1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Environment and Resources
  4. Volume 48, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Environment and Resources

Volume 48, 2023

Deforestation-Free Commodity Supply Chains: Myth or Reality?

Abstract

Since the early 2000s, many private companies, public-private coalitions, and governments have committed to remove deforestation from commodity supply chains. Despite these zero-deforestation commitments (ZDCs), high rates of deforestation persist and may even be increasing. On the upside, a few region- and commodity-specific ZDCs have contributed to reductions by up to hundreds of thousands of hectares of deforestation, with mixed evidence on associated leakage. ZDCs have also spurred progress in monitoring, traceability, and awareness of deforestation. On the downside, as currently implemented, supply chain initiatives only cover a small share of tropical deforestation. Government- and company-led ZDCs are just two components of broader policy mixes aimed at reducing deforestation. To be more impactful, ZDCs needs to cover entire biomes, supply bases of companies, and export and domestic markets, with special attention not to exclude marginal producers.

Keyword(s): forest governance, land use, policy mix, sustainability, zero deforestation
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-121436
2023-11-13
2024-05-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/48/1/annurev-environ-112321-121436.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-121436&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Feng Y, Zeng Z, Searchinger TD, Ziegler AD, Wu J et al. 2022. Doubling of annual forest carbon loss over the tropics during the early twenty-first century. Nat. Sustain. 5:444–51
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Lawrence D, Coe M, Walker W, Verchot, Vandecar K. 2022. The unseen effects of deforestation: biophysical effects on climate. Front. Forests Glob. Change 5:756115
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.
    Seymour F, Harris NL. 2019. Reducing tropical deforestation. Science 365:756–57
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    Goldman E, Weisse MJ, Harris N, Schneider M. 2020. Estimating the role of seven commodities in agriculture-linked deforestation: oil palm, soy, cattle, wood fiber, cocoa, coffee, and rubber. Tech. Note, World Res. Inst. Washington, DC:
  5. 5.
    Pendrill F, Persson UM, Godar J, Kastner T, Moran D et al. 2019. Agricultural and forestry trade drives large share of tropical deforestation emissions. Glob. Environ. Change 56:1–10
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    Lyons-White J, Pollard EHB, Catalano AS, Knight AT. 2020. Rethinking zero deforestation beyond 2020 to more equitably and effectively conserve tropical forests. One Earth 3:714–26
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    Furumo PR, Lambin EF. 2020. Scaling up zero-deforestation initiatives through public-private partnerships: a look inside post-conflict Colombia. Glob. Environ. Change 62:102055
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.
    Lambin EF, Gibbs HK, Heilmayr R, Carlson KM, Fleck LC et al. 2018. The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nat. Clim. Change 8:109–16
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.
    Carodenuto S. 2019. Governance of zero deforestation cocoa in West Africa: new forms of public–private interaction. Environ. Policy Govern. 29:55–66
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Teague M. 2022. Insights into the Cocoa and Forests Initiative: smallholder engagement with certification programs and agroforestry. Soc. Nat. Res. 35:410–29
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    Garrett RD, Levy S, Gollnow F, Rueda X. 2021. Have food supply chain policies improved forest conservation and rural livelihoods? A systematic review. Environ. Res. Lett. 16:033002
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Moore R, Hancher M, Turubanova SA et al. 2013. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342:850–53
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Weisse M, Goldman E. 2022. How much forest was lost in 2021? Rep. Glob. For. Rev., World Res. Inst. https://research.wri.org/gfr/latest-analysis-deforestation-trends
  14. 14.
    Pendrill F, Gardner TA, Meyfroidt P, Persson MU, Adams J et al. 2022. Disentangling the numbers behind agriculture-driven tropical deforestation. Science 377:6611
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    Vancutsem C, Achard F, Pekel JF, Vieilledent G, Carboni S et al. 2021. Long-term (1990–2019) monitoring of forest cover changes in the humid tropics. Sci. Adv. 7:eabe1603
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    Austin KG, Schwantes A, Gu Y, Kasibhatla PS. 2019. What causes deforestation in Indonesia?. Environ. Res. Lett. 14:024007
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    Gaveau DLA, Locatelli B, Salim MA, Yaen H, Pacheco P et al. 2019. Rise and fall of forest loss and industrial plantations in Borneo (2000–2017). Conserv. Lett. 12:2000–17
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    Curtis PG, Slay CM, Harris NL, Tyukavina A, Hansen MC. 2018. Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science 361:1108–11
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Gibbs HK, Rausch L, Munger J, Schelly I, Morton DC et al. 2015. Brazil's Soy Moratorium. Science 347:377–78
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    Kastens JH, Brown JC, Coutinho AC, Bishop CR, Esquerdo JCDM. 2017. Soy moratorium impacts on soybean and deforestation dynamics in Mato Grosso, Brazil. PLOS ONE 12:e0176168
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Heilmayr R, Rausch LL, Munger J, Gibbs HK. 2020. Brazil's Amazon Soy Moratorium reduced deforestation. Nat. Food 1:801–10
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Villoria NB, Garrett R, Gollnow F, Carlson K. 2022. Demand-driven efforts to stop deforestation in Brazil's soy sector are unlikely to be offset by cross-border leakage. Nat. Commun. 13:5476
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Gollnow F, Cammelli F, Carlson KM, Garrett RD. 2022. Gaps in adoption limit the current and potential effectiveness of zero-deforestation supply chain policies for soy. Environ. Res. Lett. 17:114003
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.
    Rausch LL, Gibbs HK. 2021. The low opportunity cost of the Amazon Soy Moratorium. Front. Forests Glob. Change 4:621685
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    le Polain de Waroux Y, Garrett RD, Lambin EF, Graesser J, Nolte CN. 2017. The restructuring of South American soy and beef production and trade under changing environmental regulations. World Dev. 121:188–202
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    Soterroni AC, Ramos FM, Mosnier A, Fargione J, Andrade PR et al. 2019. Expanding the Soy Moratorium to Brazil's Cerrado. Sci. Adv. 5:eaav7336
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Gollnow F, Hissa LBV, Rufin P, Lakes T. 2018. Property-level direct and indirect deforestation for soybean production in the Amazon region of Mato Grosso, Brazil. Land Use Policy 78:377–85
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Kuschnig N, Cuaresma JC, Krisztin T, Giljum S. 2021. Spatial spillover effects from agriculture-driven deforestation in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Sci. Rep. 11:21804
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Lourençoni T, da Silva Junior CA, Lima M, Teodoro PE, Pelissari TD et al. 2021. Advance of soy commodity in the Southern Amazonia with deforestation via PRODES and ImazonGeo: a moratorium-based approach. Sci. Rep. 11:21792
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    zu Ermgassen EKHJ, Godar J, Gardner T, Lathuillière MJ, Löfgren P et al. 2020. The origin, supply chain, and deforestation risk of Brazil's beef exports 2020. PNAS 115:31770–79
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    West TAP, Rausch L, Munger J, Gibbs HK. 2022. Protected areas still used to produce Brazil's cattle. Conserv. Lett. 15:6e12916
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Walker NF, Patel SA, Kalif KAB. 2013. From Amazon pasture to the high street: deforestation and the Brazilian cattle product supply chain. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 6:446–67
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Klingler M, Richards PD, Ossner R. 2018. Cattle vaccination records question the impact of recent zero-deforestation agreements in the Amazon. Reg. Environ. Change 18:33–46
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.
    Skidmore ME, Moffette F, Rausch L, Christie M, Munger J et al. 2021. Cattle ranchers and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: production, location, and policies. Glob. Environ. Change 68:102280
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Gibbs HK, Munger J, L'Roe J, Barreto P, Pereira R et al. 2016. Did ranchers and slaughterhouses respond to zero-deforestation agreements in the Brazilian Amazon?. Conserv. Lett. 9:32–42
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Alix-Garcia J, Gibbs HK 2017. Forest conservation effects of Brazil's zero deforestation agreements undermined by leakage. Glob. Environ. Change 47:201–17
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Pereira R, Rausch LL, Carrara A, Gibbs HK. 2020. Extensive production practices and incomplete implementation hinder Brazil's zero-deforestation Cattle Agreements in Pará. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 13:1–13
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Levy SA, Cammelli F, Munger J, Gibbs HK, Garrett RD. 2023. Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon could be halved by scaling up the implementation of cattle zero-deforestation commitments. Glob. Environ. Change 80:102671
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.
    Sloan S. 2014. Indonesia's moratorium on new forest licenses: an update. Land Use Policy 38:37–40
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.
    Busch J, Ferretti-Gallon K, Engelmann J, Wright M, Austin KG et al. 2015. Reductions in emissions from deforestation from Indonesia's moratorium on new oil palm, timber, and logging concessions. PNAS 112:1328–33
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Murdiyarso D, Dewi S, Lawrence D, Seymour F 2011. Indonesia's forest moratorium: a stepping stone to better forest governance? Work. Pap. 76 CIFOR Bogor, Indonesia:
  42. 42.
    Chen B, Kennedy CM, Xu B. 2019. Effective moratoria on land acquisitions reduce tropical deforestation: evidence from Indonesia. Environ. Res. Lett. 14:044009
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    Austin KG, Mosnier A, Pirker J, McCallum I, Fritz S, Kasibhatla P. 2017. Shifting patterns of oil palm driven deforestation in Indonesia and implications for zero-deforestation commitments. Land Use Policy 69:41–48
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Groom B, Palmer C, Sileci L. 2022. Carbon emissions reductions from Indonesia's moratorium on forest concessions are cost-effective yet contribute little to Paris pledges. PNAS 119:e2102613119
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Carlson KM, Heilmayr R, Gibbs HK, Noojipady P, Burns DN et al. 2018. Effect of oil palm sustainability certification on deforestation and fire in Indonesia. PNAS 115:121–26
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    Cattau ME, Marlier ME, DeFries R. 2016. Effectiveness of Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) for reducing fires on oil palm concessions in Indonesia from 2012 to 2015. Environ. Res. Lett. 11:105007
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    Morgans CL, Meijaard E, Santika T, Law E, Budiharta S et al. 2018. Evaluating the effectiveness of palm oil certification in delivering multiple sustainability objectives. Environ. Res. Lett. 13:64032
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    González J, Cubillos A, Chadid M, Cubillos A, Arias M et al. 2018. Caracterización de las principales causas y agentes de la deforestación a nivel nacional período 2005–2015 Rep. Inst. Hidrolog. Meteorolog. Estud. Ambient., Minist. Ambient. Desarro. Sosten. Progr. ONU-REDD Colomb. Bogotá: https://www.fao.org/publications/card/es/c/I9618ES/
  49. 49.
    Trase Insights 2020. The state of forest risk supply chains. Trase Yearbook 2020 https://insights.trase.earth/yearbook
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    Burley H, Thomson E. 2021. A climate wake-up; but business failing to hear the alarm on deforestation Rep. Glob. Canopy Oxford, UK:
  51. 51.
    Garrett RD, Levy S, Carlson KM, Gardner TA, Godar J et al. 2019. Criteria for effective zero-deforestation commitments. Glob. Environ. Change 54:135–47
     [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    Rothrock P, Weatherer L, Ellis K. 2021. Trends in the implementation of ethical supply chains: a 2020 snapshot of the cocoa sector Rep. Supply Change Rep. Forest Trends:
  53. 53.
    Renier C, Vandromme M, Meyfroidt P, Ribeiro V, Kalischek N et al. 2023. Transparency, traceability and deforestation in the Ivorian cocoa supply chain. Environ. Res. Lett. 18:024030
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.
    Carodenuto S, Buluran M. 2021. The effect of supply chain position on zero-deforestation commitments: evidence from the cocoa industry. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 23:716–31
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.
    Bager S, Lambin EF. 2020. Sustainability strategies by companies in the coffee sector. Bus. Strat. Environ. 20:3555–70
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    Thorlakson T, de Zegher J, Lambin EF. 2018. Companies’ contribution to sustainability through global supply chains. PNAS 115:2072–77
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.
    Schleifer P, Sun Y. 2018. Emerging markets and private governance: the political economy of sustainable palm oil in China and India. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 25:190–214
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.
    Heilmayr R, Benedict J. 2022. Indonesia makes progress towards zero palm oil deforestation. Trase Insights Sept. 14. https://doi.org/10.48650/50NG-RT71
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.
    Villoria NB, Hertel TW. 2011. Geography matters: international trade patterns and the indirect land use effects of biofuels. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 93:919–35
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.
    zu Ermgassen EKHJ, Bastos Lima MG, Bellfield H, Dontenville A, Gardner T 2022. Addressing indirect sourcing in zero deforestation commodity supply chains. Sci. Adv. 8:eabn3132
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.
    Garrett RD, Lambin EF, Naylor RL. 2013. Land institutions and supply chain configurations as determinants of soybean planted area and yields in Brazil. Land Use Policy 31:385–96
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.
    Reis TNP, Meyfroidt P, zu Ermgassen EKHJ, West C, Gardner T et al. 2020. Understanding the stickiness of commodity supply chains is key to improving their sustainability. One Earth 3:100–15
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.
    Reis TNP, Ribeiro V, Garrett RD, Kuemmerle T, Ruffin P et al. 2023. Explaining the stickiness of supply chain relations in the Brazilian soybean trade. Glob. Environ. Change 78:102633
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.
    Lambin EF, Thorlakson T. 2018. Sustainability standards: interactions between private actors, civil society, and governments. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43:369–93
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.
    Schilling-Vacaflor A, Lenschow A. 2021. Hardening foreign corporate accountability through mandatory due diligence in the European Union? New trends and persisting challenges. Regul. Gov. In press. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12402
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.
    Lambin EF, Kim H, Leape J, Lee K. 2020. Scaling up solutions for a sustainability transition. One Earth 3:89–96
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.
    von Essen M, Lambin EF. 2020. Jurisdictional approaches to sustainable resource use. Front. Ecol. Environ. 19:159–67
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.
    Hale T, Roger C. 2014. Orchestration and transnational climate governance. Rev. Int. Organ. 9:59–82
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.
    ABIOVE (Assoc. Bras. Ind. Óleos Veg.) 2020. Soy Moratorium Crop Year 2018/19: monitoring non-compliant soy plantations using satellite images Rep. Soy Work. Group, Agrosat. Florianópolis, Brazil:
  70. 70.
    zu Ermgassen EKHJ, Ayre B, Godar J, Lima MGB, Bauch S et al. 2020. Using supply chain data to monitor zero deforestation commitments: an assessment of progress in the Brazilian soy sector. Environ. Res. Lett. 15:035003
     [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.
    International Trade Centre 2022. The State of Sustainable Markets 2021 Rep. Int. Trade Cent. Geneva, Switz:.
  72. 72.
    Lyons-White J, Knight AT. 2018. Palm oil supply chain complexity impedes implementation of corporate no-deforestation commitments. Glob. Environ. Change 50:303–13
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.
    Bager S, Lambin EF. 2022. Strategies adopted by companies to implement their zero-deforestation commitments. J. Clean. Prod. 375:134056
     [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.
    van Noordwijk M, Agus F, Dewi S, Purnomo H. 2014. Reducing emissions from land use in Indonesia: motivation, policy instruments and expected funding streams. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 19:677–92
     [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.
    van der Ven H, Rothacker C, Cashore B. 2018. Do eco-labels prevent deforestation? Lessons from non-state market driven governance in the soy, palm oil, and cocoa sectors. Glob. Environ. Change 52:141–51
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    FAO (U. N. Food Agric. Organ.) 2018. Zero-deforestation commitments: A new avenue towards enhanced forest governance? For Work. Pap. 3 FAO Rome, Italy:
     [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.
    Leijten F, Sim S, King H, Verburg PH. 2020. Which forests could be protected by corporate zero deforestation commitments? A spatial assessment. Environ. Res. Lett. 15:064021
     [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.
    Newton P, Benzeev R. 2018. The role of zero-deforestation commitments in protecting and enhancing rural livelihoods. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 32:126–33
     [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.
    Brown S, Zarin D. 2013. What does zero deforestation mean?. Science 342:805–7
     [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.
    Heilmayr R, Lambin EF. 2016. Impacts of nonstate, market-driven governance on Chilean forests. PNAS 113:2910–15
     [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.
    Gasser T, Ciais P, Lewis SL. 2022. How the Glasgow Declaration on Forests can help keep alive the 1.5°C target. PNAS 119:e2200519119
     [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.
    Weber AK, Partzsch L. 2018. Barking up the right tree? NGOs and corporate power for deforestation-free supply chains. Sustainability 10:3869
     [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.
    McDermott CL. 2014. REDDuced: from sustainability to legality to units of carbon—the search for common interests in international forest governance. Environ. Sci. Pol. 35:12–19
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    Tacconi L, Rodrigues RJ, Maryudi A. 2019. Law enforcement and deforestation: lessons for Indonesia from Brazil. For. Policy Econ. 108:101943
     [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    Rajao R, Soares-Filho B, Nunes F, Borner J, Machado L et al. 2020. The rotten apples of Brazil's agribusiness. Science 369:246–48
     [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.
    Reis TNP, de Faria VG, Lopes GR, Sparovek G, West C et al. 2021. Trading deforestation—why the legality of forest-risk commodities is insufficient. Environ. Res. Lett. 16:124025
     [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.
    Garrett RD, Grabs J, Cammelli F, Gollnow F, Levy S. 2022. Should payments for environmental services be used to implement zero-deforestation supply chain policies? The case of soy in the Brazilian Cerrado. World Dev. 152:105814
     [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.
    Delacote P, Robinson EJZ, Roussel S. 2016. Deforestation, leakage and avoided deforestation policies: a spatial analysis. Res. Energy Econ. 45:192–210
     [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.
    Rausch LL, Gibbs HK, Schelly I, Brandão A, Morton D. 2019. Soy expansion in Brazil's Cerrado. Conserv. Lett. 12:e12671
     [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.
    Moffette F, Alix-Garcia J, Shea K, Pickens AH 2021. The impact of near-real-time deforestation alerts across the tropics. Nat. Clim. Change 11:172–78
     [Google Scholar]
  91. 91.
    Leijten F, Sim S, King H, Verburg PH. 2021. Local deforestation spillovers induced by forest moratoria: evidence from Indonesia. Land Use Policy 109:105690
     [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.
    Heilmayr R, Carlson KM, Benedict JJ. 2020. Deforestation spillovers from oil palm sustainability certification. Environ. Res. Lett. 15:075002
     [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.
    Taheripour F, Hertel TW, Ramankutty N. 2019. Market-mediated responses confound policies to limit deforestation from oil palm expansion in Malaysia and Indonesia. PNAS 116:19193–99
     [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.
    Busch J, Amarjargal O, Taheripour F, Austin KG, Siregar RN et al. 2022. Effects of demand-side restrictions on high-deforestation palm oil in Europe on deforestation and emissions in Indonesia. Environ. Res. Lett. 17:014035
     [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.
    Austin KG, Heilmayr R, Benedict JJ, Burns DN, Eggen M et al. 2021. Mapping and monitoring zero-deforestation commitments. BioScience 71:1079–90
     [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.
    Green JMH, Croft SA, Durán AP, Balmford AP, Burgess ND et al. 2019. Linking global drivers of agricultural trade to on-the-ground impacts on biodiversity. PNAS 116:23202–8
     [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.
    Grabs J, Carodenuto SL. 2021. Traders as sustainability governance actors in global food supply chains: a research agenda. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 30:1314–32
     [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.
    Watts JD, Pasaribu K, Irawan S, Tacconi L, Martanila H et al. 2021. Challenges faced by smallholders in achieving sustainable palm oil certification in Indonesia. World Dev. 146:105565
     [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.
    Cammelli F, Levy SA, Grabs J, Valentim JF, Garrett RD. 2022. Effectiveness-equity tradeoffs in enforcing exclusionary supply chain policies: lessons from the Amazonian cattle sector. J. Clean. Prod. 332:130031
     [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.
    Santika T, Wilson KA, Law EA, St John FAV, Carlson KM et al. 2021. Impact of palm oil sustainability certification on village well-being and poverty in Indonesia. Nat. Sustain. 4:109–19
     [Google Scholar]
  101. 101.
    McDermott CL, Montana J, Bennett A, Gueiros C, Hamilton R et al. 2023. Transforming land use governance: Global targets without equity miss the mark. Environ. Policy Gov. 35:3245–57
     [Google Scholar]
  102. 102.
    Gardner TA, Benzie M, Börner J, Dawkins E, Fick S et al. 2018. Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains. World Dev. 121:163–77
     [Google Scholar]
  103. 103.
    Nepstad D, McGrath D, Stickler C, Alencar A, Azevedo A 2014. Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science 344:1118–23
     [Google Scholar]
  104. 104.
    Furumo PR, Lambin EF. 2021. Policy sequencing to reduce deforestation. . Glob. Sustain. 4:E24
     [Google Scholar]
  105. 105.
    Gebara MF, Sills E, May P, Forsyth T 2019. Deconstructing the policyscape for reducing deforestation in the Eastern Amazon: practical insights for a landscape approach. Environ. Policy Govern. 29:185–97
     [Google Scholar]
  106. 106.
    Rode J, Pinzon A, Stabile MCC, Pirker J, Bauch S et al. 2019. Why ‘blended finance’ could help transitions to sustainable landscapes: lessons from the Unlocking Forest Finance project. . Ecosystem Serv. 37100917
  107. 107.
    Barbier EB, Lozano R, Rodríguez CM, Toëng S. 2020. Adopt a carbon tax to protect tropical forests. Nature 578:213–16
     [Google Scholar]
  108. 108.
    DeFries RS, Ahuja R, Friedman J, Gordon DR, Hamburg SP et al. 2022. Land management can contribute to net zero. Science 376:1163–65
     [Google Scholar]
  109. 109.
    Kehoe L, dos Reis TNP, Meyfroidt P, Bager S, Seppelt R et al. 2020. Inclusion, transparency, and enforcement: how the EU-Mercosur trade agreement fails the sustainability test. One Earth 3:268–72
     [Google Scholar]
  110. 110.
    Bager S, Persson UM, dos Reis TNP. 2021. Eighty-six EU policy options for reducing imported deforestation. One Earth 4:289–306
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-121436
Loading
Deforestation-Free Commodity Supply Chains: Myth or Reality?
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 48, 237 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-121436
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-121436
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-121436
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Material

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error