Paulo and Paraná, while other regions struggle with land tenure insecurity, lack of technical staff, and poor communication with landowners. Federal governance of the Sicar system has improved through a new partnership between MGI, SFB, and Dataprev, and the first national Environmental Reserve Quotes (CRA) were issued in Rio de Janeiro in October 2025.

The Forests Forward Impact Report 2025 details the outcomes of a WWF programme that partners with 26 companies across 9 sectors in 23 countries to transition from forest extraction to conservation and regeneration. Key achievements include the management of 2.679 million hectares of tropical forests, with 75% being FSC certified, and the implementation of large-scale landscape projects in Brazil, Viet Nam, and the Congo Basin. The programme focuses on three action areas: responsible sourcing, improving forest management, and financing forest landscapes, while emphasizing the role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in forest stewardship.

The report identifies critical areas in the Philippines where nature-based solutions (NbS)—specifically the conservation and restoration of forests and coastal ecosystems—can mitigate climate risks like flooding, landslides, and coastal storms. Using biophysical modeling, the study finds that protecting or restoring a small percentage of land (13-19%) could benefit approximately half of the population and over half of the national road network. It argues for integrating these findings into 'upstream' strategic infrastructure planning to avoid high-value ecosystems and prioritize restoration, thereby reducing long-term maintenance costs and enhancing overall climate resilience.

The document evaluates four public-private partnership models for restoring Brazil's public lands: forestry concessions, ordinary tenders, common public service concessions, and Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). While forestry concessions are the current standard due to the Public Forest Management Law (LGFP), they are limited by strict contractual requirements and high risk for the private sector. The report suggests that ordinary tenders could be effective for planting in fully protected areas, while common concessions and PPPs could offer better risk-sharing and flexibility if forest restoration is legally classified as a public service. The authors recommend legally designating restoration as a public service, improving risk management training for public agencies, and creating a specialized entity to manage environmental assets like carbon credits.

The document evaluates four legal frameworks for public-private partnerships in forest restoration: forest concessions, common tenders, common public service concessions, and Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). While forest concessions are the current standard due to the Law on Public Forest Management (LGFP), the report argues that their rigid risk distribution and land category restrictions may hinder large-scale restoration. It proposes that common tenders are suitable for planting in strictly protected Conservation Units, while PPPs offer the most flexibility in risk sharing and financial support, especially for security and monitoring in high-risk Amazonian regions. The report emphasizes the need to legally characterize restoration as a public service to enable these alternative models and stresses the necessity of socio-environmental safeguards for Traditional Peoples and Communities.

Climate finance for land use in Brazil averaged US$ 17.1 billion annually from 2021 to 2023, a 99% increase from the 2015-2020 period. Domestic sources provided 97% of these resources, with the private sector contributing 72% of domestic finance. Rural credit was the primary financial instrument, accounting for 58% of total flows. While crops received the most funding (74%), the native forest sector remained heavily dependent on the federal public budget and international public sources. Mitigation-focused finance dominated at 57% of total flows, while spending on climate losses and damages grew significantly, reaching US$ 2.0 billion by 2023.

The report finds that while most NAPs recognize the importance of ecosystems and include EbA or NbS actions, there is a significant disconnect between climate adaptation planning and national biodiversity strategies. Most countries prioritize ecosystems linked to productive economic sectors, such as forests and fisheries, while urban and mountain ecosystems remain underrepresented.

The report examines a variety of innovative forest finance instruments, including bonds, forest funds, debt reduction mechanisms, market-based tools, and community-led funds. It highlights the systemic gap between 'gray' finance (funding for deforestation-driving activities) and 'green' finance, arguing that current public funding is insufficient. The document provides case studies from countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia, and Costa Rica to illustrate the practical application of these tools and proposes six principles to maximize the impact of forest finance by 2030.

The document provides a legislative side-by-side analysis of the Community Wood Grant Program, detailing how the House version of the Farm Bill proposes to rename the program, increase project funding caps, expand the capacity of energy systems, and increase the funding allocation for innovative wood product facilities compared to current law.

The study analyzes LULC trends in Turkana, Narok, West Pokot, and Elgeyo Marakwet counties, finding that achieving a 10% forest cover target yields the most favorable environmental and agricultural outcomes by 2050. It warns against the 'Shamba system' of forest-to-cropland conversion and highlights the threat of invasive species, particularly Prosopis juliflora, in arid regions.

The policy brief outlines recommendations for the 2024-2025 Plano Safra, focusing on restricting credit for properties linked to deforestation, creating incentives for sustainable practices aligned with the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy, and improving credit access for small-scale farmers via Pronaf. It also suggests harmonizing social and environmental restrictions across rural insurance programs like PSR and Proagro to mitigate climate risks and promote low-carbon agriculture.

The report analyzes Brazil's complex legislative framework for forest restoration, concluding that current policies are designed for property-scale rather than landscape-scale implementation. It identifies three essential factors for scaling up: permitting a variety of restoration typologies within a single project, breaking barriers between public and private land tenure, and integrating both mandatory and voluntary restoration areas. The authors argue that the ongoing revision of the National Plan for Native Vegetation Recovery (PLANAVEG) is a critical opportunity to implement these changes and leverage the carbon market to achieve climate and socioeconomic goals.