Africa: Global Forest Loss – Far Off Track From Global Commitments

Closing legal loopholes that allow deforestation-linked products to enter markets and getting international lenders to align funding with environmental goals are key to ending deforestation, says Erin Matson, one of the lead authors of the Forest Declaration Assessment 2025.

SRINAGAR, Oct 21 2025 (IPS) – The Forest Declaration Assessment 2025 warns that global forest loss remains alarmingly high, with little sign of improvement.

The report, released on October 14, by a coalition of international research groups and civil society organizations, states that nearly 8.1 million hectares of forest were destroyed in 2024 alone, leaving the planet 63 percent off track to meet the zero-deforestation goal pledged under the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration and other global commitments.

The report describes 2025 as a “dangerous midpoint” in the decade of forest pledges. It says, “Global forests remain in crisis. Despite the indispensable role of forests, the verdict is clear: we are off track on halting and reversing deforestation by 2030.” Forests, the report notes, are “non-negotiable infrastructure for a stable planet,” providing livelihoods to more than a billion people and sheltering 80 percent of terrestrial species.

The report says COP 30 is a “pivotal” opportunity to move to concrete action on forests from the mere commitments.

Under Brazil’s leadership, holding the COP presidency, countries are expected to forge stronger links between climate, forests, and biodiversity by expanding commitments across the land sector,” the report states, adding that this includes scaling innovative finance for standing forests, advancing deforestation- and conversion-free supply chains, supporting resilient food systems, and upholding the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

It calls for forest commitments to be embedded in the next round of NDCs so that the Global Stocktake drives tangible national and international progress.

One of the main report authors, Erin Matson, in an exclusive interview with Inter Press Service, said that the reasons behind the failure to reduce deforestation are many and complex, but they include drastically misaligned finance stemming from an economic system that rewards activities that harm forests over conserving standing forests.

“Both public and private finance are misaligned; for example, USD 409 billion on average per year (2021-2023) is spent globally on environmentally harmful agricultural subsidies versus only USD 1.7 billion spent on payments for ecosystem services by agricultural producers. And in 2024, the 150 financial institutions assessed by Forest 500 had USD 8.9 trillion in active financing to companies most exposed to deforestation risk in their supply chains.”

According to Matson, weak governance is characterized by endemic corruption (which allows well-resourced criminal networks and elites to profit from illegal or illicit forest destruction with impunity), inadequate and mistargeted law enforcement (which often targets small-scale actors who engage in illegal or illicit forest clearing but lets the bigger culprits go free), and insecure land tenure rights for Indigenous Peoples and local communities (which severely limits their ability to manage and protect their forest territories).

“Another reason is lack of political will and short-termism. By and large, most leaders in government, business, and finance have, over the last decade, tended to prioritize policies and approaches that deliver short-term wins (like economic growth and increased profits) without tackling the fundamental risks and harms from nature loss that undermine future, medium- and long-term economic and social stability and prosperity,” Matson said.

Rising Losses, Failing Promises

According to the assessment, deforestation rates have barely shifted since 2015, when governments and companies began making strong commitments to forest protection. The 8.1 million hectares lost in 2024 were far above the annual ceiling of 5 million hectares needed to stay on track. Most of this destruction occurred in tropical regions, where 94 percent of all global deforestation took place. The resulting emissions were staggering–4.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, more than the annual emissions of the European Union.

“Every year the curve isn’t bent, we fall further behind. Deforestation continues at the same rate we saw ten years ago. That’s not a slowdown–it’s stagnation,” reads the report.

The hardest hit were primary tropical forests, which store vast amounts of carbon and support irreplaceable biodiversity. About 6.7 million hectares of primary forest were destroyed in 2024, releasing 3.1 billion metric tons of CO₂–nearly 150 percent of the U.S. energy sector’s annual emissions. The report calls this “an ecological and climatic emergency” and warns that much of this loss is irreversible.

“These forests take centuries to form. Once primary forest is gone, no restoration project can bring it back in a generation. The damage is permanent within our lifetime,” claims the report.

The Amazon Basin remains the epicenter of global forest degradation and fire-related emissions. Fires in the Amazon in 2024 released 791 million metric tons of CO₂, exceeding the total emissions of Germany. Bolivia lost 9 percent of its remaining intact tropical moist forests, while Brazil accounted for half of all degradation in the Amazon Basin.

Agriculture Drives Most Forest Loss

The report identifies permanent agriculture as the leading cause of deforestation, responsible for 86 percent of global forest loss over the past decade. Forests are being cleared for crops, pastureland, and plantation commodities like palm oil, soy, and rubber. Mining, infrastructure expansion, and land speculation add further pressure.

Domestic consumption is a major factor. For instance, in Latin America, the region’s consumption of beef and pasture products is the primary cause of deforestation.

In contrast, deforestation in Asia and Africa is tied to a broader range of export commodities. Recent studies cited in the report show that developed nations, especially the United States and several European countries, drive substantial biodiversity loss abroad through imported goods. Between 2000 and 2015, the 24 most industrialized countries caused an estimated 13 percent of global forest biodiversity loss through international trade.

The assessment also notes that “corruption, weak law enforcement, and poor land tenure systems” contribute significantly to deforestation. These governance failures allow illegal land grabs and unregulated clearing, undermining conservation efforts.

According to Matson, commodity-driven deforestation is complex because it is caused by several factors, including patterns of commodity demand, both for domestic consumption and international trade; trade regulations and tariffs that can shift commodity production areas and flows; domestic land use dynamics like land speculation, where the value of land is considered to increase once forest has been cleared; and weak law enforcement (69-94% of tropical deforestation is estimated to be illegal).

“To change this pattern, we need multiple actions that would complement each other. An investment in just, equitable, and responsive law enforcement to tackle illegal deforestation and make it unprofitable to clear land illegally. Trade regulations that disallow the import of commodities produced on land deforested after a certain date (like 2020), combined with investments in traceability systems and due diligence regulations to ensure that these regulations can be enforced,” she said.

Matson pitched for the adoption and enforcement of due diligence regulations to address deforestation related to domestic consumption of commodities.

“We need efforts and campaigns that aim to shift consumption patterns, where culturally appropriate, for example, reducing meat consumption in high-income, high-consuming countries, shifting to plant-based proteins, and shifting to consumption of certified deforestation-free commodities.”

Fires and Degradation Multiply the Threat

While deforestation removes entire forests, degradation weakens those that remain. In 2024, about 8.8 million hectares of tropical moist forests were degraded, twice the level compatible with halting degradation by 2030. The report calls degradation an “invisible crisis,” often overlooked in policy debates but just as damaging to biodiversity and climate stability.

Fire-induced degradation, particularly in the Amazon, was the primary driver of these losses. Extreme droughts, poor forest management, and deliberate burning for land clearing have made fires more destructive.

As per the report, the Amazon burned on a scale we haven’t seen in decades. These fires are no longer isolated events–they are symptoms of a stressed ecosystem pushed beyond its limits.

The report warns that degraded forests are far more likely to be deforested later, creating a cycle of decline. Data from Latin America, Africa, and Asia shows that once canopy cover falls below 50 percent, the risk of full deforestation rises sharply.

Degradation is a red flag. The report says that when forests start losing structure, deforestation often follows.

Monitoring degradation remains a major challenge due to limited global data. Most national reporting focuses only on tree cover loss, not on forest health or ecosystem function. The report urges governments to integrate degradation indicators into climate and biodiversity frameworks.

“We consider forest degradation a ‘silent crisis’ because forest degradation is extremely widespread and damaging to forest health and resilience, but it often goes unnoticed because it’s harder to detect and track than deforestation. Unlike deforestation, there is no globally agreed definition or standardized monitoring approach for forest degradation. Countries reporting to the FAO’s Forest Resources Assessment can set their own national definitions under the FRA 2025 guidance. This makes it difficult to compare data across regions or to capture the cumulative impacts of logging, fires, and other disturbances on forest quality,” Matson said.

She added that other frameworks have encouraged countries to set forest degradation definitions and monitoring criteria, such as REDD+–so the countries where degradation monitoring is most advanced are the ones that have advanced REDD+ programs.

“Where there are incentives to accurately monitor and report degradation, systems do improve. Forest degradation contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and also impacts biodiversity, so countries should set relevant targets, as a first step, within their NDCs (nationally determined contributions) and in their NBSAPs (national biodiversity strategies and action plans),” Matson said.

Restoration Efforts Show Potential, But Lag Behind

Despite grim trends, the assessment highlights some positive developments. As of September 2025, restoration projects were active across 10.6 million hectares of deforested and degraded land. These efforts include reforestation, agroforestry, and natural regeneration programs, mostly in tropical regions.

However, the figure represents only 0.3 percent of the global forest restoration potential, far below the 30 percent target set under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

Monitoring continues to be another area of weakness. Much of the available data comes from fragmented or overlapping sources, such as the Restor database and national observatories. The report warns that without unified global tracking, restoration progress will remain poorly understood.

The assessment calls for broader monitoring under the UN’s Framework for Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring (FERM), which combines quantitative data with qualitative information on project effectiveness and local participation. Governance and Finance Gaps Persist.

The report stresses that progress depends on systemic shifts, not isolated successes. While countries like Brazil have reduced deforestation through strong enforcement and inclusive land-use planning, others have seen gains erased by political change or weak implementation.

Financing for forest protection and restoration remains grossly inadequate. The report finds that forest-positive finance is still a fraction of the funds supporting activities that harm forests, such as fossil fuel subsidies and industrial agriculture. It calls for reforming financial systems to redirect capital toward sustainable land use.

The assessment also highlights that Indigenous and local communities remain underrepresented in forest decision-making, despite managing some of the world’s most intact ecosystems. Expanding legal recognition of land rights and ensuring community participation are described as “non-negotiable conditions” for progress.

“Like most topics covered in the report, barriers to scaled-up restoration are complex and are mainly financial, governance-related, and structural. Restoration is often underfunded because returns are only realized over the long term, and ecological benefits–like carbon storage, water regulation, or biodiversity–are not fully valued in markets. Public funding for restoration tends to be short-term or project-based, while private finance shies away due to high perceived risks, unclear revenue models, or a simple lack of investable projects or initiatives,” said Matson.

She says that on the policy side, many countries lack clear land tenure, long-term incentives, and enabling frameworks for restoration at scale.

“Integrating restoration into national climate, biodiversity, and rural development plans–and aligning finance, tenure, and monitoring systems accordingly–would incentivize and corral collective action to develop overarching, landscape-scale restoration approaches that move beyond scattered, individual projects,” Matson said.

Deforestation and Market Dynamics

With only five years left before the 2030 deadline, the report states that incremental changes will not be enough. “This crisis cannot fade into the background noise,” it states. “Isolated successes will not save the world’s forests. We need structural reform that makes forest protection the rule, not the exception.”

Experts say that reversing current trends will require coordinated action across agriculture, trade, and finance. Governments must close legal loopholes that allow deforestation-linked products to enter markets. Companies must trace and disclose their supply chains. And international lenders must align funding with environmental goals.

“In the medium to long term, we need to make preserving and sustainably managing forests more attractive and more profitable than even legal deforestation. And that requires shifting the financial incentives–subsidy reform; establishing payments for keeping standing forests standing, like the Tropical Forests Forever Facility; and increasing payments for ecosystem services programs for farmers and foresters,” Matson said. “A lot of deforestation is highly responsive to market dynamics–when the price of gold goes up, we see much more deforestation for gold mining. So, counterbalancing those harmful financial incentives with positive ones must be a part of any permanent solution to the deforestation crisis.”

By IPS.