COP30, branded by organizers as the “forest COP,” is being held in Belém — a major Amazonian city chosen to refocus global climate negotiations on the world’s largest rainforest. But even as the summit highlights forest protection, new oil concessions in the Amazon basin and along its coastline have raised concerns that deforestation pressures are being replaced by fossil fuel expansion.

Tensions escalated on November 11, when Indigenous protesters entered the COP30 venue demanding a halt to industrial development in the region and calling for greater authority over forest governance. Their actions underscored growing frustrations as a major new climate finance proposal, the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), gains attention.

The TFFF, designed as a multilateral trust fund, seeks to mobilize US$125 billion from public and private sources to reward forested countries for keeping forests intact. While the plan promises climate benefits and potential investment returns, critics warn that its structure raises troubling questions.

Forest protection versus fossil fuel risks

Tropical forests store immense carbon, making their protection vital. However, studies show that most countries eligible for TFFF payments also hold fossil fuel reserves beneath those forests. Extracting and burning those reserves could release hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide — vastly outweighing any gains from forest preservation.

Analyses indicate that a small group of countries account for the majority of these potential emissions. For climate benefits to be meaningful, observers argue that forest protection must be paired with binding no-extraction commitments for fossil fuels located under forested areas. They add that similar measures are needed in non-tropical countries with vast boreal forests above major reserves.

Threats to forest communities

The scheme’s financial structure has also raised alarm. Under current proposals, forested nations would receive roughly US$4 per protected hectare, with only a fraction reaching local communities. At the same time, countries would face penalties of up to US$400 per deforested hectare.

This imbalance, experts say, creates incentives for governments to target small-scale forest use — such as shifting cultivation, controlled burning, gathering and hunting — while continuing to allow high-profit industrial activities, including oil extraction. Rights groups warn that this dynamic could criminalize traditional practices, displace forest dwellers and repeat harms seen in earlier conservation and carbon-offset programmes.

Fears of financialization

Protesters at COP30 voiced concerns that the TFFF could turn Indigenous territories into financial assets while failing to block extractive industries beneath them. Critics argue that the proposal risks transforming commons into commodities, generating “forever profits” for investors while marginalising those who have stewarded forests for generations.

They call for any such mechanism to guarantee self-governance rights for forest communities, legally prohibit fossil fuel extraction in protected forests and ensure that areas above fossil reserves receive greater compensation and stronger protection. Only with these safeguards, they say, can forest territories become living, community-governed landscapes rather than investment vehicles.

A justice-based pathway

Analysts conclude that no financial mechanism alone can protect the world’s forests unless it also protects the people who depend on them — and keeps fossil fuels underground. Lasting climate solutions, they argue, require justice-centered approaches that recognize the stewardship of forest communities and commit to permanent non-extraction zones across forested regions worldwide.