From space to the guardians: How local monitoring could transform the Tropical Forest Forever Facility

COP 30 and the paradox at the heart of climate finance

The latest Conference of the Parties (COP30) has not managed to bring about the leap towards climate action that most optimists among us had hoped for. On one hand, it showed the limitations of multilateral dialogue for climate, for instance, missing the inclusion of the fossil fuel “phase-out” roadmap in the final text. On the other hand, COP30 will most likely be remembered for the unprecedented turnout of Indigenous people and local communities, together with a great number of national and international organized social movements. 

As the COP30 was surrounded by the Amazon forest, in Belém, Brazil, the people who live in it and deeply know this crucial and threatened ecosystem were in the front row at the show. Global media portrayed their participation in debates, their attempts to break both the physical and intangible walls of the ‘Blue Zone’ where negotiations take place, or, again, during the weekend, protesting in the streets of Belém. Their actions flagged the ambivalence of Brazil’s Federal and State governments, presenting themselves as green leaders at the Conference while simultaneously handing over Indigenous territories, rivers and forests to national and international corporations for mining and oil exploration.

The contradictions of the COP process and the greatest paradox at the heart of climate finance were made visible: Indigenous people and local communities, the true guardians of our remaining ecosystems, remain underrepresented in international climate fora and receive less than 1% of overall climate financing.  

The Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), a COP30 flagship initiative, plans to address this climate financing gap, starting from forest protection - can it also address the lack of representation?

About satellite monitoring and the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF)

This ambitious and innovative climate finance mechanism aims to create a global 125 billion dollar investment fund, pulling both from public and private sources, that will annually reward tropical forest countries to keep their forests standing. It was first proposed during COP28, and the idea was refined through extensive consultations leading to the version launched in 2025: the TFFF is now designed to distribute at least 20% of its returns directly to Indigenous people and local communities of tropical forest Countries.

While the fundraising for the creation of the Fund is still ongoing, many aspects are under debate, including the strength of its financial architecture and the fairness of its governance structure. However, one of the least debated aspects is its satellite monitoring system. This technology is what makes this global results-based financial mechanism possible. According to its 3.0 concept note, national forest cover monitoring systems, meeting global technical standards, will be in charge of it

The assumption here is that national satellite forest monitoring systems are neutral and accurate. However, is that truly so? 

Why “neutral” satellite monitoring isn’t always neutral: Examples from Brazil

There are a few reasons why national forest satellite monitoring cannot fully be considered neutral.

One is related to the technology itself. Forests are complex to monitor, so in order to gather the most accurate picture, it is necessary to use a variety of satellite technologies, ranging from optical imaging to radar technology. In a similar way, a wide array of monitoring methodologies has been created over the years, exploring the trade-offs of accuracy vs. responsiveness in detecting deforestation. Academic literature agrees on the fact that a mix of methods is the solution that ensures the highest accuracy and responsiveness. For this reason, complementarity of monitoring efforts is very welcome - and it is already underway.

Indeed, the past years have seen a wide democratization of satellite monitoring systems and platforms among civil society organizations. They both provide alternatives to the national systems and are tailored to the needs of specific users. Using the example of Brazil, the existence of the highly accurate national monitoring system, BiomasBR, did not prevent the creation of alternative systems by civil society and research centres, such as MapBiomas. A further case is Papa Alpha by Greenpeace, a monitoring platform created with Indigenous people and local communities as end users.

There is another reason behind the proliferation of civil society forest monitoring: national monitoring systems are vulnerable to politics. Hence, not exactly neutral.

Brazilian recent history provides a compelling example. The rise of local forest monitoring systems in the Country coincided with the right-wing Jair Bolsonaro presidency (2019 to 2023), close to the agribusiness industry, one of the main drivers of deforestation in the Country. In his detraction strategies and attacks to undermine national environmental protection, Bolsonaro also hit the entity in charge of BiomasBR satellite monitoring, the National Institute for Space Research (INPE). He started by accusing INPE of publishing lies and, in 2019, dismissed its director, physicist Ricardo Galvão. In addition, in July 2021, the monitoring and divulgation of data from forest fires was moved from INPE to the National Institute of Meteorology, subordinate to the Ministry of Agriculture. The move was interpreted by environmental activists, scientists and researchers as an attempt to control the information gathered on deforestation. As a response, civil society mobilised to create alternatives.

All Forest Countries participating in the TFFF can be vulnerable to such risk. Fortunately, complementary local monitoring systems can partly mitigate it.

Local monitoring works

Finally, the last point in favour of local monitoring is straightforward: it works.

Successful outcomes of international organizations' projects show it. WRI’s Global Forest Watch, FAO’s Open Foris and the above-mentioned Papa Alpha by Greenpeace train local communities on the effective use of data and monitoring tools for forest protection, with results showing a clear decrease in deforestation.

Perhaps more importantly, the international forest and climate protection programme REDD+ shows how local monitoring creates positive outcomes also in climate finance. Involving the community from the project’s conception to monitoring and sharing of results is essential for their success. There are examples in which communities become the main ally for conservation, carrying out biodiversity monitoring, monitoring against invasions and the application of socio-environmental benefits. Furthermore, today, more and more carbon credits buyers do not accept purchasing from projects not involving community actions and a fair sharing of benefits.

In other words, accuracy increases with local monitoring, and financing does better reach the communities. 

A simple fix with big impact: Integrating local monitoring into the TFFF reporting system

It would be a mistake to discard these powerful lessons when designing the TFFF reporting system. 

In the Global Direct Finance Modality model proposed in the 3.0 concept note, a voluntary reporting channel at the disposal of Indigenous people and local communities could be easily added. This way, the annual national reporting on forest cover could be complemented by regular and more frequent updates from the forest guardians on the day-to-day action in forest protection. Keeping track of when the interests of forest guardians clash with national government policies would hence become possible.

The greatest advantage of this official channel would be collecting evidence and data to allow Indigenous people and financial communities to still receive their 20% share of direct financing, even in cases in which the central government enabled deforestation throughout the year.

Given the global nature of the Facility, this slight tweak in design could do more than just increase monitoring accuracy. It would allow the TFFF to stretch beyond its role of provider of financial rewards and turn it into an instrument of inclusive global governance. 

Its implementation would certainly come with challenges, ranging from validation of community monitoring to the creation of a mechanism to resolve disputes between national and local monitoring within the Facility. However, the matter is too relevant and impactful to be neglected.

If the TFFF aims to reward forest protection, it must first become an ally to those who protect forests every day. Taking this opportunity to provide direct financing and global representation at once would be the real innovation.

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.

Track the real‑world impact behind the sustainability headlines. illuminem’s Data Hub™ offers transparent performance data and climate targets of companies driving the transition.