Every tree saved is a tree earned.Chiriacò (CMCC): “How science is helping protectforests at COP30.”

The concept of additionality implies that emission reductions or carbon removals would not have occurred without dedicated efforts specifically designed for that purpose. Creating new forests or improving agricultural soils typically meets this test. But protecting existing forests? That’s where the debate begins – and only science can truly provide reliable and accurate methods of assessment and measurement.  The TFFF potentially represents a promising financial mechanism to incentivize the reduction of deforestation in tropical countries. The initiative aims to channel revenues generated by the investment fund to tropical countries based on the extent of their forest cover. Payments are linked to the number of hectares of standing forest, adjusted according to each country’s deforestation rate. However, eligibility requires maintaining a deforestation rate below 0.5% and countries exceeding this threshold would not receive payments. In this way, the TFFF seeks to reward effective, result-based forest protection. “Protecting existing forests could be interpreted as having less applicability to the concept of additionality, which has proven to be a bit of a thorn in the side of past negotiations,” says Chiriacò.

The problem revolves around a key question: if a forest remains standing, how can anyone claim to have “saved” it? The challenge lies in demonstrating that forests genuinely require intervention to avoid decline. 

Proving you prevented a loss
“The real challenge is proving that you’re making genuine efforts to protect forests compared to a business-as-usual scenario that would otherwise lead to their decline,” explains Chiriacò. “They have to be measures and investments that make sense because they are maintaining a forest that would otherwise be lost.” The role of science in this case is to help make accurate predictions in these complex scenarios, as forests can be lost for a myriad reasons, from illegal logging and pressure from agricultural expansion to disturbances like fires, pests and drought, which could all increase due to climate change. “The technical and scientific reality is that forests that are protected remain the same as they are today, so it could seem as if you have not achieved anything. But in reality, maintaining forests is the result of genuine effort, investment, and protection capacity.” However, it is important to point out that the challenge of demonstrating the intentionality and additionality of actions to protect forests remains particularly significant in REDD+ and under Article 6.

The TFFF mechanism, by contrast, offers a potential advantage: it shifts the focus away from proving the voluntary nature of human interventions and instead emphasizes verifying the actual results achieved, namely the extent of forest area effectively maintained. In fact, in the TFFF mechanism, revenues generated by the investment fund are channelled to tropical countries with a deforestation rate below 0.5%, and allocated proportionally to their existing forest cover. Payments are then discounted based on the level of forest loss or degradation observed. The proposed discount rates are: for each hectare deforested, payments are reduced as if 100 hectares were lost when the national deforestation rate is below 0.3%, and 200 hectares when the rate is between 0.3% and 0.5%. For areas degraded by fire, a 1:35 discount applies per hectare. These ratios may be updated as scientific understanding and technical capacity improve. This design underscores the importance of having accurate information on forest dynamics, future projections, and potential disturbance factors, all of which are essential for properly interpreting and managing the impacts captured by these result-based metrics.

 The impact of wildfires
Chiriacò’s recent research provides compelling evidence for why forest protection is genuinely additional in many regions. A new study she co-authored reveals that climate change will dramatically expand wildfire danger across the globe, with up to 91% of fire-prone regions experiencing heightened risk by the end of this century.  “Fire is one of the principal threats and one of the main disturbance factors in forest loss, the consequences of which are almost instantaneous both in the destruction of forests and in the emissions that this generates,” she says.  The research used a weighted analysis of multiple climate models to provide more precise fire risk projections than previous studies.

By 2040, at least 55% of the world’s fire-prone regions will experience significant increases in fire danger, regardless of emission scenario. Some of the most pronounced increases are expected in southern Africa, the Mediterranean, northern Asia, northeastern South America, and parts of North America.   This evidence directly supports the need to implement targeted actions for forest protection. In regions where fire risk is increasing exponentially, protecting forests isn’t passive – it’s an active intervention. The forests that are maintained represent a tangible outcome against a genuine, measurable threat. “In the idea of optimizing efforts and financial resources to protect forests, one can use these scientific studies to prioritize which areas to focus on,” explains Chiriacò. By identifying forests with high biodiversity value, high carbon content, and high risk of fires or other disturbances, science can guide where protection efforts deliver the greatest benefit. In fact, another relevant initiative launched at COP30 is the Call to Action on Integrated Fire Management and Wildfire Resilience, aimed at promoting coordinated and sustainable approaches to fire management.

It seeks to reduce wildfire risks, protect ecosystems and vulnerable communities, and integrate prevention, preparedness, and response into policies and practices. 

Pricing and benefits
The TFFF could potentially serve as a complementary mechanism to existing ones, as it rewards countries based on the hectares of forest protected rather than the carbon sequestered, as is the case under REDD+ or the Article 6 mechanism. This means that the two types of incentives could potentially be used together or counted in combination. However, it is important to consider the differences in pricing between the mechanisms, and whether each can be an effective lever to encourage countries to protect forests and prevent degradation. For example, current discussions envisage TFFF payments of around $4 per hectare, while a forest can sequester roughly 10 tCO₂ per hectare, corresponding to 10 carbon credits, with corresponding prices at about $30 per ton. Another notable feature of the TFFF is that at least 20% of the revenue is intended to be allocated to Indigenous and Local Communities, ensuring that these groups directly benefit from forest conservation efforts. 

Different forests need different strategies
Not all forests face the same threats or require the same approaches. For example, there are fundamental differences between tropical rainforests and European forests and these differences should shape conservation strategy.  Tropical forests are naturally diverse ecosystems under pressure primarily from agricultural expansion and increasingly from climate-driven disturbances. European forests, by contrast, are often artificial – planted by humans in regular rows with uniform characteristics and often dominated by a single species. “We certainly have ecosystems in tropical zones that are still intact and are, by nature, much more diverse. But in other areas – like Europe – we have many forests that are now of artificial origin,” says Chiriacò. These are often monospecific forests that are more vulnerable because they lack the capacity to resist different stress factors – whether wind, pests, or fire. 

 Science as the foundation
For the TFFF and broader Article 6 mechanisms to work, they must rest on transparent, scientifically rigorous accounting. Without rigorous science demonstrating which forests are genuinely at risk and which protection efforts are additional, carbon markets risk becoming vehicles for greenwashing rather than genuine climate action.  

Research into fire risk modeling, forest carbon dynamics, land-based solutions and emissions accounting aims to provide the scientific foundation these mechanisms need. By quantifying threats, identifying priority areas, and developing transparent monitoring systems, research can transform additionality from a contentious negotiating point into a measurable, verifiable standard.   Chiriacò concludes: “Efforts around Article 6 and the upcoming TFFF actually want to solve these problems by creating a mechanism that’s self-financed. But everything must be based on transparency and accountability, with everything counted in an open and clear way between countries and with credibility in these mechanisms.” As COP30 unfolds, the question isn’t whether to protect forests – it’s whether we can prove that protection is real, additional, and based on the best available science.