Deforestation-free trade: ideal or illusion?

5th International Forest Policy Meeting – A Political Forest
Helsinki, 10-12 April 2024
https://www.helsinki.fi/en/conferences/international-forest-policy-meeting-5
Panel 3 Deforestation, trade & investment, and the governance of supply chains over time
Deforestation-free trade: ideal or illusion?
Verina Ingram, Jelle Behagel
Forest & Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University and Research
[email protected]
[email protected]

In person
Globally traded commodities drive deforestation directly and indirectly. In response, zero-deforestation value chains (ZD-VC) have been promoted in various policy domains, including the recent EU Deforestation Regulation. We review current debates on ZD-VC approaches found in policy documents, peer-reviewed literature, and web-based data, with a specific focus on the policy ideas, ideals and measures these debates propose to achieve zero deforestation in relation to commodity production. This paper explores these debates. Firstly we identified five policy discourses around ZD-VC that express specific ideas about what causes deforestation and how the ideals of how it should be addressed. Secondly, we identified six approaches to attain ZD-VC that have been used in the last two decades: regulatory approaches, landscape and jurisdictional approaches, corporate pledges, voluntary sustainability standards, public-private partnerships and due diligence mechanisms. 3. We then (re)constructed the theories-of-change behind these approaches and linked them back to the discourses, finding that the study of discourses helps explain political preferences for one approach over another and expectations of effectiveness. We reviewed evidence on the effectiveness of different approaches finding illusions created of action worldwide, whereas few approaches target current and newly emerging hotspots of commodity-driven deforestation in tropical and temperate deforestation frontiers, despite this being crucial to achieve the goal of zero deforestation on a global scale. Also problematic are that approaches and policies are biased towards highly deforested areas and the lowest geographical context of farm-level avoided deforestation. In addition, geographical displacement of deforestation and spill-over effects from one commodity to another are hardly addressed. These findings suggest that by combining approaches the weaknesses of different approaches and blind spots could be overcome – however that this is often politically difficult given the underlying ideologies and preferences for specific policy instruments. Our findings suggest that political ideology, rather than the evidence of what approaches work and why underlies most theories-of-change. Critically exploring these illusions can offer insights for forest policy researchers and stakeholders addressing interconnected interests, cross-sectoral and transboundary interdependencies. We argue for global efforts to produce effective, well-designed, interlink

1. Deforestation-free trade: ideal or illusion?
5TH INTERNATIONAL FOREST POLICY MEETING –A POLITICAL FOREST
University of Helsinki
10 April 2024
Verina Ingram & Jelle Behagel, Forest & Nature Conservation Policy Group

2. Are zero-deforestation value chains (ZD-VC) the answer?
1

3. Aim
Review current debates on
ZD-VC approaches in policy
documents, peer-reviewed
literature, andweb-based
data
with a focus on the policy
ideas, ideals & measures
these debates propose to
achieve zero deforestation
related to commodity
production
2

4. Five discourses steer preferences for ZD-VC
approaches
Neoliberalmarket Win-winspossible(i.e.intensification&forestprotection).
Solutions:PES&REDD,sustainablechains,certification,landsparing
Legalityandresponsibility–Ruleoflaw,levelplayingfieldSolutions:
(Increase)legislation+traceability,duediligence&monitoring,steermarkets
towardsZD+“transformative’’state&consumerbehaviorchange
Limitstogrowth-Decoupledeforestationfromcommodityproductiononly
possiblewithzerogrossdeforestationandforestconservation.Solutions:
transformative/economicsystemchange,regulations,stronggovernment
Locallivelihoods-Zerodeforestationrequirementsunjustandunfairfor
developingcountriesNGOs.Solutions:PES&REDD+schemes,land/resource
tenure,agroecology
Newcolonialism-developing/tropicalcountriesseeZDrequirementsas
preventingdevelopment andunderminingresourcesovereignty.Solutions:
Consumerbehavioralchangeinformationandawareness,regulations,economic
compensation
Common:Specificproblemdefinitions,causalmechanisms favouringspecific
solutions,focusondeforestationandsinglecommodityVCs,historicaldeforestation
andbaselinecut-offdates
3

5. Six approaches & geographic scales
4
Approach Focus Scale
Regulatory
State regulations, government policies (landscapes
and value chains)
National & unilateral
jurisdiction
Landscape /
jurisdictional
Spatial/scale, administrative boundaries Landscape
Corporate
pledges
Corporate social responsibility, self-regulation,
declarations
Corporate supplier/
supply chain
Voluntary
sustainability
standards
Third party certification, corporate labels Value chain
Due diligence
mechanisms
Individual & joint legal or voluntary actions,
investigations or exercise of care to avoid committing
offences, traceability mechanisms, third-party
campaigns & investigations, voluntary disclosure
initiatives and moratoriums
Value chain, landscape,
national
Public-private
partnerships
Corporate/CSO/NGO/government platforms,
networks, associations, partnerships, agreements,
moratoria
Landscape, value chain

6. Differing focus on VC actors and activities
5
Focus of ZD-VC approaches on primary actors
and activities within the commodity value chain +
geographic production nexus

7. Geographic focus on different scales
6
▪Geographicbias:already-known,historicallydeforestedhotspots
▪Valuechainapproachbiasedtowardsconsumercountrieswithhigher&
increasingforestcover
▪Scalebiasfarm-levelavoideddeforestation
▪Missinghotspots:newtropicalfrontiers&temperateforests

8. Five discourses: what they don't say or ignore...
▪Degradation and fragmentation
▪Reforestation, restoration,
afforestation and
compensation
▪How interactions and spillage
between commodities occur in and
between landscapes, across the
globe and outside of EU
▪New deforestation frontiers
(i.e. non-traditional commodity
producing countries)
▪“New” consumers : consumers &
states outside Northern Europe
7

9. Theories of change embodying discourses
8
ToCunderlyingZD-VCapproachesbiasedtowardsfarm-levelavoideddeforestation

10. Evidence on effectiveness of approaches
Overview evidence on effectiveness of approaches to commodity driven ZD
deforestation (2021)
9
Key:
Very effective Partially effective No effect Not effective No or little evidence

11. Effectiveness, outcomes and impacts need
demonstrating
▪Illusion created of action worldwide
▪But few approaches target current & new
hotspots of commodity-driven
deforestation in tropical and temperate
deforestation frontiers
▪No one approach seems to work alone to
halt deforestation
▪Only VSS had sufficient time and
evidence of impacts
▪Landscape/Jurisdictional, PPP, Corporate
pledges, DD, Regulatory awaiting
evidence......
▪Little evidence on how ZD commitments
halt or slow deforestation rates
10

12. Evidence of which approaches are successful
ZD initiatives evaluated against success criteria per commodity value chain
11Criteria Cattle Cocoa Coffee Palm oil Soy Timber
Baseline year defined VSS VSS VSS VSS VSS VSS
(De)forestation definition VSS VSS VSS R VSS VSS
No deforestation or degradation of HCV forests VSS CP VSS VSS VSS VSS CP VSS R
Effective governance L/J DD L/J L/J L/J DD L/J
Collective action L/J VSS VSS VSS L/J VSS
Market benefits L/J VSS VSS VSS VSS L/J VSS
Smallholder support L/J VSS VSS VSS L/J VSS
Smallholder fairness CP CP CP CP
No leakage L/J DD L/J
Free, prior & informed consent process CP DD DD CP VSS
Transparency, monitoring & accountability mechanisms DD CP VSS VSS VSS VSS DD CP VSS VSS
Effectiveness, efficiency & equity L/J DD
Key: VSS = Voluntary sustainably standards CP = company pledges R= Regulation PPP = public private partnerships DD= due diligence
mechanisms L/J=Landscape/jurisdictional

13. ▪Assessing illusions compared to ideals offers
insights to address interconnected interests,
cross-sectoral and transboundary
interdependencies
▪Political ideology rather than evidence of
what works and why underlies most theories-
of-change
▪Combined approach –“best of”regulatory &
certification, aligned with corporate pledges &
legality approaches –overcome weaknesses
and blind spots
▪But politically difficultgiven underlying
ideologies and preferences for specific policy
instruments
▪Global efforts needed to produce effective,
well-designed, interlinked approaches in
an international multi-level & multi-actor
setting to achieve zero-deforestation
commodity value chains.
12
Illusions vs ideals of ‘successful’ ZD VC approaches

14. Thanks!
[email protected]
[email protected]
14

15. 15
Full screen image with title

16. Conclusions: ZD-VC initiatives largely business as
usual: risk-based, combined approaches needed
1.Commodities drive deforestation generally, but specific drivers not well studied, and
differ per region. Understanding intricacies is needed to design ZD approaches with
local positive outcomes and prevent deforestation leakage outside intervention area.
2.VSS (cocoa & timber) partially effective, regulatory approaches effective (cattle & palm
oil). Less evidence for landscape approaches, PPPs and corporate pledges, partly due to
lack of reporting. Combined the “best of” approaches needed ?
3.DD mechanisms focus on regulatory, VSS, PPPs & corporate pledges. If add traceability
and monitoring, theoretically can increase success, but evidence is missing.
4.Almost no ZD approaches address leakage and spill over.
5.Most ZD approaches focus on regions with historical deforestation, less attention
current deforestation hotspots and high-risk commodities.
6.Stronger evidence to develop robust ToCs to show ZD-VC approaches work –
responding to different value frames and discourses
7.Some approaches have no or limited impact and politically contested -unlikely to
capture majority of commodity trade –essential to halt forest loss and avoid leakage
and spill over.
16

17. Recommendations
▪Research and conceptual work needed to establish
shared assessment strategies for ZD-VCs across
commodity markets, scales and approaches.
▪Develop baseline-cut off date standards (how far
back to measure deforestation?), deforestation
measures (forest cover?), and accounting methods
for forest gain/loss (including or excluding
reforestation/afforestation/restoration efforts?) to lead to
evidence that resists systematization and evidences
claims of effective ZD approaches.
▪ZD approaches should be scrutinized for the societal
and political values inherent in them and the theories
of change they ascribe to.
17

18. Results: Q7 Action research needed
18
Common language and
structure to characterize
interventions
=> Planning and
analysis of interventions
and outcomes
Collective experiences of
interventions across
commodities and forest-
agriculture landscapes
=> Systematic
understanding of VC
intervention impacts
Value of reforestation,
restoration & afforestation by
ZD commitments, how it
minimises risks and impacts
affect markets => Support
financial institutions
investment choices
Forest areas at high risk of
deforestation
=> Support financial
institutions investment
choices
Stronger evidence to
develop robust ToC on
scales, commodities &
interactions
=> Satisfying multiple
views embedded in
political discourses
around ZD VCs

19. Results: Q2 Timeline partly affects evidence
available about what works, where and how
19

20. Commodities drive deforestation directly & indirectly
20
Commodity/
Role
Cattle
L
Coffee
S
Cocoa
S
Soy
L
Palm oil
LS
Timber
LS
Direct driver
deforestation
++ + ++ ++ ++
Indirect driver
deforestation
++ ++ + ++ ++
Historical
deforestation*
++ + ++ ++ ++ ++
Current
deforestation#
+ + + +
Spillage + ? ++ ?
Agroforestry/
plantations@
+ + + ++
*Prior to 2008, main producing countries @ Regionally specific
#Post 2008, new frontiers S= smallholder L:= largescale

21. Criteria to evaluate the success of ZD
commitments
1.Baselines and (de)forestation definitions provided
2.Deforestation & degradation of high conservation value (HCV,
HCS, native & old-growth) forests is preventedfrom a baseline.
3.Effective governance of production system, ecosystem services
and value chain
4.Collective action
5.Market benefits
6.Smallholder participation, support and fairness
7.No leakage
8.Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)
9.Transparency, monitoring and accountability
10.Effectiveness, efficiency andequity
21

22. Methods & approach
▪Value chain and geographic nexus approach
22
Government
▪Evidence analysis
▪Discourse analysis
▪Map ToC per
commodity and
summarise
qualitatively
▪Criteria to assess
effectiveness of
ZD VC approaches

23. Government
VSS
Landscape/jurisdictional
Due diligence
Corporate pledges
Regulatory
PPPs