Global Forest Coalition

BONN, 11 June — At the UN climate negotiations SB64, civil society organizations, grassroots movements, and climate justice advocates from across Africa, Asia, and Latin America came together today to strongly reject geoengineering as a false solution and dangerous distraction from real climate action.

Speakers from across the Global South warned that geoengineering, which is the large-scale technological interventions designed to manipulate the Earth’s systems, is being advanced despite its profound ecological, social, and geopolitical risks. Rather than addressing the root causes of the climate crisis, these approaches enable business to continue as usual.

At the same time, geoengineering is being advanced through climate policy spaces, particularly through the Paris Agreement’s Article 6 which gives entry to carbon markets. Kwami Kpondzo, Global Forest Coalition said, “Africa must not be taken in or drawn into a new cycle of colonialism disguised in this wave of carbon markets and carbon credits. Polluters are promoting geoengineering technologies to maintain carbon market schemes which continue to worsen the climate crisis.”

The African continent has strongly opposed geoengineering technologies, especially solar geoengineering. This was evident at the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) meeting last year where governments expressed that “such technologies must not be considered as viable options within the multilateral environmental agenda” and called for “the establishment of a Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement”  which would ban any efforts to normalise these technologies. Kpondzo added, “We welcome African leadership in advancing efforts on an international solar non use agreement.”

Gina Cortes Valderrama, Women and Gender Constituency of UNFCCC added, “The Women and Gender Constituency also calls on the UNFCCC and all UN bodies to recognize solar geoengineering as a category of technology that poses unprecedented risks, that is advancing without consent or justice frameworks, and that functions as a deliberate deferral of the structural transformation we need. We support the Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement.”

Climate justice campaigners also pointed to the colonial dimensions of geoengineering, and intersections between extractivism and the current destructive development model, noting how they reproduce historical patterns of exploitation, turning lands, waters, and skies in the Global South into sites for experimentation and testing.

While sharing perspectives from Asia and the Pacific regions, Kaveri Choudhury, ETC Group said, “We are deeply concerned by the push for geoengineering proposals in the Asia-Pacific region at a time when climate solutions need real solutions more than ever. Geoengineering is a false climate solution that threatens the very integrity of life on earth. We need to urgently focus on protecting ecosystems for their intrinsic value and centered on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, local communities and peasants who are the guardians of these ecosystems.”

Gina Cortes Valderrama, Women and Gender Constituency added, “Geoengineering is a political choice that sends the message to the people that it is preferable to risk unprecedented harm to planetary systems than to confront the fossil fuel economy and the corporate power that sustains it. We are not here to ask how to govern a technology that should not exist. We are here to support the real solutions already being built by frontline communities.”

“Indigenous Peoples and local communities have the solution for global warming. These include the use of traditional knowledge through agroecology and community forest conservation,” added Kpondzo.

The press conference concluded with a strong call for South-South solidarity, as movements across Africa, Asia, and Latin America continue to build collective resistance to geoengineering. 

Additional Information

1. Press Conference Livestream
2. Policy decision: African Environmental Ministers Call for Establishment of Solar Non Use Agreement
3. Policy Brief: Don’t Geoengineer Africa
4. Press Release: African Climate Justice Movements Celebrate African Leadership in Rejecting Solar Geoengineering
5. Opinion: Africa Is Not a Solar Geoengineering Test Site
6. Geoengineering Projects Tracker 

As governments search for alternatives to fossil fuels, large-scale biomass energy is increasingly being promoted as a renewable solution. But behind the industry’s rapid expansion lies a growing body of evidence showing serious harm to forests, communities, Indigenous Peoples, human health, and fundamental human rights.

Today, the Environmental Paper Network (EPN) and the Global Forest Coalition (GFC), as part of the Biomass Action Network, are launching a new briefing: The Human Rights Impacts of Large-scale ‘Modern’ Biomass Energy. Released during the UN climate negotiations (SB64) in Bonn, the briefing highlights how the production and burning of forest biomass is driving human rights abuses across the globe.

The briefing documents impacts throughout the biomass supply chain, from forest destruction and industrial tree plantations to pellet manufacturing facilities and biomass power stations. It shows how expanding demand for biomass is contributing to land grabbing, violations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights, loss of livelihoods, threats to food security, worsening air pollution, and serious public health impacts. Communities in countries including Indonesia, Nepal, Thailand, Sweden, Chile, Brazil, Ghana, Mozambique, Uganda, and the United States are already experiencing these consequences.

The briefing also highlights growing international concern, including a warning from the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and climate change that new bioenergy developments should be approached with the highest level of precaution due to significant climate, environmental, and human rights risks.

As governments negotiate climate policies in Bonn, the briefing calls on policymakers to:

• End subsidies and incentives that promote large-scale forest biomass energy;
• Stop classifying forest biomass as a renewable or carbon-neutral energy source;
• Respect and uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC);
• Prioritize genuinely clean, low-impact renewable energy solutions that protect forests, biodiversity, human rights, and climate stability.

We encourage policymakers, civil society organisations, journalists, and concerned citizens to read the briefing, share it widely, and join calls for a just energy transition that protects both people and forests.

About the Biomass Action Network

The Biomass Action Network is a coalition of more than 220 NGOs across 70 countries. Our position statement, The Biomass Delusion, outlines the significant harm large-scale forest biomass burning causes to the climate, forests, people, and the clean energy transition. The network works to expose the impacts of biomass energy, amplify community voices, and advocate for policies that protect forests, uphold human rights, and accelerate a genuinely sustainable energy transition.

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, especially women and youth, 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, local communities, women, and youth.

In many cases, they have enabled continued pollution elsewhere, commodified forests and nature, weakened customary governance systems and concentrated power and decision making 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 and gender-responsive 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, decision-making, and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). Forest conservation cannot succeed without securing collective territorial rights and supporting the leadership of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, and youth 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 extractivism and industrial agriculture, reducing overconsumption, transforming food and energy systems, cancelling unjust debt burdens driving systemic change in sectors that heavily contribute to biodiversity destruction and directly supporting community-led forest conservation and restoration, including women and youth.

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, women’s rights groups, 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 investors’ 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, gender and all forms of justice, territorial governance and systemic transformation. The future of the world’s forests depends on it.

Further reading

• “Tomorrow’s Tropical Forests Forever Facility” by REDD-Monitor
• “No to TFFF, Yes to Forest Rights” – Global Forest Coalition
• “The Tables Turn Against the TFFF” – Global Forest Coalition
• “Tropical Forests Forever or Deforestation Forever?” – Global Forest Coalition
• “New Report on TFFF” – Global Forest Coalition