Search Results
International financial commitments
Historical data and current trend methodology
- Data was sourced from progress reports for key forest finance pledges and initiatives by public and philanthropic donors. Figures cover pledges through September 23, 2025. Yearly totals are cumulative.
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
Several funding pledges and initiatives related specifically to protecting and restoring forests were announced in the wake of the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use for the period of 2021-2025. They demonstrate increases in ambition to meet 2030 goals for sustainable forest management and forest conservation and restoration.
Key forest The Congo Basin Pledge (2021); the Global Forest Finance Pledge (2021); the IPLC Forest Tenure Pledge (2021); the Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition (2021); the Finance Sector Deforestation Action (FSDA) initiative (2021); the Innovative Finance for the Amazon, Cerrado, and Chaco (IFACC) initiative (2021); the Forest, People, Climate (FPC) initiative (2022); and The Libreville Plan (2023). In September 2025, Brazil announced that it would make the inaugural investment commitment for the Tropical Forests Forever Fund (TFFF) to the tune of USD 1 billion (2025).
The pledges by governments, philanthropy, financial institutions, businesses, and other multistakeholder partnerships total USD 30.7 billion from 2021 to 2025. However, it is not always fully transparent how these finance pledges relate to one another. For instance, the 2021-2022 annual report for the IPLC Forest Tenure Pledge noted that the same finance contributions are likely counted toward three pledges simultaneously: its own, the Global Forest Finance Pledge, and the Congo Basin Pledge.
Historical data and current trend methodology
- Data was sourced from progress reports for key forest finance pledges and initiatives by public and philanthropic donors. Figures cover disbursements through September 23, 2025. Yearly totals are cumulative.
- The Congo Basin Pledge and the Global Forest Finance Pledge have not yet released data on spending progress in 2024 and 2025. In these cases, 2023 spending data is used as a proxy.
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
Any increase in financial commitments for sustainable forest management and forest conservation and restoration is a welcome development that points to current ambition levels on reaching forest goals. These commitments must be put into practice and not simply remain a “promise.”
Of the USD 30.7 billion in international forest finance committed from 2021 to 2025, USD 15.1 billion had been reported as disbursed as of September 2025. As of 2025, half of the pledges were reported to be on track. The IPLC Forest Tenure Pledge even exceeded its funding commitment of USD 1.7 billion. As of December 2024, pledge signatories had provided more than USD 1.8 billion in aligned funding.
However, while the Tenure Pledge is a beacon of progress in terms of spending and transparent reporting, public disclosures and reporting are not available for all pledges, although they are essential for measuring progress made against commitments.
Green finance and investments
Definitions
- REDD+: REDD+ stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation plus additional forest activities such as sustainable management and the conservation and enhancement of forest stocks.
Historical data and current trend methodology
- Data on climate-related Official Development Assistance for the forestry sector was sourced from the OECD. Data for 2024 is not yet available and is predicted using the average yearly change over the last five years.
- Data on international REDD+ disbursements was sourced from the Climate Funds Update Data Dashboard. Data includes REDD+ readiness and implementation finance disbursements by the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCFP), Green Climate Fund (GCF), Forest Investment Program (FIP), BioCarbon Fund, Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI), UN-REDD, Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF), and the Amazon Fund.
- Data on disbursements under different forest finance pledges was sourced from progress reports for key forest finance pledges and initiatives by public and philanthropic donors. Figures cover disbursements through September 23, 2025. Disbursements under different forest finance pledges include a small, yet insignificant share of philanthropic finance.
- The estimate of average annual international public finance for forests post-GLD (2022-2024) is calculated using 2022-2024 data on climate-related Official Development Assistance for the forestry sector, international REDD+ disbursements, and disbursements under different forest finance pledges by public and philanthropic donors.
- The estimate of average annual international public finance for forests pre-GLD (2018-2020) is calculated using 2018-2020 data on climate-related ODA for the forestry sector (OECD data) and international REDD+ disbursements (data from Climate Funds Update).
- The period 2018-2020 is used as reference period to align with the reference period used for tracking progress on overarching forest goals; and to exclude the year 2021, in which values deviating from historical trends were recorded, presumably due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
From 2022-24, following the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration, average annual disbursements of international public finance for forests rose to an estimated USD 5.9 billion, up from USD 1.7 billion in 2018-20. Nonetheless, this total represents only 1.4 percent of the USD 409 billion in public finance directed annually toward environmentally harmful agricultural subsidies that may drive forest loss and degradation. Recent budget cuts in key donor countries, along with geopolitical uncertainty and a lack of new commitments, suggest that public funding is unlikely to increase significantly in the near future.
Historical data and current trend methodology
Data was taken directly from CPI’s “Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2023” and “Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2025” reports. The data includes mitigation, adaptation, and dual-benefit finance for AFOLU and fisheries from 2019-2023 by source. A full description of the underlying methodology can be found at the source.
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
Increasing the amount, effectiveness, and accessibility of international finance and investment is necessary to enable sustainable practices related to agriculture, forests, and other land use (AFOLU). In a positive development, the AFOLU sector has seen a remarkable increase in annual climate finance in recent years.
According to data reported by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), climate finance for AFOLU almost tripled from USD 13 billion in 2019 to USD 38 billion in 2023. While the sector still receives only a small share of overall climate finance flows (about 2% in 2023), both public and private financiers are increasingly investing in mitigation activities in the AFOLU sector, evidenced by a 52% increase in climate mitigation finance for the sector from 2022 to 2023. In addition, the AFOLU sector continues to attract a significant share of dual-benefit finance.
AFOLU finance requires further growth given that the AFOLU sector was responsible for 22% of global emissions in 2019 and remains underfunded relative to its climate impacts. In addition, the AFOLU sector holds great untapped emissions reduction potential; CPI estimates that mitigation flows need to increase 64-fold from USD 18 billion in 2023 to USD 1,170 billion annually through 2030 to realize this potential.
Historical data and current trend methodology
- Data was sourced directly from the UNEP “State of Finance for Nature” 2021,2022, and 2023 reports. Public finance includes those from Domestic Government and Public Overseas Development Assistance (ODA).
- The numbers prior to 2022 are not directly comparable due to updates in the methodology and country coverage in the 2023 report, which includes only 2023 data and revised 2022 figures. To ensure consistency, 2019 values have been adjusted to 2022 prices using the average GDP deflators for advanced economies from the IMF’s 2023 World Economic Outlook.
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
State of Finance for Nature 2023
UNEP
This indicator tracks finance specifically dedicated to nature-based solutions (NbS), meaning actions that restore, preserve, or manage ecosystems, including through more sustainable forest management, forest conservation, and restoration, to address climate change and protect nature. NbS can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, bolster adaptation, boost ecosystem health, protect biodiversity, reduce soil erosion, and avoid deforestation.
Finance directed toward NbS reached USD 200 billion in 2023, with public finance contributing 82% of this total. However, this level of investment is not enough to reach global climate, biodiversity, and land degradation targets under the Rio Conventions. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates that, to meet Rio targets, total investments into NbS need to almost triple to USD 542 billion by 2030 and increase nearly fourfold to reach USD 737 billion by 2050. However, without a big turnaround on nature-negative finance flows estimated by UNEP at almost USD 7 trillion, increased finance for NbS will have limited impact.
Historical data and current trend methodology
- Data was taken directly from two editions of the Biodiversity Finance Factbook by BloombergNEF. A full description of the underlying methodology can be found in the reports.
- In the 2023 edition, financial flows are disaggregated by source (“public domestic”, “public international”, “private”, “any”). For displaying the data on the Dashboard, the categories “public domestic” and “public international” were added together to present an estimate of public flows, while “private” and “any” were added together to provide an estimate of private flows.
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
Nature and biodiversity loss could cause devastating losses to the global economy and society at large with approximately 55% of global GDP moderately or highly dependent on nature. Business sectors that directly rely on biodiversity will experience losses in profitability and risks to long-term continuity unless biodiversity is protected. For example, USD 235–577 billion in annual global food production is dependent on bees, while coral reefs generate USD 36 billion in ecotourism every year.
Leveraging public and private finance will be essential to reach global biodiversity goals, yet recent trends show that investment is falling short. In 2023, global biodiversity finance amounted to USD 208 billion, up from USD 166 billion in 2021. Public sources provided 83% or USD 173 billion of this total and private sources contributed USD 35 billion. Estimates suggest that current biodiversity finance flows still need to increase almost five times by 2030.
Finance effectiveness and accessibility
Climate finance flows to underserved and marginalized communities are crucial to protect livelihoods and support communities’ ability to adapt and build resilience to future climate impacts. Certain groups, such as Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant Peoples, and local communities, are especially vulnerable to climate impacts because their physical risks are compounded by marginalization and inequity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that considerable gains in well-being can be reached by prioritizing finance dedicated to reducing marginalized communities’ climate risks. Climate finance needs to be more inclusive of underserved and marginalized groups, especially given the fact that those who contribute the least to climate change experience the burden of its impacts most.
At this time, while the finance needs of communities are documented, no reliable data set has been identified to systematically track finance flows to meet those needs. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates that less than 17% of the USD 95 billion allocated in climate adaptation finance from 2017-2021 was channeled to projects with a focus on local communities.
Historical data and current trend methodology
- OECD’s Financing SMEs and Entrepreneurs: An OECD Scoreboard was used to collect the data for “Share of new SME lending (% of total new lending)”.
- No additional calculation was performed.
- Financing SMEs and Entrepreneurs: An OECD Scoreboard is now under OECD’s archived database, hence data post 2021 is not available.
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
To support the development of profitable, sustainable agriculture, farmers around the world need greater access to financial services. Shifting to climate-smart, resilient agriculture often requires significant up-front investments, expensive inputs, and higher implementation costs – additional expenses that many farmers, particularly smallholder farmers, cannot afford without additional financial support. Additionally, some practices can also have long payback periods, requiring farmers to wait for initial returns on their investments. However, the tightness of credit conditions often inhibits access to finance, particularly for smallholders.
The share of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) required to provide collateral on loans serves as a proxy indicator of credit conditions. For example, as of 2021, 40% of small and medium enterprises were required to provide collateral on their last bank loan in Brazil, a country with high rates of deforestation driven by agricultural expansion and low levels of farm productivity. This tightness of credit could limit farmers’ ability to adopt climate-smart and lower-forest-risk practices.
Collateral requirements imposed by banks on SMEs increased in 2023, leading to a 2% decrease in application rates of SMEs across OECD countries and reduced rates of new lending. However, OECD data suggests that, overall, Latin American countries have been an exception to this trend, with the flow of credit to SMEs in the region outpacing that of other regions.
Historical data and current trend methodology
- The Global Findex Database was used to collect the share of the adult population (+15) in rural households that borrowed money from a financial institution.
- No additional calculation was performed.
- Global data is available for 2011, 2014, 2017, 2021, and 2024.
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
To support the development of profitable, sustainable agriculture, farmers around the world need greater access to financial services such as banks, savings accounts, and loans. Improved access to financial services allows farmers to invest in practices, tools, and equipment that enhance climate resilience – such as the use of new crop varieties or improved irrigation systems – that they otherwise may not have been able to adopt due to financial constraints. While excessive debt in a household or economy can be dangerous, the widespread use of lending services is a good indicator of financial options. Financial inclusion serves as an enabler for seven of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals and is considered to be a key element for reducing poverty.
According to the World Bank, 24% of adults worldwide borrowed formally (i.e., from a bank or similar financial institution) in 2024. This number decreased from 28% in 2021 but increased from 22% in 2017.
Finance for Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant Peoples, and local communities
Historical data and current trend methodology
- The data contained in this indicator is taken from the Path to Scale Funding Dashboard, a tracking tool developed by the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) and Rainforest Foundation Norway (RFN). It contains all publicly available funding data on IP, LC, and ADP tenure rights and forest guardianship projects since 2011. The platform includes international donor funding provided to IP, LC, and ADP tenure, rights, conservation, climate, and development in Low- and Middle-income Countries (LMICs). Included activities range from institutional strengthening of Indigenous Peoples Organizations (IPOs) to land rights mapping outside of tropical forests.
- The yearly finance disbursements are taken directly from the Dashboard landing page.
Historical data sources
Full description, licensing and other information available at the original data source.
The amount of finance received by projects supporting Indigenous Peoples’ (IPs), Afro-descendant Peoples’ (ADPs), and local communities’ (LCs) forest and tenure management must be tracked as these groups are essential to reaching the goals set by the GLD. IPs, ADPs, and LCs are effective stewards and guardians of their forest territories and key stakeholders and partners in the development of forest management and governance solutions. Protecting IPs’, ADPs’, and LCs’ land rights is an evidence-based climate change solution that is a cost-effective approach compared to some other mitigation options.
The USD 1.7 billion IPLC Forest Tenure Donor Pledge—which exceeded its target with more than USD 1.8 billion spent by the end of 2024—helped increase finance for tenure rights and forest guardianship of IPs, ADPs, and LCs. From 2021 to 2024, funding from bilateral, multilateral, and philanthropic donors to projects supporting IPs’, ADPs’, and LCs’ tenure and forest management averaged USD 728 million per year, a 41% increase above the 2018-2020 average. Historically, donor funding was largely concentrated in Latin America but funding to Africa and Asia has expanded after 2021. However, slowing growth in disbursements and tightening international aid flows risk reversing progress.
Nonetheless, finance and investment to support IPs and LCs remains far below their estimated needs for securing tenure rights and preserving the ecosystems in their territories. An analysis conducted by Path to Scale estimates that a total of USD 10 billion is needed from 2020 to 2030 to support the recognition of tenure rights of IPs, ADPs, and LCs globally. This finance could enable the recognition of tenure rights in at least half of all tropical forests, supporting these actors to make meaningful contributions to global climate and biodiversity targets.
Although the funding system has expanded in size and laid the groundwork for more direct support, it has not yet undergone a fundamental shift in how resources are delivered. A 2025 analysis by RRI and RFN finds that bilateral and multilateral donors still rely heavily on intermediaries, and funding for IP, ADP, and LC women’s organizations remains insufficient and unstable. Nonetheless, more projects are showing signs of inclusiveness.
Definitions
N/A
Historical data and current trend methodology
- The data contained in this indicator is taken from the Path to Scale Funding Dashboard, a tracking tool developed by the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) and Rainforest Foundation Norway (RFN). It contains all publicly available funding data on IP, LC, and ADP tenure rights and forest guardianship projects since 2011. The platform includes international donor funding provided to IP, LC, and ADP tenure, rights, conservation, climate, and development in Low- and Middle-income Countries (LMICs). Included activities range from institutional strengthening of Indigenous Peoples Organizations (IPOs) to land rights mapping outside of tropical forests.
- The yearly finance disbursements are taken directly from the Dashboard landing page.
Direct access to climate and forest finance by Indigenous Peoples (IPs), Afro-descendant Peoples (ADPs), and local communities (LCs) is essential for meeting forest conservation and restoration goals and supporting Indigenous and local livelihoods, resilience, and adaptation capacity in the face of climate change. Indigenous territories have significantly lower rates of deforestation and significantly higher rates of biodiversity and carbon storage than any other types of land — including protected areas. At the same time, IPs, ADPs, and LCs are far more vulnerable than other groups to the effects of climate change due to ongoing marginalization and historical and ongoing colonialism. Additionally, these groups often face threats of violence when mobilizing for environmental protection or defending their land from encroachment or invasion.
We have not identified a publicly available global data source to systematically track the direct access of IPs, ADPs, and LCs to climate and forest finance. However, available analyses suggest that direct finance for IPs, ADPs, and LCs remains far below funding needs. A 2021 analysis by Rainforest Foundation Norway found that from 2011 to 2020 less than 1% of international climate aid supported IPs’ and LCs’ forest tenure. Of this total only 17% directly targeted Indigenous and community organizations. A 2023 analysis from the Forest Tenure Funders Group found that around USD 8.1 million directly funded IPs’ and LCs’ organizations in 2022 — representing about 2.1% of total contributions toward the COP26 forest pledge. A 2024 analysis from Rights and Resources Initiative and Rainforest Foundation Norway found that direct finance for IPs, ADPs, and LCs did not increase from 2020 to 2023, even though overall funding for tenure rights and forest guardianship scaled up. Another analysis found that from 2016 to 2020 just 0.6% of philanthropic funding benefited Indigenous Peoples.
Direct funding for IPs, ADPs, and LCs primarily comes in the form of small grants and may increasingly come from IP-, ADP-, and LC-led funds such as Shandia, the Mesoamerican Territorial Fund, the Nusantara Fund, the AYNI Indigenous Women’s Fund, and the Podáali Fund.
Historical data and current trend methodology
- No publicly available data was identified.
Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant Peoples, and local communities are among the most vulnerable to climate change impacts and urgently need resources with which to plan and implement adaptation measures. Improving direct access to finance provides Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant Peoples, and local communities with decision-making power and authority over how adaptation funds are spent, increasing the odds that they will benefit and that adaptation actions will be more equitable and effective. Yet only a small fraction of adaptation funds reaches them, and worse still, they rarely have much authority with adaptation decision-making processes.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates that less than 17% of the USD 95 billion allocated in climate adaptation finance from 2017-2021 was channeled to projects with a focus on local communities. Nonetheless, the amount of climate adaptation finance reaching local communities remains largely untracked despite the increasing recognition of the importance of ensuring climate finance meets the needs of those most at risk.
