We’ve seen this story before. A high-level summit, a splashy new fund, and grand promises to finally halt the destruction of the world’s tropical forests. The latest hopeful chapter is the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), a Brazilian-led initiative aiming to create a perpetual fund that pays countries for the sheer volume of forest they preserve. On the surface, it’s a brilliant and long-overdue idea. Instead of piecemeal projects or complex carbon credits, the TFFF proposes a simple, scalable model: pay for standing trees. It recognises that forests are a global public good and that the nations housing them need a reliable economic incentive to keep them intact. The question is, will this work?

But before we pop the champagne, we must confront the brutal reality: the path to "forever" is littered with the skeletons of well-intentioned failures. The TFFF, for all its promise, is poised to join them unless it tackles the profound, non-financial challenges that have doomed its predecessors. The first and most formidable challenge is the tyranny of sovereignty. The TFFF’s success hinges on a nation’s consistent enforcement of its own environmental laws, often in remote, lawless frontiers where the immediate economic gains from logging, mining, or clearing land for agriculture are immense. A government in the capital can happily accept a payment one year, only to see its forest reserves decline the next due to local corruption, lack of institutional capacity, or a deliberate policy shift. What then? Do you cut off the payments, punishing a country and potentially triggering a death spiral of further deforestation? Or do you keep paying, rendering the fund a pointless reward for failure? The TFFF must have teeth, but no sovereign nation will accept a foreign entity dictating its land-use policies. This is a political tightrope of the highest order.

Secondly, the plan risks creating a perpetual dependency rather than a transition. The core premise is a permanent payment for an eternal service. But this does little to alter the fundamental economic drivers within a country. The pressure to convert forest for soy, beef, or palm oil doesn't disappear because of an annual disbursement from an international fund. It merely creates a competing revenue stream. The moment global commodity prices spike, or a new administration prioritises "development" over conservation, the forest will lose. True success requires the TFFF to be a bridge—a temporary financial cushion that allows countries to build sustainable, forest-friendly economies from the ground up. A "forever" fund could inadvertently become a permanent crutch, stifling the very innovation and economic diversification needed for long-term survival.

Finally, and most critically, is the challenge of trust and legacy. The developed world has an abysmal track record of following through on its climate finance pledges. The famed $100 billion-a-year promise remains unfulfilled. Why should the global south believe that this time, the money will be there not just for a few years, but forever? The term "forever" is a hostage to fortune. It invites political attacks in donor countries with every election cycle. A new government facing domestic budget pressures will inevitably ask: "Why are we sending billions abroad in perpetuity?" Without a rock-solid, politically resilient funding mechanism, the "Forever Facility" could become the "For-a-Few-Years Facility." This is not an argument for inaction. It is a plea for radical honesty.

For the TFFF to have a fighting chance, its architects must move beyond the financial model and build a new governance model. Payments must be irrevocably tied to verifiable, long-term results, not just annual snapshots. The fund must actively invest in the alternative livelihoods—in sustainable agriculture, bio-economies, and digital infrastructure—that make preserving a forest more valuable than slashing it. And it must be structured to survive the fickleness of politics, perhaps through innovative financing like levies on shipping or aviation, rather than relying on the goodwill of legislative appropriations.

The Tropical Forest Forever Facility is the right idea for a planet in crisis. But money alone cannot buy "forever." It can only rent it. The true purchase price is a fundamental rewiring of our political will, our economic systems, and our collective commitment to see this through, long after the headlines have faded. Without that, the TFFF will be just another noble, failed experiment, and the chainsaws will simply wait for the payments to stop.

-- BERNAMA

The author is affiliated with the Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies at UCSI University and is an Adjunct Professor at the Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies, Universiti Malaya. He can be reached at ahmadibrahim@ucsiuniveristy.edu.my.