Search Results
Sustainable commodity production
Definitions
- DEFORESTATION: a tree cover loss event that is permanent in nature, e.g., when forest is converted to cropland or cleared for development; or when it occurs within humid tropical primary forest boundaries (Forest Declaration Assessment, 2022).
- COMMODITY-DRIVEN DEFORESTATION: a tree cover loss event characterized by the long-term, permanent conversion of forest to a non-forest land use such as permanent agriculture and the production of hard commodities (Sims et al. 2025).
- PERMANENT AGRICULTURE: Long-term, permanent tree cover loss for small- to large-scale agriculture. This includes perennial tree crops such as oil palm, cacao, orchards, nut trees, and rubber, as well as pasture and seasonal crops and cropping systems, which may include a fallow period. Agricultural activities are considered ‘permanent’ if there is visible evidence that they persist following the tree cover loss event and are not a part of a temporary cultivation cycle. Clearing land for agricultural activities may involve use of fire (Sims et al. 2025).
- HARD COMMODITIES: Tree cover loss due to the establishment or expansion of mining or energy infrastructure. Mining activities range from small-scale and artisanal mining to large-scale mining. Energy infrastructure includes power lines, power plants, oil drilling and refineries, wind and solar farms, flooding due to the construction of hydroelectric dams, and other types of energy infrastructure (Sims et al. 2025).
Historical data and current trend methodology
- Commodity-driven deforestation is estimated summing the area of tree cover loss due to permanent agriculture and hard commodities, as defined by Sims et al. (2025).
- Analysis of current trends in commodity-driven deforestation follows methods developed by the Forest Declaration Assessment and relies on data available on Global Nature Watch.
- The regional classification adopted for this indicator is based on the global distribution of forests by climatic domain (FAO, 2020). The geographic distribution of each climatic domain was overlaid with national borders, and each country was assigned to the climatic domain that overlapped with the largest percentage of its area. Regions are defined by a combination of continent and climatic domain. Country boundaries and continent assignments are based on the Database of Global Administrative Areas (GADM), version 3.6. The regional aggregation is detailed in Annex B of the 2024 Forest Declaration Assessment.
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
Deforestation is frequently driven by the conversion of forest land for the production of commodities such as agriculture, mining, and energy infrastructure. The data used here to track commodity-driven deforestation is divided into two main drivers: permanent agriculture and hard commodities (e.g., metals, minerals, or fossil fuels).
In 2025, a combined 6.01 million hectares (Mha) of forest were permanently cleared for permanent agriculture (5.73 Mha) and hard commodities (0.28 Mha). This is a dramatic decrease of approximately 16% compared to 2024, marking the sharpest year-over-year improvement this decade. Regardless, the stubbornly high deforestation rates over the previous half decade or more indicate that the world is unlikely to eliminate commodity-driven deforestation by 2030 – unless 2025’s one-year drop is converted into sustained progress.
Definitions
- This indicator includes terrestrial and inland water protected areas (PAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) as tracked by Protected Planet.
Historical data and current trend methodology
- The data for 2012-2020 can be found in the Protected Planet Reports. The latest data can be found under the option to Download latest global statistics on the Protected Planet homepage. Monthly updates and other reports can be found under the Protected Planet Resources page.
- The total percentage of the world’s land that is under protection is calculated by adding the percentage of terrestrial and inland water areas that are protected to the percentage of marine areas that are protected. Use “total_land_oecms_pas_coverage_percentage” from the latest global statistics download for this indicator.
- The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and database on OECMs are snapshots of areas protected at a given point in time, not a temporal database on protected areas growth. The coverage of PAs and OECMs can fluctuate year to year based not just on actual changes on the ground, but also on changes in how data is reported or counted (Database manual page 33).
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
Evidence suggests that establishing and expanding the coverage of protected areas and “other effective conservation measures” (OECMs) is one effective strategy to prevent the conversion and degradation of forests and other land ecosystems, and in doing so, advance forest, sustainable land use, biodiversity, and climate goals. By designating land for protection or conservation, governments help to prevent deforestation and degradation driven by the production of commodities such as beef, soy, and palm oil. These are some of the primary drivers of forest loss in the countries that are key to delivering on most of the world’s cost-effective, land-based mitigation potential. Multiple studies have found that lands designated as protected areas – such as national parks, wilderness areas, Indigenous reserves, or national monuments – consistently experience lower levels of deforestation and less greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to formally designated protected areas, land primarily managed for other uses but covered by OECMs can also support forest, biodiversity, and climate goals.
As of October 2026, 18.7% of the world’s terrestrial ecosystems and inland waters lie within protected areas or are covered by OECMs.
Historical data and current trend methodology
- No publicly available data was identified
The world’s forests and other land ecosystems are under continuous and increasing pressure from the unsustainable expansion of agricultural production, and other extractive activities such as mining and logging. While global data on moratoria is not yet available, case studies indicate that one effective way to safeguard these lands is to institute a moratorium on ecosystem conversions. For example, in 2006, major soy traders established the Amazon Soy Moratorium, agreeing not to purchase soy grown on land in the Brazilian Amazon deforested after July 2008. The agreement prevented an estimated 18,000 km2 of deforestation in Brazil from 2006 to 2016; although, a separate modeling study found that deforestation displaced elsewhere within Brazil partly offset the benefits, while cross-border leakage was minimal. However, in early 2026, Brazil’s soy industry association ABIOVE announced its withdrawal from the Moratorium following a Mato Grosso law removing tax incentives and access to public land from participating companies. In August 2026, Brazil’s Supreme Court affirmed the Moratorium’s constitutionality but upheld state laws restricting benefits for participants, leaving the economic pressure behind the withdrawal in place.
In 2018, Indonesia issued a moratorium on new palm oil concessions, and in 2019, it made its moratorium on new permits in primary forests and peatlands permanent. The palm oil-specific moratorium expired in 2021, but the permanent forest and peatland moratorium, alongside stronger fire prevention and corporate commitments, has helped keep forest loss below the highs of the mid-2010s. Nevertheless, primary forest loss increased by 14% in 2025, with agricultural expansion –including the government’s food estate program – and mining contributing to the increase.
Historical data and current trend methodology
- Data was collected from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) assessment report by selecting countries with SE or HE ratings (substantial effectiveness, high effectiveness) within the IO4 category (Financial institutions, DNFBPs and VASPs adequately apply AML/CFT preventive measures, commensurate with their risks, and report suspicious transactions). The earliest date in which the country is reported is used for historical data.
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
Natural and environmental crimes threaten the environment and undermine sustainable development, international security, and the rule of law. Such crimes can include illicit logging, mining, fishing, wildlife trade, or land conversion, all of which can be financial drivers for criminal organizations and terrorism. Environmental crimes are costly, amounting to about USD 280 billion in criminal gains and costing governments USD 30 billion in lost tax revenue yearly. Public and private institutions should implement Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know-Your-Customer (KYC) due-diligence regulatory frameworks to uncover and prevent unintended support of environmental crimes and activities.
The Financial Action Task Force, an inter-governmental body, sets standards to prevent global money laundering and rates countries in terms of the effectiveness of their anti-money laundering systems. According to the Task Force’s 2024 assessment ratings, only 3% of countries have substantial levels of effectiveness to ensure that financial institutions are implementing preventative AML measures and reporting suspicious activities. No countries were shown to have high levels of effectiveness. Although the rating doesn’t specifically address natural resource infractions, countries that have financial institutions effectively applying AML measures are best placed to track environmental crimes.
Public policies on consumption and trade
Historical data and current trend methodology
- The data was downloaded from Pendrill et al. 2020. The downloaded data included only the top million largest trade flows (in terms of embodied deforestation area), which covered more than 99.99% of the traded embodied deforestation (emissions), and excluded domestic consumption and the same consumer and producer countries.
- The data represents the imports of embodied deforestation area (in Mha/yr) by country of consumption, year and the totals of all commodities.
- The indicator was calculated by converting consumer country trade data from ha/yr to Mha/yr, and summing up the total of deforestation risk embodied in imports for each consumer country for each year.
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
Deforestation displaced: trade in forest-risk commodities and the prospects for a global forest transition
Pendrill et al.
Visit this SourceAgricultural and forestry trade drives large share of tropical deforestation emissions
Pendrill et al.
Visit this Source
Although most tropical primary forest loss occurs in just a handful of tropical forested countries, much of this loss is driven by the demand for internationally-traded agricultural commodities – including beef, soy, palm oil, cocoa, and products made with these commodities such as leather and chocolate – from wealthy countries. Embodied deforestation refers to the forest loss associated with the production and consumption of commodities. In 2017, for example, almost 1.3 million hectares (Mha) of deforestation were embodied in internationally-traded commodities. The countries with the highest levels of imported deforestation that year were China, India, and the United States, and they were responsible for importing a collective 0.49 Mha of embodied deforestation. Regulations in consumer countries are necessary to reduce trade-driven deforestation.
Historical data and current trend methodology
- Data was pulled from estimates within Pendrill et al. 2019. The authors estimate a range of 29-39% of deforestation-related emissions being driven by international trade. We present the middle of that range, 34%.
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
Deforestation displaced: trade in forest-risk commodities and the prospects for a global forest transition
Pendrill et al.
Visit this SourceAgricultural and forestry trade drives large share of tropical deforestation emissions
Pendrill et al.
Visit this Source
The production of internationally-traded agricultural commodities – such as beef, soy, palm oil, and cocoa – that drives unsustainable agricultural expansion into primary forests is also a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For example, in 2014, 34% of GHG emissions from deforestation were embodied in internationally-traded commodities. Embodied deforestation emissions are the greenhouse gas emissions that result from the forest loss associated with the production and consumption of commodities. Developed countries and emerging economies import the largest shares of embodied deforestation. Regulations in consumer countries are necessary to reduce emissions from deforestation.
Historical data and current trend methodology
- No publicly available data was identified
The value of internationally traded agricultural commodities with embodied degradation and conversion is a measure of how international demand drives unsustainable commodity production and associated deforestation. Embodied conversion or degradation value refers to the monetary value of the commodities whose production or consumption has embodied forest loss. Regulations in consumer countries are necessary to reduce trade-driven conversion or degradation. However, data is not yet available to support the measurement of this indicator, which may inhibit policy development.
Definitions
- “Regulated markets” are those with relatively advanced timber import regulations prohibiting illegally sourced wood. These include Australia, the European Union (EU) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries, the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan, and the Republic of Korea.
- “Regulated markets (developing)” are those with less developed timber import regulations (i.e., regulations exist in those markets, but they are functionally not yet implemented and not having an effect); these markets include China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and New Zealand.
- “Non-regulated markets” are those without any kind of timber import regulations.
Historical data and current trend methodology
- Data covers the years 2007 to 2023 and covers six “regulated markets,” three markets with “developing” regulations, as well as data from non-regulated markets.
- Data is taken from the UN Comtrade Database (2025), and was compiled and shared by Forest Trends.
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
Much of the demand for the commodities that drive forest loss is from the world’s wealthiest countries. For example, China, the European Union (EU), India, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (U.S.) collectively accounted for over 70% of deforestation emissions embodied in international trade flows on average from 2010 to 2014. Additionally, from 2000 to 2015, commodity demand from 24 of the world’s most developed countries was responsible for an average of 13% of the total range loss experienced by any forest-dependent vertebrate species globally during that period; these 24 countries were also linked to 15 times more damage to biodiversity internationally than domestically, highlighting their disproportionate global biodiversity footprint.
To reduce demand for commodities that drive forest loss and degradation, some governments have adopted trade policies to facilitate legal and more sustainable commodity consumption. In 2023, the value of timber imports to markets with developed regulations for mitigating forest loss linked to timber imports was approximately USD 159.5 billion, or 73% of global timber trade. The value to markets covered by less advanced timber import regulations was approximately USD 22.6 billion, or 10% of global timber trade. However, these timber import regulations (both those that are advanced and those that are less advanced) have not led to the intended effect of reducing deforestation linked to timber production in producer countries; this is likely due to a lack of enforcement. Illegal logging is estimated to account for 15-30% of global timber production, and 50-90% of logging in many tropical countries.
Historical data and current trend methodology
- Countries included are the ones with green procurement arrangement and strategies that are in the indicator of “at least one institutional arrangement” surveyed in the World Bank Green Public Procurement: An Overview of Green Reforms in Country Procurement Systems report. Total number of countries surveyed: 149.
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
Green public procurement (GPP) policies use the purchasing power of governments to drive more sustainable commodity consumption by generating demand for sustainably sourced products. Public procurement carries significant buying power as it accounts for the GDP of 12% of OECD countries and 14% of low-income countries. Governments increasingly use GPP policies as tools to meet their environmental, economic, and social objectives.
As of 2021, 53% of countries had at least one GPP institutional arrangement in place (at differing levels of development), indicating much room for improvement. These arrangements included GPP practices incorporated in procurement law, standardized environmental criteria in certain procurement categories, GPP strategies or action plans, and the collection/reporting of GPP activities, among others. However, many countries that have implemented a form of GPP are not yet monitoring their procurement operations or reporting on them. As of 2024, a survey of 35 OECD countries and 5 accession countries found that
As of 2024, 24 out of 35 (69%) of surveyed OECD countries reported setting quantitative GPP targets, and 29 OECD countries had set key performance indicators for their public procurement system. However, of these 29 countries, just three (Finland, New Zealand, and Norway) had reported measuring the impact of their public procurement policies on the environment. Additionally, 11 of these 29 countries surveyed countries reported that they were developing methodologies for measuring environmental impact of their public procurement systems.
Definitions
ACTING AT SCALE: The SDG Target 12.3 progress report series defines “acting at scale” as the presence of national-level initiatives to tackle food loss and waste, as established in Flanagan et al. 2018.
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
Globally, about one-third of food produced is lost or wasted. Reducing food loss and waste presents an opportunity to promote more sustainable commodity consumption by minimizing the “waste” of agricultural land, water, and other agricultural inputs and processes associated with greenhouse gas emissions, thereby reducing the pressure on agricultural systems to expand to meet growing demand. Governments can motivate efforts to reduce food loss and waste across supply chains through a variety of actions such as developing and implementing national strategies to reduce food loss and waste; providing funding to support the adoption of new technologies and practices; standardizing food date labeling on packaged food to reduce consumer confusion over food safety; changing laws to facilitate food donation and food waste diversion; and supporting education campaigns for farmers and consumers.
The number of countries implementing large-scale policies or plans to reduce food loss and waste has increased substantially in recent years from countries representing 14% of the global population in 2018 to countries representing 52% of the global population by 2025.
Historical data and current trend methodology
- Ruminant meat consumption is calculated by first determining the consumption level for each of the regions; this is done by multiplying the food supply (kcal/capita/day) by the total population (1000 persons). Next, the total consumption of the regions (kcal/day) is divided by the total population (1000 persons) of the regions. All data are obtained from FAOSTAT.
- Although FAOSTAT data have several strengths, including coverage of most countries, relatively consistent methods across countries, and open access, they rely on national data submissions, which can be subject to differences in definitions and quantification methods across countries and time. As such, there can be discrepancies among methods used to generate FAOSTAT data and other measurement methods (e.g., dietary surveys to estimate per capita food consumption patterns).
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
Ruminant livestock such as cattle, sheep, and goats are particularly resource-intensive commodities to produce, requiring seven times as much land as poultry and pork and 20 times more than beans per gram of protein. Pasture expansion for beef production, in particular, drives over 40% of tropical deforestation. By contrast, ruminant livestock production on rangelands that are not encroaching upon forests provides livelihoods to millions of pastoralists, produces high-quality protein and micronutrients, and uses arid lands that could not otherwise produce crops. In addition to sustainably increasing ruminant meat productivity, moderating ruminant meat consumption will be essential for reducing agricultural land demand and reducing methane emissions while feeding more people.
Dietary shifts to reduce ruminant meat toward plant-based foods are only relevant for high-consuming regions (primarily in the Americas, Europe, and Oceania)* where protein consumption is well above dietary requirements and alternative protein options are widely available. That said, in some regions with historically low meat consumption, rising consumption will also need to be moderated.
The FAOSTAT data indicates that after declining from a peak of 112 kilocalories per day in the 1990s, per capita ruminant meat consumption across high-consuming regions fluctuated in the following decades, then began a slight downward trend in 2014, reaching 104 kilocalories per day in 2022. This weighted average tracks consumption in high-consuming regions only.
According to the OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook for 2025-2034, ruminant meat prices, especially for cattle, are expected to increase in the coming years due to supply shortages, with prices peaking around 2027 and declining thereafter. These price increases will likely lead to lower demand and consumption of ruminant meat and contribute to a long-term shift in demand towards more affordable and less resource-intensive protein sources such as non-ruminant meat or vegetarian alternatives.
* This diet shift is not relevant for populations within high-consuming regions that 1) already consume less than 60 kcal/capita/day of ruminant meat and/or 2) have micronutrient deficiencies and/or 3) do not have access to affordable and healthy alternatives to ruminant meat. FAOSTAT’s definition of Oceania includes Australia, New Zealand, Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia.
Private sector policies
Definitions
- COMMITMENT STRENGTH: The 2024 Forest 500 Company Assessment Methodology defines “commitment strength” as “the ambition and scope of company commitments on deforestation and traceability.” In the 2024 assessment, companies can receive up to 6.5 points in this category; in 2025 they can receive up to 8.875 points.
- POLICY STRENGTH: The Forest 500 data guide for financial institutions provides a “policy strength” score for financial institutions, rather than a “commitment strength” score. “Policy strength” assesses “the ambition and scope of financial institution policies on deforestation and traceability.” Financial institutions can receive up to 7.8 points in this category as of 2024; in 2025, they can receive 9.75 points.
- AVERAGE SCORE: The “average score” is the average percentage of the possible points that companies or financial institutions received. It is important to note that these average scores are average percentages. They cannot be meaningfully summed together. Also, the methodologies for companies and financial institutions are different. The scores for each group should not be combined.
- ZERO DEFORESTATION: The 2024 Forest 500 Company Assessment Methodology and the 2024 Forest 500 Financial Institution Assessment Methodology note that they have interpreted commitments to “eliminate” deforestation or conversion as deforestation-free. Additionally, Forest 500 includes zero conversion, zero deforestation, and net zero commitments, scoring each differently. The Dashboard is choosing to use the term “zero deforestation” in collectively referring to the Forest 500 assessment even though not all commitments that Forest 500 includes are specifically zero deforestation.
Historical data and current trend methodology
- Forest 500 now assesses the 500 companies and 150 financial institutions with the highest exposure to deforestation risks each year. Its methodology, definitions, and data formats have changed over time. From 2018 to 2023, the assessment was made up of the 350 companies with the greatest influence on tropical deforestation through palm oil, soy, timber, pulp and paper, beef, and leather, and the 150 financial institutions providing the most finance to them. As of the 2024 assessment, the company assessment considers the 500 companies with the greatest influence on deforestation (across all forest-types, including tropical and non-tropical deforestation) through the supply chains of nine commodities. This includes the addition of cocoa, coffee, and rubber. This expansion of both companies, forest types, and commodities is in line with the European Union Deforestation Regulation.
- Methodology to calculate the average deforestation commitment strength score for the 350 companies with the highest exposure to deforestation risks Forest 500 Assessments for years 2018 – 2022:
- Data was downloaded from Forest500 using a format that allowed users to select a particular indicator of interest and then see the corresponding scores. The average commitment score for companies was calculated by taking the average of 350 companies’ commitment strength score for all commodities. The average commitment score for financial institutions was calculated by taking the average of 150 financial institutions’ policy strength score for all commodities.
- Forest 500 changed the way that data can be downloaded for 2023 going forward. Data for the 2024 assessment was calculated as explained below.
- We downloaded the company and financial data csv files available on Forest 500’s Data and Methods page and converted the files to Excel format.
- To calculate the average commitment strength for companies, we summed the total “commitment strength” score for each company (column AL – Commitment Strength / 6.5 in the companies data sheet). We then divided the total sum score by the total possible score (in 2024, the total possible for each individual company is 6.5, so the total possible across all 500 companies is 3250) to produce the average (arithmetic mean) of the percent scores across all companies. The same approach was replicated for the 2025 assessment data, based on the possible score cap for 2025.
- To calculate the average policy strength for financial institutions, we took the total summed “policy strength” score for all financial institutions (column O – Policy Strength / 7.8) in the financial institutions data sheet. We then divided the total sum score by the total possible score (in 2024, the total possible for each individual financial institution is 7.8, so the total possible across all 150 financial institutions is 1170) to produce the average (arithmetic mean) of the percent scores across all financial institutions. The same approach was replicated for the 2025 assessment data, based on the possible score cap for 2025.
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
Companies that produce, sell, or trade forest-risk agricultural commodities and the financial institutions that invest in those companies can support sustainable production by committing to only source commodities that are verifiably produced without contributing to deforestation. However, the zero deforestation commitments of companies and the zero deforestation policies of financial institutions with the most exposure to and influence on tropical deforestation show considerable room for improvement. In 2024, USD 8.9 trillion went to the 500 companies with the greatest influence on global deforestation across nine forest-risk commodity supply chains (beef, cocoa, coffee, leather, palm oil, pulp and paper, soy, rubber and timber).
Global Canopy’s Forest 500 assessment evaluates the zero deforestation commitments of the 500 companies and zero deforestation policies of the 150 financial institutions with the highest exposure to deforestation risks. For companies, the Forest 500 assessment provides a commitment strength score based on the extent to which companies’ commitments have critical components, such as whether they are time-bound, cover all sourcing regions and suppliers, and trace products to the point of production. For financial institutions, the Forest 500 assessment provides a policy strength score that is based on the extent to which financial institutions’ commitments and policies have critical components, such as whether they are time-bound, they apply to all financing, and clients or holdings are required to monitor their operations or suppliers.
For the 500 companies assessed in 2025, the average commitment strength score was 35%, meaning that, on average, companies fulfilled 36.9% of Forest 500’s criteria for strong zero deforestation or zero conversion and traceability commitments. For the 150 financial institutions assessed in 2025, the average policy strength score was 15.9%, meaning that, on average, financial institutions only fulfilled 15.9% of Forest 500’s criteria for strong deforestation and traceability-related policies. The company commitment score represents a slight improvement from previous years, while the financial institution policy strength score shows a rebound from the year before. Regardless, the persistently low averages across both indicators show that many companies and financial institutions are not keeping up with best practices for reducing deforestation and increasing traceability.
Definitions
- ZERO DEFORESTATION: Forest 500 assesses companies’ commitments related to deforestation- and conversion- free production and procurement. The 2024 Forest 500 Company Assessment Methodology and the 2024 Forest 500 Financial Institution Assessment Methodology note that they have interpreted commitments to “eliminate” deforestation or conversion as deforestation-free. Additionally, Forest 500 includes zero conversion, zero deforestation, and net zero commitments, scoring each differently. The Dashboard is choosing to use the term “zero deforestation” in collectively referring to the Forest 500 assessment even though not all commitments that Forest 500 includes are specifically zero deforestation.
- COMPANY IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING SCORE: The 2023 Forest 500 Company Assessment Methodology defined “Implementation and Reporting” as “the company’s approach to implementing their commitments in their supply chains, including transparency in reporting progress against deforestation and human rights commitments.” In the 2023 assessment, companies could receive up to 64 points in this category. The 2024 Forest 500 Company Assessment Methodology splits implementation and reporting into two categories: “implementation” (worth a maximum of 39.5 points in 2024; max of 48.125 in 2025) and “reporting and verification” (worth a maximum of 35.5 points in 2024; 25.5 in 2025). In the 2024 assessment methodology, “implementation” is defined as “the company’s approach to implementing their commitments on deforestation and associated human rights in their supply chains, including traceability commitments,” whereas “reporting and verification” is defined as “the transparency and disclosure of reporting on progress, and the verification of that reporting of deforestation and human rights commitments.”
- FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING SCORE: The 2023 Forest 500 Financial Institution Assessment Methodology defined “Implementation and Reporting” as “the organisation’s approach to implementing their policies in their financial portfolios, including their transparency in reporting progress against their policies.” In the 2023 assessment, financial institutions can receive up to 50 points in this category. The 2024 Forest 500 Financial Institution Assessment Methodology splits up implementation and reporting into two categories: “implementation” (worth a maximum of 52.8 points in 2024; 50.75 points in 2025) and “reporting and verification” (worth a maximum of 14 points in 2024; 15 points in 2025). In the 2024 assessment methodology, “implementation” is defined as “the financial institution’s approach to implementing their policies in their portfolios” whereas “reporting and verification” is defined as “the financial institution’s approach to reporting on their progress towards achieving their policies across their portfolios.”
- AVERAGE SCORE: The “average score” is the average percentage of the possible points that companies or financial institutions received. It is important to note that these average scores are average percentages. They cannot be meaningfully summed together. Also, the methodologies for companies and financial institutions are different. The scores for each group should not be combined.
Historical data and current trend methodology
- Forest 500 assesses the 500 companies and 150 financial institutions with the highest exposure to deforestation risks each year. Its methodology, definitions, and data formats have changed over time. From 2018 to 2023, the assessment was made up of the 350 companies with the greatest influence on tropical deforestation through palm oil, soy, timber, pulp and paper, beef, and leather, and the 150 financial institutions providing the most finance to them. Now, the company assessment considers the 500 companies with the greatest influence on deforestation (across all forest-types, including tropical and non-tropical deforestation) through the supply chains of nine commodities. This includes the addition of cocoa, coffee, and rubber. This expansion of both companies, forest types, and commodities is in line with the European Union Deforestation Regulation.
- Methodology to calculate the average implementation and reporting score for the 350 companies with the highest exposure to deforestation risks Forest 500 Assessments for years 2018 – 2022:
- Data was downloaded from Forest500 using a format that allowed users to select a particular indicator of interest and then see the corresponding scores.
- Companies’ average implementation and reporting score was calculated by taking the average of 350 companies’ implementation and reporting strength score for all commodities
- Financial institutions’ average implementation and reporting score was calculated by taking the average of 150 financial institutions’ implementation and reporting strength score for all commodities.
- Forest500 changed the way that data can be downloaded for 2023 going forward. Data for the 2024 an assessment and beyond were calculated as explained below.
- We downloaded the company and financial data csv files available on Forest 500’s Data and Methods page and converted the csv files to Excel files, if needed.
- To calculate the average implementation and reporting score for companies, we took the combined sum of the “implementation” and “reporting and verification” scores for each company (e.g. for 2024, column AN – Implementation / 39.5 and column AO – Reporting and Verification / 35.5 in the companies data sheet). We then divided the sum score across all companies by the total possible score (e.g., in 2024, the total possible score for individual companies is 75, and the total possible sum score is 37,500) to produce the average (arithmetic mean) of the percent scores across all companies.
- To calculate the average implementation and reporting score for financial institutions, we took the combined sum of the “implementation” and “reporting and verification” scores for each financial institution (e.g. for 2024, column Q – Implementation / 52.8 and column R – Reporting and Verification / 14) in the financial institutions data sheet. We then divided the sum score for each financial institution by the total possible score (e.g. in 2024, the total possible is 66.8 and the total possible sum score is 10,020) to produce the average (arithmetic mean) of the percent scores across all companies.
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
Companies that sell or trade agricultural commodities and products associated with forest loss have a crucial influence on production models. By committing to only source commodities that are verifiably produced without contributing to deforestation and adequately implementing and reporting on those commitments, they can significantly support sustainable production. Financial institutions that invest in those companies can help combat deforestation and promote sustainable commodity production by instituting commitments to eliminate deforestation in their portfolios and adequately implementing and reporting on those commitments.
Global Canopy’s Forest 500 assessment scores how well the 500 companies as well as the 150 financial institutions with the highest exposure to deforestation risks implement and report on their commitments. For companies, this includes whether they are reporting volumes of product compliant with sustainability requirements and if their reporting is independently verified. For financial institutions, this considers whether they assess clients’ or holdings’ exposure prior to onboarding or if they require clients or holdings to report on their progress towards their commitments.
The 500 companies assessed in 2025, fulfilled, on average, only 17.4% of Forest 500’s criteria for implementation and reporting on their zero deforestation commitments. The 150 financial institutions assessed in 2025 fulfilled, on average, 9.4% of Forest 500’s criteria for implementation and reporting. Both scores show a slight improvement from 2024, yet remain alarmingly low. This shows that companies and financial institutions are not keeping up with best practices for reporting on and implementing deforestation-related commitments.
Definitions
PUBLIC BIODIVERSITY POLICIES: Mining/extractive companies with a documented biodiversity/forests policy that is publicly available.
Historical data and current trend methodology
- This indicator relies on data reported by companies to CDP.
- Previous source: Data was provided directly by CDP and reflects companies’ responses to question C15.2 in the CDP 2023 Climate Change Questionnaire (‘Has your organization made a public commitment and/or endorsed any initiatives related to biodiversity?’).
- This indicator was ”restarted” in 2025 to account for the new framing used in the CDP 2024 Forest Questionnaire on this indicator as well as the expanded scope of companies invited to disclose.
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
Mining-related deforestation is substantial and growing. Gold and coal account for the largest shares of recorded mining-related forest loss, while rising mineral demand adds pressure on forests. Mining operations are expanding into intact forests, biodiversity hotspots, and Indigenous Peoples’ territories. A 2026 study estimates that mining directly caused nearly 2 million hectares of deforestation globally between 2001 and 2023 – two to three times higher than previous estimates, with more than half linked to previously unrecorded mining activity. Impacts extend beyond mine sites: infrastructure, settlement, and associated agricultural expansion can drive further forest loss. Meeting 2030 forest goals requires governments and companies to address these indirect and cumulative impacts alongside direct clearing.
Corporate transparency on forest risks remains very limited in the mining and extractives sectors. In 2025, 169 companies reporting to CDP from these sectors disclosed having a publicly available biodiversity and/or forest policy, representing just over half (52%) of mining companies disclosing on biodiversity issues to CDP in 2025.
