Rethinking zero deforestation beyond 2020 to more equitably and effectively conserve tropical forests

Lyons‐White, Joss; Pollard, Edward; Catalano, Allison S.; Knight, Andrew T.

doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2020.11.007

Cited by 23 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Avoiding tropical deforestation is critical to protect biodiversity, address climate change, protect ecosystem service delivery, and support indigenous peoples (Lyons-White et al, 2020). As conversion to agricultural land is a key driver of forest loss, there are increasing initiatives to eliminate deforestation from the supply chains of agricultural commodities (Lyons-White et al, 2020; Seymour & Harris, 2019). Legislative proposals are currently under consideration in the EU (Directorate-General for Environment, 2021b), the US (S.2950 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): FOREST Act of 2021, 2021) and the UK (DEFRA, 2021) to regulate the import of deforestation-linked commodities.…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rubber needs to be included in deforestation-free commodity legislation

Warren‐Thomas

Ahrends

Wang

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural rubber production uses increasing amounts of land in the tropics and is linked to deforestation. There is debate as to whether current legislative proposals to reduce the import of deforestation-linked commodities into the EU, US and the UK will include rubber. Globally, sustained growth in demand is chiefly driven by tyre production, linked to rising freight and passenger transport flows. Yields of natural rubber remain static, meaning increased plantation area will be required: 2.7 to 5.3 million ha of additional harvested area could be needed by 2030 to meet demand. In order to prevent further deforestation and associated biodiversity loss, millions of smallholder growers producing the majority of rubber globally need support to increase production from existing plantations and close yield gaps, without undermining long-term sustainability through soil or water degradation. Rubber should also be included in legislative proposals to reduce deforestation in supply chains to avoid undermining the impact of these ambitious initiatives on forest loss globally.

show abstract

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rubber needs to be included in deforestation-free commodity legislation

Warren‐Thomas

Ahrends

Wang

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The UK government recently announced a strategy for a 'nature-positive 2030' including nearly 100 companies as 'supporters' (JNCC, 2021, p. 202). 'Nature-positive' as a framing benefits from similar rhetorical properties as 'zero deforestation' commitments: a positive, intuitively simple message which masks a staggering complexity of measurement, operationalisation and delivery (Lyons- White et al, 2020).…”

Section: Exploring Definitions Of Nature-positivementioning

confidence: 99%

Are corporate biodiversity commitments consistent with delivering ‘nature-positive’ outcomes? A review of ‘nature-positive’ definitions, company progress and challenges

Ermgassen¹,

Howard²,

Bennun³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are growing calls for businesses to implement ‘nature-positive’ strategies. Convergence around a precise definition is now needed. We review definitions of ‘nature-positive’ and propose four key elements for ‘nature-positive’ strategies: 1) demonstrating positive biodiversity outcomes across the entire value chain; 2) measurable outcomes against a fixed baseline aligned with overall societal goals (e.g. post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework); 3) integrated consideration of different components of nature (e.g. both biodiversity and climate); and 4) buy-in throughout the entire organization. We extend previous work to review biodiversity commitments of the global Fortune 100 companies, evaluating alignment with these elements and assessing their evolution since 2016. Uptake of biodiversity commitments has increased since 2016, but with limited progress towards adopting measurable, time-bound commitments (an increase from 5-10/100 firms from 2016-2021) necessary for ‘nature-positive’ outcomes. We review barriers and potential solutions to implementing business strategies that deliver socially equitable and ‘nature-positive’ outcomes.

show abstract

“…On the basis of this paper's results, we argue that ZDSC initiatives may have a role under the high-high, high-low, and low-high scenarios. In contrast, under the low-low scenario, it may be strategic to create and maintain natural protected areas, setting conservation targets with local communities and establishing carbon markets to compensate for avoided deforestation from low-opportunity-cost agriculture [42,43]. Our arguments align with those derived from a recent global-level spatial assessment recommending adjustments to zero-deforestation commitments so that they do not leave behind any forest area where deforestation is not tied to international markets with high consumer awareness [31].…”

Section: Scenarios Where Zdsc Initiatives May Operate In Perumentioning

confidence: 99%

Broadening the Perspective of Zero-Deforestation Interventions in Peru by Incorporating Concepts from the Global Value Chain Literature

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global narratives around the links between deforestation and agricultural commodity production have led to the application of voluntary zero-deforestation agreements between companies, governments, and civil society. The continued tropical deforestation warrants a re-examination of this approach in order to customize its application for a particular location. Our paper contributes to this by exploring the spatial associations between deforestation and the production of cacao, coffee, and oil palm in the Amazon region in Peru. The geographical overlaps between deforestation, and the distribution of these commodity crops, indicate four types of spatial associations: (1) a high degree of deforestation and a high degree of commodity production (high-high); (2) a high degree of deforestation and a low degree of commodity production (high-low); (3) a low degree of deforestation and a high degree of commodity production (low-high); and (4) a low degree of deforestation and a low degree of commodity production (low-low). On the basis of these associations, we present four scenarios in which zero-deforestation supply chain interventions may operate in Peru and argue that broadening the perspective of such interventions by adopting a global value chain lens can improve the use of previously deforested lands, prevent unintended or future deforestation and, in turn, ensure that no forest area is left behind.

show abstract

Rethinking zero deforestation beyond 2020 to more equitably and effectively conserve tropical forests

Cited by 23 publications

References 69 publications

Rubber needs to be included in deforestation-free commodity legislation

Rubber needs to be included in deforestation-free commodity legislation

Are corporate biodiversity commitments consistent with delivering ‘nature-positive’ outcomes? A review of ‘nature-positive’ definitions, company progress and challenges

Broadening the Perspective of Zero-Deforestation Interventions in Peru by Incorporating Concepts from the Global Value Chain Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About