Forests cover about 30% of the Earth’s land surface. They contain more than three-quarters of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity. They absorb roughly a third of all carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. And the world is losing them faster than at any point in the 20-year history of satellite-based monitoring — with climate change itself now supercharging the destruction.

Brazil’s 41% Cut — The Clearest Evidence That Political Will Works

Brazil’s turnaround is the most important data point in the 2025 WRI report. The country cut non-fire primary forest loss by 41% in one year — reaching its lowest recorded level. The mechanism was straightforward: the Lula administration relaunched the PPCDAm federal anti-deforestation plan, increased penalties for environmental crimes, and elevated forest protection as a national priority. Brazil still has the largest absolute area of primary forest loss of any country — its sheer size makes that nearly inevitable. But its rate relative to its forest area fell to 0.5%, lower than several countries with far less forest. Mirela Sandrini, WRI Brasil: “Brazil’s progress shows what’s possible when forest protection is treated as a national priority.” The lesson for other countries — particularly Bolivia, which remains chronically under-regulated — is that the tools to reduce deforestation exist. The constraint is political will, not technology.

The 2030 Target — What “70% Too High” Actually Means

The Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration committed 140+ countries to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030. Four years after that pledge, the world’s deforestation rate sits roughly 70% above the pace required to meet it, according to WRI’s primary analysis. Even the improved 2025 figure is dramatically above the required trajectory. The gap is not narrowing fast enough. The FAO’s Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025 found that 489 million hectares of forest have been lost since 1990 — approximately 11% of total forest area. Government subsidies that are harmful to forests outweigh beneficial ones by a ratio of 200 to 1. The structural incentives — tax breaks for cattle ranching, concessions for palm oil, no economic value attributed to standing forests — point systematically in the wrong direction. What Brazil and Colombia demonstrate is that political will and enforcement can override those incentives temporarily. What Bolivia and the DRC demonstrate is what happens when they don’t.