Inclusion, Transparency, and Enforcement: How the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement Fails the Sustainability Test

Kehoe, Laura; Reis, Tiago N.P. dos; Meyfroidt, Patrick; Bager, Simon; Seppelt, Ralf; Kuemmerle, Tobias; Berenguer, Erika; Clark, Michael; Davis, Kyle Frankel; Ermgassen, Erasmus zu; Farrell, Katharine N.; Friis, Cecilie; Haberl, Helmut; Kastner, Thomas; Murtough, Katie L.; Persson, Ulf; Romero‐Muñoz, Alfredo; O’Connell, Chris; Schäfer, Viola Valeska; Virah‐Sawmy, Malika; Waroux, Yann le Polain de; Kiesecker, Joseph M.

doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2020.08.013

Cited by 40 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A report commissioned by the European Commission estimated that, in 2004, the EU27 countries consumed the equivalent to 10% of the global embodied deforestation consumption [65]. Deleterious consequences of commodities driven deforestation to biodiversity and to Indigenous peoples have intensified the political discussions around the EMTA negotiation and ratification [66,67]. These concerns are justified given recent upward deforestation trends in Brazil; proposed legislation that would open Indigenous lands for the exploitation of natural resources (Projeto de Lei 191/20), many of which are already under enormous pressure and being invaded [6]; and the manifested hostility of the current federal government toward environmental conservation policies [68,69].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Amazonia: The EU–Mercosur Trade Agreement and Deforestation

Arima

Barreto

Taheripour

et al. 2021

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The trade agreement between the European Union and the Mercosur countries will increase deforestation in the Mercosur countries and Brazil, in particular, if ratified by member countries. We use a computable general equilibrium model to analyze how trade, land use, and agricultural production will change as a result of the agreement. We then use a statistical model to spatially allocate the predicted deforestation within the Brazilian Amazon. The models estimate that the agreement will cause additional deforestation in Brazil ranging from 56 to 173 thousand ha to accommodate increases in cropland area, depending on the level of governance, use of double-cropping techniques, and trade elasticity parameters. Most additional deforestation in Amazonia would be clustered near current deforestation hotspot areas. Some hotspots threaten the integrity of Indigenous lands and conservation units. Although a low deforestation scenario with gains in welfare is theoretically possible when high governance and multiple-cropping systems are in place, political challenges remain and cast doubt on Brazil’s ability to rein on illegal deforestation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Amazonia: The EU–Mercosur Trade Agreement and Deforestation

Arima

Barreto

Taheripour

et al. 2021

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such assessments could, for instance, contribute to the development of policy actions to reduce deforestation by providing guidance on commodities and regions to target and by acknowledging potential trade-offs and problem shifts, 154 thus laying the groundwork for stronger sustainability criteria in international trade agreements. 155…”

Section: Research Frontiersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global agricultural trade and land system sustainability: Implications for ecosystem carbon storage, biodiversity, and human nutrition

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global land systems are increasingly shaped by international trade of agricultural products. An increasing number of studies have quantified the implications of agricultural trade for single different aspects of land system sustainability. Bringing together studies across different sustainability dimensions, this review investigates how global agricultural trade flows have affected land systems and resulting impacts on food and nutrient availability, natural habitat conversion, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem carbon storage. We show that the effects of trade on land systems are highly heterogeneous across regions and commodities, revealing both synergies and trade-offs between improved nutrition and environmental conservation. For instance, we find that while the concentration of cereal production in North America has spared land, the increased demand for tropical products induced by trade has negatively impacted tropical ecosystems. Based on the current state of knowledge, we identify six pathways for how future research can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how agricultural trade can positively contribute to meeting global sustainability goals.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, harmful social and environmental impacts indeed accompany globalization. Consequently, trade liberalization, combined with a regulation focusing on the negative impacts, could be an appropriate policy direction (Kehoe et al., 2020). Furthermore, the local social context should be considered and respected as well.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%