· 4 min read
Set to debut at COP30 in Brazil, the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) represents one of the most ambitious attempts in recent decades to rethink how the world finances forest conservation.
Designed as a long-term funding mechanism rather than a carbon market, the TFFF would pool capital from governments, philanthropies, and private investors, place it in low-risk financial instruments, and use the returns to pay tropical forest countries for maintaining or restoring forests. Its proposed $25 billion base could unlock as much as $100 billion in private investment.
Yet, this new model arrives at a delicate moment. It is thus far unclear if the facility would complement or even compete with the long-standing REDD+ framework that has shaped forest finance since COP13.
With REDD+ delivering mixed and often controversial results, the key question for COP30 is whether the TFFF can succeed where earlier mechanisms fell short and address deep-seated carbon paradoxes, restoring credibility to global forest protection.
Can the TFFF overcome the paradoxes that have constrained the potential of REDD+?
The answer: in some cases, yes; in others, no.
Some of the carbon paradoxes and the TFFF's responses
1. Polluters Paradox
"The largest polluters should fund carbon credits, yet their participation is often condemned as greenwashing."
Solved by TFFF? Yes.
TFFF funding is decoupled from polluter payments, removing the greenwashing stigma.
2. Ambition Paradox
"More ambitious national climate targets reduce the scope of additional activities that qualify for credits, which can paradoxically disincentivize governments to increase ambition."
Solved by TFFF? Partly.
Funding allocation by TFFF is not necessarily linked or tied to a country's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). Nonetheless, the anticipation of external financing could still inadvertently create a disincentive for maintaining or expanding domestically funded forest conservation and restoration initiatives.
3. Price Paradox
"REDD+ credits are less expensive than most other types of credits, prompting suspicion about their quality despite their obvious efficiency in mitigating climate change."
Solved by TFFF? Yes.
Payments are not linked to tons of emissions avoided, so pricing is decoupled from perceived credit value.
4. Baseline Paradox
"Countries that have long protected forests receive no credit, while those that recently deforested can claim rewards for stopping."
Solved by TFFF? Partly.
TFFF can reward ongoing stewardship, not just new restoration. However, restoration may still attract more funding than conservation, as it tends to be more costly and measurable.
5. Communities Paradox
"Strong community participation is essential, but consensus is rarely achievable."
Solved by TFFF? No.
The challenge of ensuring fair representation and avoiding perceptions of exclusion persists, as realities 'on the ground' are often complex and community interests frequently diverge.
6. Leakage Paradox
"Stopping deforestation in one area can push it elsewhere, offsetting gains."
Solved by TFFF? No.
As long as economic pressures — especially from agricultural expansion — continue, deforestation risks will likely shift geographically.
7. Additionality Paradox
"Only projects that would not happen without climate finance qualify, which excludes commercially viable initiatives."
Solved by TFFF? No.
Like other climate finance mechanisms, the TFFF must focus on projects that rely on external funding rather than those that are commercially viable — an approach that risks fostering financial dependency instead of long-term economic self-sufficiency.
Conclusion
If the TFFF achieves its envisioned scale and operates as intended, it could become a powerful financial instrument for protecting and restoring tropical forests, sidestepping many of the pitfalls that hampered REDD+.
However, it remains a new and untested mechanism. Scaling it will take time, and if significant design flaws emerge late in the process, the result could be delayed action and disillusionment — paradoxically setting back the very forest finance it seeks to accelerate.
Moreover, moving away from "ton-for-ton" carbon accounting, which was the ambition of REDD+, might avoid one of the most complex controversies, namely the alleged over-crediting, but might inadvertently lead to less overall robustness and transparency on the impact achieved.
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
Interested in the companies shaping our sustainable future? See on illuminem’s Data Hub™ the transparent sustainability performance, emissions, and climate targets of thousands of businesses worldwide.
