Criteria for effective zero-deforestation commitments

Garrett, Rachael; Levy, Santiago; Carlson, Kimberly M.; Gardner, Toby; Godar, Javier; Clapp, Jennifer; Dauvergne, Peter; Heilmayr, Robert; Waroux, Yann le Polain de; Ayre, Ben; Barr, Rhona; Døvre, B.; Gibbs, Holly K.; Hall, Simon; Lake, Sarah; Milder, Jeffrey C.; Rausch, Lisa; Rivero, Rodrigo; Rueda, Ximena; Sarsfield, Ryan; Soares‐Filho, Britaldo; Villoria, Nelson B.

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.11.003

Cited by 137 publications

(152 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

123

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The notable exceptions being Barry Callebaut and Pukka Herbs (which as of 2018 is a wholly owned subsidiary of Unilever). These sectors have taken a different route to managing risk, one focused on commodity certification and more recently zero deforestation commitments (Donofrio, Rothrock, & Leonard, ; Garrett et al, ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The size of the pie charts indicates the total number of companies with NNL/NPI commitments for the environment (including biodiversity; 30 in 2010 and 31 in 2016) and NNL/NPI commitments specifically for biodiversity (12 in 2010 and 16 in 2016) that were at deemed as "active" at the end of each period and Pukka Herbs (which as of 2018 is a wholly owned subsidiary of Unilever). These sectors have taken a different route to managing risk, one focused on commodity certification and more recently zero deforestation commitments (Donofrio, Rothrock, & Leonard, 2018;Garrett et al, 2019).…”

Section: Companies Making Environmental Commitments Used Phrases Suchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The evolution of corporate no net loss and net positive impact biodiversity commitments: Understanding appetite and addressing challenges

Silva¹,

Regan²,

Pollard³

et al. 2019

Bus Strat Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The World Economic Forum has identified biodiversity loss as an increasingly significant and impactful risk facing business. However, businesses themselves can negatively impact on biodiversity. Recognizing this, a number of companies have developed their own biodiversity commitments, including those to achieve a no net loss (NNL) or net positive impact (NPI) on biodiversity by balancing or outweighing any negative impacts through mitigation activities. We reviewed corporate‐level NNL and NPI commitments over the last two decades to establish the extent of their adoption, retraction, and scientific foundation. Between 2001 and 2016, 66 companies had made NNL/NPI environmental commitments. Thirty three of these 66 companies made specific biodiversity commitments. The numbers of companies making commitments increased in that period. However, some commitments were retracted, or their status became unclear, leaving only 18 companies with active NNL/NPI biodiversity commitments in 2016. Added to this, many of the commitments are lacking science‐based criteria that would allow more transparent and systematic assessment of corporate activities. Thus, although commitments are being made, they may not be delivering as intended. To secure real biodiversity gains, we recommend advancing methods to assess biodiversity risks to businesses, and using science‐based criteria to deepen corporate commitments and actions. Concerted effort from all sectors is needed to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, and the “biodiversity policy super‐year” of 2020 is the perfect moment for business to deliver through well‐framed and implemented commitments to biodiversity NPI.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Companies Making Environmental Commitments Used Phrases Suchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of corporate no net loss and net positive impact biodiversity commitments: Understanding appetite and addressing challenges

Silva¹,

Regan²,

Pollard³

et al. 2019

Bus Strat Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For consumer countries, these commitments included the NYDF and Amsterdam declarations. We then assessed each of these commitments against eleven criteria of their potential effectiveness (Garrett et al 2019) and linked them to our data on deforestation risk. One prominent commitment, the Soy Moratorium, has been the subject of several previous assessments We are working collaboratively with producers and suppliers along our supply chains to eradicate deforestation, increase sustainability and protect high carbon stock forest, valuable conservation areas and peatlands from uncontrolled expansion.…”

Section: Reviewing Zdcs In the Soy Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Municipal-level assessments also bring some advantages. ZDCs should arguably be judged on their net impact on deforestation (Garrett et al 2019), as they can be undermined by leakage. If a committed actor's non-compliant producers continue to clear land and switch to sell to non-committed traders, the ZDC's net effect on deforestation will have been zero.…”

Section: Using Supply Chain Data To Monitor Zdcsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If successfully implemented, these commitments offer a powerful lever for reducing deforestation and associated biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions. In practice, however, the potential impact of ZDCs is undermined by weaknesses in their definition and implementation-not least a lack of transparency (Climate Focus 2016, Jopke and Schoneveld 2018, Garrett et al 2019. Transparency is a prerequisite for understanding the coverage and impact of ZDCs and crucial for their accountability (Gardner et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using supply chain data to monitor zero deforestation commitments: an assessment of progress in the Brazilian soy sector

Ermgassen

Ayre

Godar

et al. 2020

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zero deforestation commitments (ZDCs) are voluntary initiatives where companies or countries pledge to eliminate deforestation from their supply chains. These commitments offer much promise for sustainable commodity production, but are undermined by a lack of transparency about their coverage and impacts. Here, using state-of-the-art supply chain data, we introduce an approach to evaluate the impact of ZDCs, linking traders and international markets to commodity-associated deforestation in the sub-national jurisdictions from which they source. We focus on the Brazilian soy sector, where we find that ZDC coverage is increasing, but under-represents the Cerrado biome where most soy-associated deforestation currently takes place. Though soy-associated deforestation declined in the Amazon after the introduction of the Soy Moratorium, we observe no change in the exposure of companies or countries adopting ZDCs to soy-associated deforestation in the Cerrado. We further assess the formulation and implementation of these ZDCs and identify several systematic weaknesses that must be addressed to increase the likelihood that they achieve meaningful reductions in deforestation in future. As the 2020 deadline for several of these commitments approaches, our approach can provide independent monitoring of progress toward the goal of ending commodityassociated deforestation.

show abstract

Land use change: the barrier for sugarcane sustainability

Picoli

Machado

2021

Biofuels Bioprod Bioref

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioethanol production in Brazil gained momentum in the 1970s and 1980s as an energy security and energy sufficiency measure due to the well‐known world oil crisis. However, the increase in bioethanol production and consumption in the past couple of decades has been backed by the country's efforts and measures to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the transport sector. Brazil is the second largest producer of biofuels, and its production continues to increase because of the commitments made in the Paris Agreement in 2015. This study reviews several key policies designed to develop Brazilian bioethanol production and to protect the environment. It is argued that many of these policies do not consider land use change or encourage land protection to achieve sustainable land use and agricultural production. Thus, this work aims to understand the importance and impacts of public policies in expanding sugarcane in Brazil in the past 34 years, with regard to land use and native vegetation. The discussion in this paper addresses the inadequacy of current policies to avoid direct and indirect land use change caused by sugarcane expansion, despite incentives such as 17 Sustainable Development Goals from the United Nations and certification schemes. The data presented indicate an indirect effect caused by the expansion of sugarcane over pasture areas, which leads to further clearing of natural vegetation to establish new pasture areas. Ultimately, this study addresses the importance of zero deforestation in Brazil, regardless of the crop that causes the conversion. Without conjoint efforts by all sectors of the economy to curtail deforestation, the sustainability of producing biofuels is not guaranteed, as the emissions caused by deforestation will not be offset by the lower GHG emissions obtained by using ethanol as a transport fuel. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

show abstract

Criteria for effective zero-deforestation commitments

Cited by 137 publications

References 73 publications

The evolution of corporate no net loss and net positive impact biodiversity commitments: Understanding appetite and addressing challenges

The evolution of corporate no net loss and net positive impact biodiversity commitments: Understanding appetite and addressing challenges

Using supply chain data to monitor zero deforestation commitments: an assessment of progress in the Brazilian soy sector

Land use change: the barrier for sugarcane sustainability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About