Rahul Somvanshi
Can a bank be linked to tropical deforestation without directly clearing a single hectare? A new Forests & Finance coalition report argues that lending and underwriting can help companies in high-risk commodity supply chains operate at a scale that puts forests and forest-dependent communities under pressure.
The report, Banking on Biodiversity Collapse, says banks provided US$595 billion in credit to companies operating in selected high-risk tropical agro-commodity and metal/mineral-mining sectors between 2020 and 2025. The coalition’s figures divide that total into US$351 billion for the agricultural sectors it tracks and US$244 billion for mining.
Those are the coalition’s estimates and coverage categories, not a finding that every dollar financed illegal deforestation or that every listed company caused forest loss. The research tracks finance to companies whose operations may affect tropical forests in parts of Southeast Asia, Central and West Africa, and South America.
What sectors are included?
For agriculture, the analysis covers companies linked to commodities such as palm oil, pulp and paper, rubber, soy, beef and leather, and timber. Its mining analysis covers companies involved in metals and minerals including nickel, copper, cobalt, lithium, bauxite and iron ore in tropical forest regions. Supply chains can be connected to deforestation risk, but company-level impacts and legal responsibility require evidence specific to a project and location.
The report says bank credit to the agricultural companies it tracks reached US$64.7 billion in 2025, up 20% from the preceding year and 71% from 2016. It reports US$531 billion in bank credit for the agro-commodity sectors since 2016 and US$363 billion for the mining sectors over that longer period. These figures differ from a viral reel’s claim that US$102 billion was put into “forest-risk commodities” in 2025; the report’s published headline figures use more specific categories and time periods.
Why the finance link matters
Credit, bond underwriting and shareholdings can enable companies to expand plantations, processing, roads and mines. But finance alone does not establish that a particular lender caused a particular instance of forest loss. The appropriate test is whether a financier’s policies, due diligence and lending conditions address documented environmental and human-rights risks at the companies and projects it supports.
The coalition calls for stronger financial regulation and mandatory due-diligence rules. That is a policy recommendation from an advocacy coalition, not an enacted international rule. Governments, regulators, banks, Indigenous peoples, affected communities and companies may differ over which safeguards are effective and how they should be enforced.
The central point nevertheless stands: environmental risk is not confined to the farm, plantation or mine. Decisions made in financial centres can shape which commodity and mineral projects receive the capital to proceed. Public disclosure, independent monitoring and enforceable due diligence are essential for testing whether financiers’ commitments translate into lower risks on the ground.
Source: Forests & Finance, “Banking on Biodiversity Collapse” (2026).
