Similarities and Differences between International REDD+ and Transnational Deforestation-Free Supply Chain Initiatives—A Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction and Background
Defining the Scope of UNFCCC REDD+ and DFSC for This Study
2. Methodology
2.1. Literature Review and Content Analysis for the Identification of Key Characteristics
2.2. Analytical Framework
2.2.1. Technical Aspects
2.2.2. Contributing Factors
2.2.3. Increasing Acceptance
2.3. Application of the Analytical Framework to REDD+ and DFSC
3. Results from the Comparison: Similarities and Differences
3.1. Technical Aspects
3.2. Contributing Factors
3.3. Increasing Acceptance
4. Discussion
4.1. Methodology and the Identification of Key Characteristics
4.2. Comparison for Similarities/Differences and Outlook/Comment
4.2.1. Summary of the Results
4.2.2. Potential Synergies of Linking REDD+ and DFSC
4.2.3. Challenges that Cannot be Solved by Linking REDD+ and DSFC
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kissinger, G.; Herold, M.; de Sy, V. Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation: A Synthesis Report for REDD+ Policymakers; The Government of the UK and Norway: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2012; p. 48.
- Barraclough, S.L.; Ghimire, K.B. Forests and Livelihoods: The Social Dynamics of Deforestation in Developing Countries; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 1995; p. 259. [Google Scholar]
- Dirzo, R.; Raven, P.H. Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2003, 28, 137–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Union of Concerned Scientists. Measuring the Role of Deforestation in Global Warming. Available online: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/stop-deforestation/deforestation-global-warming-carbon-emissions.html (accessed on 3 February 2017).
- UNFCCC. Modalities for Measuring, Reporting and Verifying; UNFCCC: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2013 31 January. [Google Scholar]
- Angelsen, A. REDD+ as result-based aid: General lessons and bilateral agreements of norway. Rev. Dev. Econ. 2017, 21, 237–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- UNFCCC. The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention; UNFCCC: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Green Climate Fund. Status of Pledges; Green Climate Fund. Available online: http://www.greenclimate.fund/how-we-work/resource-mobilization (accessed on 31 January 2019).
- Grieg-Gran, M. The Cost of Avoiding Deforestation—Update of the Report Prepared for the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change; International Institute for Environment and Development: London, UK, 2008; p. 26. [Google Scholar]
- Boucher, D.H. The redd/carbon market offsets debate: Big argument, small potatoes. J. Sustain. For. 2015, 34, 547–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, G.; Angelsen, A.; Brockhaus, M.; Carmenta, R.; Duchelle, A.E.; Leonard, S.; Luttrell, C.; Martius, C.; Wunder, S. Results-Based Payments for Redd+: Lessons on Finance, Performance, and Non-Carbon Benefits; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2016; p. 8. [Google Scholar]
- Busch, J.; Strassburg, B.; Cattaneo, A.; Lubowski, R.; Bruner, A.; Rice, R.; Creed, A.; Ashton, R.; Boltz, F. Comparing climate and cost impacts of reference levels for reducing emissions from deforestation. Environ. Res. Lett. 2009, 4, 044006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hargita, Y.; Günter, S.; Köthke, M. Brazil submitted the first redd+ reference level to the UNFCCC—Implications regarding climate effectiveness and cost-efficiency. Land Use Policy 2016, 55, 340–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, D.; Pistorius, T. The Impacts of International REDD+ Finance; The Climate and Land Use Alliance: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2015; p. 44. [Google Scholar]
- Astrid, B.B.; Amy, E.D.; Arild, A.; Valerio, A.; Veronique De, S.; Martin, H.; Shijo, J.; Claudio de, S.; Erin, O.S.; William, D.S.; et al. Comparing methods for assessing the effectiveness of subnational redd+ initiatives. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 074007. [Google Scholar]
- Fletcher, R.; Dressler, W.; Büscher, B.; Anderson, Z.R. Questioning redd+ and the future of market-based conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2016, 30, 673–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Angelsen, A.; Brockhaus, M.; Duchelle, A.E.; Larson, A.; Martius, C.; Sunderlin, W.D.; Verchot, L.; Wong, G.; Wunder, S. Learning from redd+: A response to fletcher et al. Conserv. Biol. 2017, 31, 718–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kill, J. Redd+: A Lost Decade for International Forest Conservation Stiftung; The Green Political Foundation: Berlin, Germany, 2019; Volume 2019. [Google Scholar]
- DeShazo, J.L.; Lal Pandey, C.; Smith, Z.A. Why Redd Will Fail; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-0-41572-926-0. [Google Scholar]
- The Consumer Goods Forum. Deforestation Resolution. Available online: https://www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/initiatives/environmental-sustainability/key-projects/deforestation/ (accessed on 12 December 2016).
- Biermann, F.; Pattberg, P. Global Environmental Governance Reconsidered; The MIT Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- WWF. Deforestation-Free Supply Chains—Concepts and Implications; WWF Deutschland: Berlin, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Pirard, R.; Fishman, A.; Gnych, S.; Obidzinski, K.; Pacheco, P. Deforestation-Free Commitments: The Challenge of Implementation—An Application to Indonesia; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2015; p. 23. [Google Scholar]
- Unilever; Marks & Spencer. Statement from Consumer Goods Forum Co-Chairs, Acting Individually: Production Protection. Consumer Goods Forum, Ed. 2015. Available online: http://tfa2020.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/01122015-_Produce-Protect-CGF-statement.pdf1 (accessed on 20 September 2017).
- The Consumer Goods Forum. The Consumer Goods Forum Calls for Binding Global Climate Change Deal. 2014. Available online: http://www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/the-consumer-goods-forum-calls-for-binding-global-climate-change-deal (accessed on 15 November 2017).
- Amsterdam Declaration. Towards Eliminating Deforestation from Agricultural Commodity Chains with European Countries; Amsterdam Declaration: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Fischer, R.; Hargita, Y.; Günter, S. Insights from the ground level? A content analysis review of multi-national redd+ studies since 2010. For. Policy Econ. 2016, 66, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vijge, M.J.; Brockhaus, M.; Di Gregorio, M.; Muharrom, E. Framing national redd+ benefits, monitoring, governance and finance: A comparative analysis of seven countries. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 39, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Angelsen, A.; Brockhaus, M.; Kanninen, M.; Sills, E.; Sunderlin, W.D.; Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S. Realising redd+: National Strategy and Policy Options; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Angelsen, A.; Brockhaus, M.; Sunderlin, W.D.; Verchot, L. Analysing Redd+: Challenges and Choices; Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W.D., Verchot, L., Eds.; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Mbatu, R.S. Redd + research: Reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward. For. Policy Econ. 2016, 73, 140–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Visseren-Hamakers, I.J.; Gupta, A.; Herold, M.; Peña-Claros, M.; Vijge, M.J. Will redd+ work? The need for interdisciplinary research to address key challenges. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 590–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lambin, E.F.; Gibbs, H.K.; Heilmayr, R.; Carlson, K.M.; Fleck, L.C.; Garrett, R.D.; le Polain de Waroux, Y.; McDermott, C.L.; McLaughlin, D.; Newton, P.; et al. The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ludwig, K. The Emerging Governance Landscape around Zero Deforestation Pledges; PBL Netherlands: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Garrett, R.D.; Levy, S.; Carlson, K.M.; Gardner, T.A.; Godar, J.; Clapp, J.; Dauvergne, P.; Heilmayr, R.; le Polain de Waroux, Y.; Ayre, B.; et al. Criteria for effective zero-deforestation commitments. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2019, 54, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jopke, P.; Schoneveld, G.C. Corporate Commitments to Zero Deforestation: An Evaluation of Externality Problems and Implementation Gaps; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Meyer, C.; Miller, D. Zero deforestation zones: The case for linking deforestation-free supply chain initiatives and jurisdictional Redd+. J. Sustain. For. 2015, 34, 559–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nepstad, D.; Irawan, S.; Bezerra, T.; Boyd, W.; Stickler, C.; Shimada, J.; Carvalho, O.; MacIntyre, K.; Dohong, A.; Alencar, A.; et al. More food, more forests, fewer emissions, better livelihoods: Linking Redd+, sustainable supply chains and domestic policy in brazil, indonesia and colombia. Carbon Manag. 2013, 4, 639–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nepstad, D.; Moutinho, P.; Boyd, W.; Azevedo, A.; Bezerra, T.; Smid, B.; Stabile, M.C.C.; Stickler, C.; Stella, O. Re-Framing Redd+ Unlocking Jurisdictional Redd+ as a Policy Framework for Low-Emission Rural Development: Research Results and Recommendations for Governments; Amazon Environmental Research Institute: Belém, Brazil, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Nepstad, D.C.; Shimada, J.; Carvalho, O.; Swette, B. Territorial Performance System—A Framework for Driving Large-Scale, Jurisdictional Transitions to Low-Emission Rural Development in the Tropics; Earth Innovation Institute: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Nepstad, D.C.; Boyd, W.; Stickler, C.M.; Bezerra, T.; Azevedo, A.A. Responding to Climate Change and the Global Land Crisis: Redd+, Market Transformation and Low-Emissions Rural Development. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 2013, 368, 20120167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nepstad, D.; McGrath, D.; Stickler, C.; Alencar, A.; Azevedo, A.; Swette, B.; Bezerra, T.; DiGiano, M.; Shimada, J.; Seroa da Motta, R.; et al. Slowing amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science 2014, 344, 1118–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Assunção, J.; Gandour, C.; Rocha, R. Deforestation slowdown in the brazilian amazon: Prices or policies? Environ. Dev. Econ. 2015, 20, 697–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Garrett, R.D.; Lambin, E.F.; Naylor, R.L. Land institutions and supply chain configurations as determinants of soybean planted area and yields in brazil. Land Use Policy 2013, 31, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moutinho, P.; Guerra, R.; Azevedos-Ramos, C. Achieving zero deforestation in the brazilian amazon: What is missing? Elem. Sci Anthr. 2016, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stabile, M.C.C.; Guimarães, A.L.; Silva, D.S.; Ribeiro, V.; Macedo, M.N.; Coe, M.T.; Pinto, E.; Moutinho, P.; Alencar, A. Solving brazil’s land use puzzle: Increasing production and slowing amazon deforestation. Land Use Policy 2019, 104362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pirard, R.; Rivoalen, C.; Lawry, S.; Pacheco, P.; Zrust, M. A Policy Network Analysis of the Palm Oil Sector in Indonesia: What Sustainability to Expect? Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Busch, J.; Ferretti-Gallon, K.; Engelmann, J.; Wright, M.; Austin, K.G.; Stolle, F.; Turubanova, S.; Potapov, P.V.; Margono, B.; Hansen, M.C.; et al. Reductions in emissions from deforestation from indonesia’s moratorium on new oil palm, timber, and logging concessions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 1328–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sen, A. Pathways to Deforestation-Free Food: Developing Supply Chains Free of Deforestation and Exploitation in the Food and Beverage Sector; Oxfam: Oxford, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Obersteiner, M.; Huettner, M.; Kraxner, F.; McCallum, I.; Aoki, K.; Bottcher, H.; Fritz, S.; Gusti, M.; Havlik, P.; Kindermann, G.; et al. On fair, effective and efficient redd mechanism design. Carbon Balance Manag. 2009, 4, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pasgaard, M.; Sun, Z.; Müller, D.; Mertz, O. Challenges and opportunities for redd+: A reality check from perspectives of effectiveness, efficiency and equity. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 63, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panfil, S.N.; Harvey, C.A. Redd+ and biodiversity conservation: A review of the biodiversity goals, monitoring methods, and impacts of 80 redd+ projects. Conserv. Lett. 2016, 9, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Milbank, C.; Coomes, D.; Vira, B. Assessing the progress of redd+ projects towards the sustainable development goals. Forests 2018, 9, 589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Caplow, S.; Jagger, P.; Lawlor, K.; Sills, E. Evaluating land use and livelihood impacts of early forest carbon projects: Lessons for learning about redd+. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duchelle, A.E.; Cromberg, M.; Gebara, M.F.; Guerra, R.; Melo, T.; Larson, A.; Cronkleton, P.; Börner, J.; Sills, E.; Wunder, S.; et al. Linking forest tenure reform, environmental compliance, and incentives: Lessons from redd+ initiatives in the brazilian amazon. World Dev. 2014, 55, 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boucher, D.; Elias, P. From redd to deforestation-free supply chains: The persistent problem of leakage and scale. Carbon Manag. 2013, 4, 473–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sunderlin, W.D.; Ekaputri, A.D.; Sills, E.O.; Duchelle, A.E.; Kweka, D.; Diprose, R.; Doggart, N.; Ball, S.; Lima, R.; Enright, A.; et al. The Challenge of Establishing Redd+ on the Ground: Insights from 23 Subnational Initiatives in Six Countries; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- UNFCCC. Forest Reference Emission Levels. Available online: https://redd.unfccc.int/fact-sheets/forest-reference-emission-levels.html (accessed on 12 December 2017).
- Supply Change. Supply Change—Commitments That Count. Available online: http://supply-change.org (accessed on 6 March 2018).
- Guindon, M. Certification Schemes Failing to Protect Tropical Forests. Available online: https://medium.com/global-canopy/certification-schemes-failing-to-protect-tropical-forests-9cc9e0f3ee05 (accessed on 6 March 2018).
- FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015—How Are the World’s Forests Changing? Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- FSC. Marketinfopack 2015—An Overview of Recent Trends and Current Status of FSC® Certification; Forest Stewardship Council: Bonn, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- PEFC. Pefc Global statictics: Fsm & Coc Certification. Available online: https://de.scribd.com/document/147379606/PEFC-Global-Certificates#fullscreen&from_embed (accessed on 16 August 2017).
- Marks & Spencer and Unilever. Statement on Produce & Protect. 2015. Available online: tfa2020.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/01122015-_Produce-Protect-CGF-statement.pdf (accessed on 17 March 2017).
- Wolosin, M. Jurisdictional Approaches to Zero Deforestation Commodities; Discussion Paper; WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2016; p. 20. [Google Scholar]
- Hsieh, H.-F.; Shannon, S.E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 2005, 15, 1277–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Elo, S.; Kyngäs, H. The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 2008, 62, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mayring, P. Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution; GESIS–Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences: Klagenfurt, Austria, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Haddaway, N.R.; Woodcock, P.; Macura, B.; Collins, A. Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 1596–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mayring, P. Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qual. Soc. Res. 2000, 1, 10. [Google Scholar]
- IPCC. Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000; p. 375. [Google Scholar]
- Streck, C.; Scholz, S.M. The role of forests in global climate change: Whence we come and where we go. Int. Aff. 2006, 82, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benndorf, R.; Federici, S.; Forner, C.; Pena, N.; Rametsteiner, E.; Sanz, M.J.; Somogyi, Z. Including land use, land-use change, and forestry in future climate change, agreements: Thinking outside the box. Environ. Sci. Policy 2007, 10, 283–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- da Fonseca, G.A.; Rodriguez, C.M.; Midgley, G.; Busch, J.; Hannah, L.; Mittermeier, R.A. No forest left behind. PLoS Biol. 2007, 5, e216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huettner, M.; Leemans, R.; Kok, K.; Ebeling, J. A comparison of baseline methodologies for ‘reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation’. Carbon Balance Manag. 2009, 4, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fry, I. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation: Opportunities and pitfalls in developing a new legal regime. Rev. Eur. Community Int. Environ. Law 2008, 17, 166–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dulal, H.B.; Shah, K.U.; Sapkota, C. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (redd) projects: Lessons for future policy design and implementation. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2012, 19, 116–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Putz, F.E.; Redford, K.H. The importance of defining ‘forest’: Tropical forest degradation, deforestation, long-term phase shifts, and further transitions. Biotropica 2010, 42, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, G.Y.; Loft, L.; Brockhaus, M.; Yang, A.L.; Pham, T.T.; Assembe-Mvondo, S.; Luttrell, C. An assessment framework for benefit sharing mechanisms to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation within a forest policy mix. Environ. Policy Gov. 2017, 27, 436–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Busch, J.; Godoy, F.; Turner, W.R.; Harvey, C.A. Biodiversity co-benefits of reducing emissions from deforestation under alternative reference levels and levels of finance. Conserv. Lett. 2011, 4, 101–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venter, O.; Koh, L.P. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (redd+): Game changer or just another quick fix? Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2012, 1249, 137–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schroeder, H. Agency in international climate negotiations: The case of indigenous peoples and avoided deforestation. Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 2010, 10, 317–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNFCCC. Guidelines and Procedures for the Technical Assessment of Submissions from Parties on Proposed Forest Reference Emission Levels and/or Forest Reference Levels; UNFCCC: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Delacote, P.; Robinson, E.J.Z.; Roussel, S. Deforestation, leakage and avoided deforestation policies: A spatial analysis. Resour. Energy Econ. 2016, 45, 192–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dixon, R.; Challies, E. Making redd+ pay: Shifting rationales and tactics of private finance and the governance of avoided deforestation in indonesia. Asia Pac. Viewp. 2015, 56, 6–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baird, I.G. Degraded forest, degraded land and the development of industrial tree plantations in laos. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 2014, 35, 328–3444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baird, I.G. Reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (redd) and access and exclusion: Obstacles and opportunities in cambodia and laos. Southeast Asian Stud. 2014, 3, 643–668. [Google Scholar]
- Alix-Garcia, J.; Gibbs, H.K. Forest conservation effects of brazil’s zero deforestation cattle agreements undermined by leakage. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 47, 201–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boucher, D. How brazil has dramatically reduced tropical deforestation. Solut. J. 2014, 5, 66–75. [Google Scholar]
- Dang Phan, T.H.; Brouwer, R.; Davidson, M. The economic costs of avoided deforestation in the developing world: A meta-analysis. J. For. Econ. 2014, 20, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loft, L. Market mechanisms for financing the reduction of emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries (redd)—Learning from payments for ecosystem services schemes. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2011, 7, 204–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasolofoson, R.A.; Ferraro, P.J.; Jenkins, C.N.; Jones, J.P.G. Effectiveness of community forest management at reducing deforestation in madagascar. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 184, 271–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Delacote, P.; Angelsen, A. Reducing deforestation and forest degradation: Leakage or synergy? Land Econ. 2015, 91, 501–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nolte, C.; Agrawal, A.; Barreto, P. Setting priorities to avoid deforestation in amazon protected areas: Are we choosing the right indicators? Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 015039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goetz, S.; Hansen, M.; Houghton, R.; Walker, W.; Laporte, N.; Busch, J. Measurement and monitoring needs, capabilities and potential for addressing reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation under redd+. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 123001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magdon, P.; Fischer, C.; Fuchs, H.; Kleinn, C. Translating criteria of international forest definitions into remote sensing image analysis. Remote Sens. Environ. 2014, 149, 252–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bottcher, H.; Eisbrenner, K.; Fritz, S.; Kindermann, G.; Kraxner, F.; McCallum, I.; Obersteiner, M. An assessment of monitoring requirements and costs of ‘reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation’. Carbon Balance Manag. 2009, 4, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brockhaus, M.; Korhonen-Kurki, K.; Sehring, J.; Di Gregorio, M.; Assembe-Mvondo, S.; Babon, A.; Bekele, M.; Gebara, M.F.; Khatri, D.B.; Kambire, H.; et al. Redd+, transformational change and the promise of performance-based payments: A qualitative comparative analysis. Clim. Policy 2017, 17, 708–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Corbera, E.; Estrada, M.; Brown, K. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries: Revisiting the assumptions. Clim. Chang. 2010, 100, 355–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corbera, E.; Estrada, M.; May, P.; Navarro, G.; Pacheco, P. Rights to land, forests and carbon in redd+: Insights from mexico, brazil and costa rica. Forests 2011, 2, 301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pistorius, T. From red to redd+: The evolution of a forest-based mitigation approach for developing countries. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 638–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arima, E.Y.; Barreto, P.; Araújo, E.; Soares-Filho, B. Public policies can reduce tropical deforestation: Lessons and challenges from brazil. Land Use Policy 2014, 41, 465–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, B.; Lewis, S.L.; Burgess, N.D.; Malimbwi, R.E.; Munishi, P.K.; Swetnam, R.D.; Kerry Turner, R.; Willcock, S.; Balmford, A. Implementation and opportunity costs of reducing deforestation and forest degradation in tanzania. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2011, 1, 161–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, J.; McCarl, B.A. Measuring transnational leakage of forest conservation. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64, 423–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martello, R.; Dargusch, P.; Medrilizam, A. A systems analysis of factors affecting leakage in reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation projects in tropical forests in developing nations. Small-Scale For. 2010, 9, 501–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meijer, K.S. A comparative analysis of the effectiveness of four supply chain initiatives to reduce deforestation. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2015, 8, 583–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strassburg, B.; Turner, R.K.; Fisher, B.; Schaeffer, R.; Lovett, A. Reducing emissions from deforestation—The “combined incentives” mechanism and empirical simulations. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 265–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Negra, C.; Wollenberg, E. Lessons from reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation: Advancing agriculture in the un framework convention on climate change. Carbon Manag. 2011, 2, 161–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hosonuma, N.; Herold, M.; De Sy, V.; De Fries, R.S.; Brockhaus, M.; Verchot, L.; Angelsen, A.; Romijn, E. An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 2012, 7, 044009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leblois, A.; Damette, O.; Wolfersberger, J. What has driven deforestation in developing countries since the 2000s? Evidence from new remote-sensing data. World Dev. 2017, 92, 82–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doherty, E.; Schroeder, H. Forest tenure and multi-level governance in avoiding deforestation under redd. Glob. Environ. Politics 2011, 11, 66–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. Expert Meeting on Harmonizing Forest-Related Definitions for Use by Various Stakeholders; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- van Noordwijk, M.; Minang, P. If We Cannot Define It, We Cannot Save It; Tropenbos International: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Chazdon, R.L.; Brancalion, P.H.S.; Laestadius, L.; Bennett-Curry, A.; Buckingham, K.; Kumar, C.; Moll-Rocek, J.; Vieira, I.C.G.; Wilson, S.J. When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration. Ambio 2016, 45, 538–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- FAO. Fra 2015—Terms and Definitions; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2012; p. 36. [Google Scholar]
- UNFCCC. Definitions, Modalities, Rules and Guidelines Relating to Land Use, Land-Ude Change and Forestry Activities under the Kyoto Protocol; UNFCCC: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Grainger, A. Difficulties in tracking the long-term global trend in tropical forest area. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 818–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gardner, T.A.; Ribeiro-Junior, M.A.; Barlow, J.; Ávila-Pires, T.C.S.; Hoogmoed, M.S.; Peres, C.A. The value of primary, secondary, and plantation forests for a neotropical herpetofauna. Conserv. Biol. 2007, 21, 775–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhai, D.-L.; Xu, J.-C.; Dai, Z.-C.; Cannon, C.H.; Grumbine, R.E. Increasing tree cover while losing diverse natural forests in tropical hainan, china. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2014, 14, 611–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Proforest. A Technical Comparison of the HCV and HCS Approaches. 2014. Available online: http://www.proforest.net/en/news/hcv-and-hcs-2013-what2019s-the-difference (accessed on 28 November 2014).
- HCV Resource Network. HCV Resource Network. Available online: https://www.hcvnetwork.org/ (accessed on 5 December 2017).
- Lovett, G.M.; Burns, D.A.; Driscoll, C.T.; Jenkins, J.C.; Mitchell, M.J.; Rustad, L.; Shanley, J.B.; Likens, G.E.; Haeuber, R. Who needs environmental monitoring? Front. Ecol. Environ. 2007, 5, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeFries, R.; Achard, F.; Brown, S.; Herold, M.; Murdiyarso, D.; Schlamadinger, B.; de Souza, C. Earth observations for estimating greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation in developing countries. Environ. Sci. Policy 2007, 10, 385–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, M.C.; Potapov, P.V.; Moore, R.; Hancher, M.; Turubanova, S.A.; Tyukavina, A.; Thau, D.; Stehman, S.V.; Goetz, S.J.; Loveland, T.R.; et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 2013, 342, 850–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Streck, C.; Lee, D. Partnering for Results: Public-Private Collaboration on Deforestation-Free Supply Chains; Prepared with support from cooperative agreement # S-LMAQM-13-CA-1128 with U.S. Department of State; U.S. Department of State: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; ISBN 1-57360-077-6.
- Angelsen, A. Redd models and baselines. Int. For. Rev. 2008, 10, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atmadja, S.; Verchot, L. A review of the state of research, policies and strategies in addressing leakage from reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (redd+). Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2012, 17, 311–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aukland, L.; Costa, P.M.; Brown, S. A conceptual framework and its application for addressing leakage: The case of avoided deforestation. Clim. Policy 2003, 3, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strassburg, B.B.N.; Brooks, T.; Feltran-Barbieri, R.; Iribarrem, A.; Crouzeilles, R.; Loyola, R.; Latawiec, A.E.; Oliveira Filho, F.J.B.; Scaramuzza, C.A.d.M.; Scarano, F.R.; et al. Moment of truth for the cerrado hotspot. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 1, 0099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lawson, S. Consumer Goods and Deforestation: An Analysis of the Extent and Nature of Illegality in Forest Conversion for Agriculture and Timber Plantations; Forest Trade and Finance: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; p. 158. [Google Scholar]
- Global Forest Coalition. Redd+ and the Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation; Hall, R., Ed.; Global Forest Coalition: Asuncion, Paraguay, 2013; p. 80. [Google Scholar]
- Rautner, M.; Leggett, M.; Davis, F. The Little Book of Big Deforestation Drivers; Global Canopy Programme: Oxford, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Meyfroidt, P.; Lambin, E.F.; Erb, K.-H.; Hertel, T.W. Globalization of land use: Distant drivers of land change and geographic displacement of land use. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5, 438–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kubitza, C.; Krishna, V.V.; Urban, K.; Alamsyah, Z.; Qaim, M. Land property rights, agricultural intensification, and deforestation in indonesia. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 147, 312–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oosterveer, P.; Adjei, B.E.; Vellema, S.; Slingerland, M. Global sustainability standards and food security: Exploring unintended effects of voluntary certification in palm oil. Glob. Food Secur. 2014, 3, 220–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, P.; Haberl, H.; Popp, A.; Erb, K.-h.; Lauk, C.; Harper, R.; Tubiello, F.N.; de Siqueira Pinto, A.; Jafari, M.; Sohi, S.; et al. How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals? Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 2285–2302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Edwards, D.P.; Larsen, T.H.; Docherty, T.D.S.; Ansell, F.A.; Hsu, W.W.; Derhé, M.A.; Hamer, K.C.; Wilcove, D.S. Degraded lands worth protecting: The biological importance of southeast Asia’s repeatedly logged forests. Proc. R. Soc. 2010, 278, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Borrego, A.; Skutsch, M. Estimating the opportunity costs of activities that cause degradation in tropical dry forest: Implications for redd+. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 101, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Köthke, M. Costs of Sustainable Forest Management in the Tropics—State of Knowledge; Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut: Hamburg, Germany, 2014; p. 25. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, H.; Li, X. Potential variation in opportunity cost estimates for redd+ and its causes. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 95, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ickowitz, A.; Sills, E.; de Sassi, C. Estimating smallholder opportunity costs of redd+: A pantropical analysis from households to carbon and back. World Dev. 2017, 95, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pagiola, S.; Bosquet, B. Estimating the Costs of Redd at the Country Level; Forest Carbon Partnership Facility: World Bank, 2009; p. 23. [Google Scholar]
- Overmars, K.P.; Stehfest, E.; Tabeau, A.; van Meijl, H.; Beltrán, A.M.; Kram, T. Estimating the opportunity costs of reducing carbon dioxide emissions via avoided deforestation, using integrated assessment modelling. Land Use Policy 2014, 41, 45–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelsen, A. Policies for reduced deforestation and their impact on agricultural production. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 19639–19644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Laurance, W.F.; Sayer, J.; Cassman, K.G. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2014, 29, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luttrell, C.; Sills, E.; Aryani, R.; Ekaputri, A.D.; Evnike, M.F. Who Will Bear the Cost of Redd+? CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Rakatama, A.; Pandit, R.; Ma, C.; Iftekhar, S. The costs and benefits of redd+: A review of the literature. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 75, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsen, N.; Bishop, J. The Financial Costs of Redd: Evidence from Brazil and Indonesia; International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources: Gland, Switzerland, 2009; p. 64. [Google Scholar]
- Stickler, C.M.; Nepstad, D.C.; Azevedo, A.A.; McGrath, D.G. Defending public interests in private lands: Compliance, costs and potential environmental consequences of the brazilian forest code in mato grosso. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 2013, 368, 20120160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stickler, C.M.; Nepstad, D.C.; Coe, M.T.; McGrath, D.G.; Rodrigues, H.O.; Walker, W.S.; Soares-Filho, B.S.; Davidson, E.A. The potential ecological costs and cobenefits of redd: A critical review and case study from the amazon region. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2009, 15, 2803–2824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Resosudarmo, I.A.P.; Atmadja, S.; Ekaputri, A.D.; Intarini, D.Y.; Indriatmoko, Y.; Astri, P. Does tenure security lead to redd+ project effectiveness? Reflections from five emerging sites in indonesia. World Dev. 2014, 55, 68–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hatcher, J. Securing Tenure Rights and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (Redd); The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Larson, A.M.; Brockhaus, M.; Sunderlin, W.D.; Duchelle, A.; Babon, A.; Dokken, T.; Pham, T.T.; Resosudarmo, I.A.P.; Selaya, G.; Awono, A.; et al. Land tenure and redd+: The good, the bad and the ugly. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 678–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ojanen, M.; Zhou, W.; Miller, D.C.; Nieto, S.H.; Mshale, B.; Petrokofsky, G. What are the environmental impacts of property rights regimes in forests, fisheries and rangelands? Environ. Evid. 2017, 6, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonan, G.B. Forests and climate change: Forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 2008, 320, 1444–1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Demaze, M.T. Avoid or reduce deforestation to mitigate climate change: The redd challenge. Annales de Geographie 2010, 119, 338–358. [Google Scholar]
- Brandon, K. Ecosystem Services from Tropical Forests: Review of Current Science; Center for Global Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; p. 86. [Google Scholar]
- Ojea, E.; Loureiro, M.L.; Alló, M.; Barrio, M. Ecosystem services and redd: Estimating the benefits of non-carbon services in worldwide forests. World Dev. 2016, 78, 246–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Douglas, E.; Sebastian, K.; Vorosmarty, C.J.; Wood, S.; Chomitz, K.M. The role of tropical forests in supporting biodiversity and hydrological integrity: A synoptic overview. World Bank Policy Res. Work. Pap. 2005, 3635, 23. [Google Scholar]
- Bernard, F.; McFatridge, S.; Minang, P.A. The Private Sector in the Redd+ Supply Chain: Trends, Challenges and Opportunities; International Institute for Sustainable Development: Nairobi, Kenya, 2012; p. 62. [Google Scholar]
- Duchelle, A.E.; de Sassi, C.; Jagger, P.; Cromberg, M.; Larson, A.M.; Sunderlin, W.D.; Atmadja, S.S.; Resosudarmo, I.A.P.; Pratama, C.D. Balancing carrots and sticks in redd+: Implications for social safeguards. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sayer, J.; Sunderland, T.; Ghazoul, J.; Pfund, J.-L.; Sheil, D.; Meijaard, E.; Venter, M.; Boedhihartono, A.K.; Day, M.; Garcia, C.; et al. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 8349–8356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- FCPF. Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement in Redd+ Readiness; FCPF: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Khadka, M.; Karki, S.; Karky, B.S.; Kotru, R.; Darjee, K.B. Gender equality challenges to the redd initiative in nepal. Mt. Res. Dev. 2014, 34, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UN General Assembly. United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; UN General Assembly: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Schwartzman, S.; Zimmerman, B. Conservation alliances with indigenous peoples of the amazon. Conserv. Biol. 2005, 19, 721–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dove, M.R. Indigenous people and environmental politics. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006, 35, 191–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNFCCC. Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry; UNFCCC: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- UNFCCC. Guidelines for the Preparation of National Communications by Parties Included in Annex I to the Convention, Part I: UNFCCC Reporting Guidelines on Annual Greenhouse gas Inventories; UNFCCC: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- IPCC. Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. In Institute for Global Environmental Strategies; Penman, J., Gytarsky, M., Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Kruger, D., Pipatti, R., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K., et al., Eds.; IPCC: Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- IPCC. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme; IGES: Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Neeff, T.; Linhares-Juvenal, T. Zero Deforestation Initiatives and Their Impacts on Commodity Supply Chains; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- EU REDD Facility. Deforestation-Free Commodity Trade: Scaling-up Implementation with Jurisdictions; EU REDD Facility: Barcelona, Spain, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Bregman, T.; Mitchard, A.; Lachaux, C.; Mardas, N.; Bellfield, H.; Lawrence, L.; Mountain, R.; MacFarquhar, C.; Goodman, L. Achieving Zero (Net) Deforestation Commitments: What It Means and How to Get There; The Global Canopy Programme: Oxford, UK, 2015; p. 22. [Google Scholar]
- Pasiecznik, N.; Savenije, H. Zero Deforestation: A Commitment to Change; ETFRN and Tropenbos International: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Rod, T.; Streck, C. The Elusive Impact of the Deforestation-Free Supply Chain Movement; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Peters-Stanley, M.; Donofrio, S.; McCarthy, B. Supply Change: Corporations, Commodities, and Commitments That Count; Forest Trends: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; p. 32. [Google Scholar]
- ABIOVE. Soy Moratorium; ABIOVE: Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Donofrio, S.; Rothrock, P.; Leonard, J. Supply Change: Tracking Corporate Commitments to Deforestation-Free Supply Chains, 2017; Forest Trends: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- MacCarthy, B. Supply Change: Tracking Corporate Commitments to Deforestation-Free Supply Chains, 2016; Forest Trends: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- TRASE. Sustainability in Forest-Risk Supply Chains: Spotlight on Brazilian Soy; Trase Yearbook 2018; TRASE: Stockholm, Sweden, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- International Trade Centre. Sustainability Map—Your Roadmap to Sustainable Consumption, Production and Trade. Available online: http://www.sustainabilitymap.org (accessed on 17 April 2019).
- WWF. Entwaldungsfreie lieferketten—gemeinsam zum waldschutz beitragen; WWF, BMZ, Eds.; WWF: Berlin, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Greenpeace International. The High Carbon Stock Approach: ‘No Deforestation’ in Practice. 2014. Available online: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/forests/solutions/HCS-Approach/ (accessed on 12 November 2019).
- The Consumer Goods Forum. The Sustainable Soy Sourcing Guidelines, 2nd ed.; The Consumer Goods Forum, 2016; Available online: http://bit.ly/SoyGuidelines2 (accessed on 15 August 2018).
- CDP Worldwide. Realizing Zero-Deforestation: Transforming Supply Chains for the Future; CDP Worldwide: London, UK, 2015; p. 40. [Google Scholar]
- Pfaff, A.; Sills, E.; Amacher, G.; Coren, M.; Lawlor, K.; Streck, C. Policy Impacts on Deforestation: Lessons Learned from Past Experiences to Inform New Initiatives; Nicholas Institute: Durham, NC, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Walker, N.; Patel, S.; Davies, F.; Milledge, S.; Hulse, J. Demand-Side Interventions to Reduce Deforestation and Forest Degradation; International Institute for Environment and Development: London, UK, 2013; p. 27. [Google Scholar]
- Hargita, Y.; Hinkes, C.; Bick, U.; Peter, G. Entwaldungsfreie agrarrohstoffe—Analyse relevanter soja-zertifizierungssysteme für futtermittel; Thünen: Braunschweig, Germany, 2019; p. 86. [Google Scholar]
- ISCC PLUS. ISCC Plus 202 Sustainability Requirements for the Production of Biomass; ISCC PLUS: Emeryville, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Escobar, H. Bolsonaro’s first moves have brazilian scientists worried. Science 2019, 363, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Phillips, D. Brazil records worst annual deforestation for a decade. The Guardian. 24 November 2018. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/24/brazil-records-worst-annual-deforestation-for-a-decade (accessed on 21 January 2020).
- Chain Reaction Research. Cargill: Zero-Deforestation Approach Leaves Room for Land Clearing in Brazil’s Maranhão. 2018. Available online: https://chainreactionresearch.com/report/cargill-zero-deforestation-approach-leaves-room-for-land-clearing-in-brazils-maranhao/ (accessed on 12 October 2018).
- RTRS. RTRS Standard for Responsible Soy Production; Version 3.0. Annex 6—Integrated Crop Management (icm) Measures and Practices in SOY production; RTRS: Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Brazil. Brazil’s Submission of a Forest Reference Emission Level (Frel) for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in the Amazonia Biome for Redd+ Results-Based Payments under the UNFCCC; Ministry of the Environment: Brasilia, Brazil, 2014.
- ISCC. ISCC 202 Sustainability Requirements; ISCC: Köln, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Evans, M. Are Deforestation-Free Commodities too Good to be True? CIFOR Forest News. Available online: https://forestsnews.cifor.org/56466/are-deforestation-free-commodities-too-good-to-be-true?fnl=en (accessed on 1 June 2019).
- Sax, S. Cargill pledges to stop forest to farmland conversions, but no results yet for the cerrado. Mongabay, Ed. 2019. Available online: https://news.mongabay.com/2019/03/cargill-pledges-to-stop-forest-to-farmland-conversions-but-no-results-yet-for-the-cerrado/ (accessed on 25 June 2019).
- Gardner, T.A.; Benzie, M.; Börner, J.; Dawkins, E.; Fick, S.; Garrett, R.; Godar, J.; Grimard, A.; Lake, S.; Larsen, R.K.; et al. Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains. World Dev. 2019, 121, 163–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mosnier, A.; Boere, E.; Reumann, A.; Yowargana, P.; Pirker, J.; Havlik, P.; Pacheco, P. Palm Oil and Likely Futures: Assessing the Potential Impacts of Zero Deforestation Commitments and a Moratorium on Large-Scale Oil Palm Plantations in Indonesia; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Turnhout, E.; Gupta, A.; Weatherley-Singh, J.; Vijge, M.J.; de Koning, J.; Visseren-Hamakers, I.J.; Herold, M.; Lederer, M. Envisioning redd+ in a post-paris era: Between evolving expectations and current practice. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2017, 8, e425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pirard, R.; Belna, K. Agriculture and deforestation: Is redd+ rooted in evidence? For. Policy Econ. 2012, 21, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henders, S.; Ostwald, M.; Verendel, V.; Ibisch, P. Do national strategies under the un biodiversity and climate conventions address agricultural commodity consumption as deforestation driver? Land Use Policy 2018, 70, 580–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enrici, A.; Hubacek, K. Business as usual in indonesia: Governance factors effecting the acceleration of the deforestation rate after the introduction of redd+. Energy Ecol. Environ. 2016, 1, 183–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cambridge Dictionary. 2018. Available online: https://dictionary.cambridge.org (accessed on 27 April 2018).
- Tropical Forest Alliance 2020. Engaging Smallholders in Deforestation-Free Value Chains. Available online: https://www.tfa2020.org/en/engaging-smallholders-deforestation-free-value-chains/ (accessed on 30 May 2017).
- Wilkes, A.; Tennigkeit, T.; Solymosi, K. National Integrated Mitigation Planning in Agriculture: A Review Paper; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013; p. 63. [Google Scholar]
- FSC. FSC International Standard—FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship; FSC-STD-01-001 V5-2 EN; Forest Stewardship Council: Bonn, Germany, 2015; p. 32. [Google Scholar]
- IPCC. Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from Direct Human-Induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of other Vegetation Types; IPCC: Hayama, Kanagawa Japan, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Green Climate Fund. Request for Proposals for the Pilot Programme for Reddplus Results-Based Payments; Meeting of the Board, GCF/B.18/06 2017; Green Climate Fund: Cairo, Egypt, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- BUNGE. Bunge Certification Program for Sustainable Agricultural Sourcing (Bunge Pro-s); BUNGE: White Plains, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Duker, A.E.C.; Tadesse, T.M.; Soentoro, T.; de Fraiture, C.; Kemerink-Seyoum, J.S. The implications of ignoring smallholder agriculture in climate-financed forestry projects: Empirical evidence from two redd+ pilot projects. Clim. Policy 2019, 19, S36–S46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- ClimateFocus. Developing Effective National Redd Programmes—Redd and Namas; ClimateFocus: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009; p. 47. [Google Scholar]
- Boucher, D.; Elias, P.; Lininger, K.; May-Tobin, C.; Roquemore, S.; Saxon, E. The Root of the Problem—What’s Driving Tropical Deforestation Today? Union of Concerned Scientists: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011; p. 126. [Google Scholar]
- Osejo Carillo, T. Cost and Effectiveness of Redd Policies: Insights from the Bosawas Biosphere Reserve, Nicaragua; Schriften zur Forstökonomie, Bd. 42; Sauerländer’s: Frankfurt, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Silva-Chávez, G.; Schaap, B.; Breitfeller, J. Redd+ Finance Flows 2009–2014: Trends and Lessons Learned in Reddx Countries; Forest Trends: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; p. 32. [Google Scholar]
- Luhmann, H.; Theuvsen, L. Corporate social responsibility in agribusiness: Literature review and future research directions. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2016, 29, 673–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maloni, M.J.; Brown, M.E. Corporate social responsibility in the supply chain: An application in the food industry. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 68, 35–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, S.; Zarin, D. What does zero deforestation mean? Science 2013, 342, 805–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lake, S.; Baer, E. What Does It Really Mean When a Company Commits to “Zero Deforestation”? Available online: http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/05/what-does-it-really-mean-when-company-commits-%E2%80%9Czero-deforestation%E2%80%9D (accessed on 31 May 2018).
- Newton, P.; Benzeev, R. The role of zero-deforestation commitments in protecting and enhancing rural livelihoods. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 32, 126–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tayleur, C.; Balmford, A.; Buchanan, G.M.; Butchart, S.H.M.; Ducharme, H.; Green, R.E.; Milder, J.C.; Sanderson, F.J.; Thomas, D.H.L.; Vickery, J.; et al. Global coverage of agricultural sustainability standards, and their role in conserving biodiversity. Conserv. Lett. 2017, 10, 610–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosoman, G.; Sheun, S.S.; Opal, C.; Anderson, P.; Trapshah, R. (Eds.) The HCS Approach Toolkit—An Introduction, Overview and Summary; HCS Approach Steering Group: Singapore, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Deere, N.J.; Guillera-Arroita, G.; Baking, E.L.; Bernard, H.; Pfeifer, M.; Reynolds, G.; Wearn, O.R.; Davies, Z.G.; Struebig, M.J. High carbon stock forests provide co-benefits for tropical biodiversity. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 997–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mahanty, S.; McDermott, C.L. How does ‘free, prior and informed consent’ (fpic) impact social equity? Lessons from mining and forestry and their implications for redd+. Land Use Policy 2013, 35, 406–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- PEFC. Indigenous People & Social Issues. Available online: https://www.pefc.org/forest-issues/sustainability/indigenous-people (accessed on 16 August 2017).
- Annandale, M.; Meadows, J.; Ota, L. Indigenous Peoples’ Participation in Sustainability Standards for Extractives; A report prepared for the german development corporation (giz); Landroc: Brisbane, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Weber, A.-K.; Partzsch, L. Barking up the right tree? Ngos and corporate power for deforestation-free supply chains. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Greenpeace International. Eating up the Amazon; Greenpeace International: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006; p. 64. [Google Scholar]
- ProForest; WWF. Die basler kriterien für einen verantwortungsbewussten soja-anbau; ProForest: Basel, Switzerland, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Climate Summit. Forests—Action Statements and Action Plans; UN Headquarters: New York, NY, USA, 2014; p. 17. [Google Scholar]
- Forsell, N.; Turkovska, O.; Gusti, M.; Obersteiner, M.; Elzen, M.d.; Havlik, P. Assessing the indcs’ land use, land use change, and forest emission projections. Carbon Balance Manag. 2016, 11, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ferretti-Gallon, K.; Boucher, D. The Land Sector in the Second Wave of Indcs; Union of Concerned Scientists: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; p. 11. [Google Scholar]
- Dunlop, T.; Corbera, E. Incentivizing redd+: How developing countries are laying the groundwork for benefit-sharing. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 63, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DiGiano, M.; Stickler, C.; Nepstad, D.; Ardila, J.; Becerra, M.; Benavides, M.; Bernadinus, S.; Bezerra, T.; Castro, E.; Cendales, M.; et al. Increasing Redd+ Benefits to Indigenous Peoples & Traditional Communities through a Jurisdictional Approach; Earth Innovation Institute: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Amaral, P.; Reis, T.; del Guidice, R. Assessing Compliance with the Forest Code: A PRACTICAL Guide; BVRIO: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2017; p. 23. [Google Scholar]
- Azevedo, A.A.; Rajão, R.; Costa, M.A.; Stabile, M.C.C.; Macedo, M.N.; dos Reis, T.N.P.; Alencar, A.; Soares-Filho, B.S.; Pacheco, R. Limits of brazil’s forest code as a means to end illegal deforestation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 14, 7653–7658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jolly, J.; Ambrose, J. UK firms urge brazil to stop amazon deforestation for soy production. The Guardian. 3 December 2019. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/03/uk-firms-urge-brazil-to-stop-amazon-deforestation-for-soy-production (accessed on 12 December 2019).
- Watts, J. Brazil reneges on hosting un climate talks under bolsonaro presidency. The Guardian. 28 November 2018. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/28/brazil-reneges-on-hosting-un-climate-talks-under-bolsonaro-presidency (accessed on 23 February 2019).
- Boffey, D. Norway halts amazon fund donation in dispute with brazil. The Guardian. 16 August 2019. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/16/norway-halts-amazon-fund-donation-dispute-brazil-deforestation-jair-bolsonaro (accessed on 10 November 2019).
- Romero, C.; Guariguata, M.R.; Putz, F.E.; Sills, E.O.; Lima, G.R.; Papp, L.; Voigtlaender, M.; Vidal, E. The Context of Natural Forest Management and FSC Certification in Brazil; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2015; p. 106. [Google Scholar]
- Garrett, R.; Lambin, E.F.; Le Polain de Waroux, Y. To Eliminate Deforestation in South America, Reduce Differences in Regulations Across Regions and Actors; Institute for the Study of International Development, McGill University: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- FSC-Watch. Thousands of Indigenous People Evicted from FSC-Certified Mount Elgon National Park, Uganda. Available online: http://www.fsc-watch.org/archives/2008/07/01/Thousands_of_Indigen (accessed on 16 August 2017).
- IEN. Carbon offsets cause conflict and colonialism. In Press Release Indigenous Peoples Denounce at United Nations; Demand Cancellation of REDD+; IEN: Dublin, Ireland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Bluffstone, R.; Robinson, E.; Guthiga, P. Redd+ and community-controlled forests in low-income countries: Any hope for a linkage? Ecol. Econ. 2013, 87, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sunderlin, W.D.; Larson, A.M.; Duchelle, A.E.; Resosudarmo, I.A.P.; Huynh, T.B.; Awono, A.; Dokken, T. How are redd+ proponents addressing tenure problems? Evidence from brazil, cameroon, tanzania, indonesia, and vietnam. World Dev. 2014, 55, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bayrak, M.; Marafa, L. Ten years of redd+: A critical review of the impact of redd+ on forest-dependent communities. Sustainability 2016, 8, 620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alexandratos, N.; Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2012; p. 154. [Google Scholar]
- Valin, H.; Sands, R.D.; van der Mensbrugghe, D.; Nelson, G.C.; Ahammad, H.; Blanc, E.; Bodirsky, B.; Fujimori, S.; Hasegawa, T.; Havlik, P.; et al. The future of food demand: Understanding differences in global economic models. Agric. Econ. 2014, 45, 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonn Challenge. The Challenge—A Global Effort. Available online: http://www.bonnchallenge.org/content/challenge (accessed on 15 June 2019).
- FAO. Agroforestry. Available online: http://www.fao.org/forestry/agroforestry/80338/en/ (accessed on 15 June 2019).
- Chazdon, R.L. Beyond deforestation: Restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. Science 2008, 320, 1458–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Erbaugh, J.T.; Oldekop, J.A. Forest landscape restoration for livelihoods and well-being. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 32, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quandt, A.; Neufeldt, H.; McCabe, J.T. Building livelihood resilience: What role does agroforestry play? Clim. Dev. 2019, 11, 485–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, S.L.; Wheeler, C.E.; Mitchard, E.T.A.; Koch, A. Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. Nature 2019, 568, 25–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laestadius, L.; Buckingham, K.; Maginnis, S.; Saint-Laurent, C. Back to bonn and beyond: A history of forest landscape restoration and an outlook for the future. Unasylva 2015, 245, 11–18. [Google Scholar]
DFSC | UNFCCC REDD+ | |
---|---|---|
Framing | Voluntary initiatives for forest-risk commodities | Political framework under the UNFCCC, not equal to a national commitment |
Scope | Decoupling deforestation from agricultural production for a supply chain | Verified emission/deforestation reductions |
Level of implementation | Companies commit to deforestation-free sourcing of a product from farm level | Governments/national level |
Reference | Cut-off date | Actual/future deforestation compared to a reference level, often historical average |
Examples for implementation | The Consumer Goods Forum’s (TCGF) Deforestation Resolution with Nestlé, Marks & Spencer, Unilever… | Exemplary technically assessed reference levels [58]: Brazil, Indonesia, Peru, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Guyana, Ecuador, Vietnam, Paraguay, Costa Rica |
Affected area/potential impact | TCGF combined sales of EUR 2.5 trillion [34]; Certified area globally for palm, soy and cattle [59]: 0.038 Mio km2, timber, pulp and paper [60]: 0.3 Mio km2 | Total area of 11 technically assessed reference levels [58] for reduced deforestation: 7.5 Mio km2 |
Key Characteristic | References | Frequency | |
---|---|---|---|
Technical aspects | Forest definition | [48,78,86,95,96] | 5 |
Monitoring | [76,79,81,82,88,89,95,96,97,98,99,100,101] | 13 | |
Permanence | [75,76,81,90,97] | 5 | |
Leakage | [48,75,76,80,81,84,88,89,93,97,99,102,103,104,105,106,107] | 17 | |
Scale | [80,86,87,91,108] | 5 | |
Contributing factors | Drivers (Il~/Legal) | [78,80,90,92,93,99,100,101,103,107,108,109,110] | 13 |
Degradation | [48,78,86,87,95,109,110] | 7 | |
Opportunity costs | [77,79,85,89,90,91,97,99,100,101,103,105,107] | 13 | |
Land tenure | [77,79,82,86,87,91,94,98,100,101,108,111] | 11 | |
Increasing acceptance | Environmental co-benefits | [75,77,78,79,80,81,82,104] | 8 |
Stakeholder participation | [82,89,94,98,105] | 5 | |
Indigenous’ Rights | [77,82,87,89,98,100,111] | 7 |
Comparison | Assessment | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Characteristics | DFSC | UNFCCC REDD+ | Similarities/Differences | Outlook/Comment |
Technical Aspects | ||||
Forest definition | If at all [189], for certification in general qualitative (e.g., HCV) [185], sometimes combination of qual./quant. [190], for forest cover monitoring rather quantitative [178]. | Quantitative, nationally defined [168]. | In case of differing definitions, common forest definitions increase potential synergies for monitoring [37]. | Harmonization needed in order to create synergies. |
Monitoring | Depends on approach used by the company [172]. (a) Certification schemes for farm-level. (b) Procurement from low-risk jurisdictions. (c) Direct monitoring of forest cover in sourcing areas. | Robust monitoring system (in general satellite data and forest inventories), use of the IPCC Guidelines [171], technically assessed by independent experts [5]. | Basic differences mainly for the reporting: Time horizons, Scales, Objectives, Target audiences. | REDD+ monitoring can be compatible with large scale monitoring of sourcing areas under DFSC, respectively provide valuable information [178]; a common monitoring system could provide financial synergies, lowering the barriers for companies willing to commit [37]. |
Permanence | Not addressed. | “Actions to address the risk of reversals should be promoted and supported” [7]. | Although addressed under REDD+, in both cases no guarantee for permanence in case of changing policy/business or weak implementation [191,192,193]. | Failure/change of policy by one sector could be softened by the other sector. |
Leakage | Not directly addressed, but threat for biomes outside of DFSC focus is acknowledged [185]. | “Actions to reduce displacement of emissions should be promoted and supported” [7]. | Explicitly addressed under REDD+, risk of leakage under both concepts [56]. | Linkage of both concepts can lead to higher pressure on national level to compensate potential leakage effects. |
Scale | (Transnational) Supply chain of a companies’ product or a type of commodity, originating from farm-level or sourcing region. | (Sub)National level. | Farm-level versus national level not compatible, but compatibility increases with enlargement of DFSC scale [56]. | Potential overlapping for DFSC sourcing regions with jurisdictions with ambitious REDD+ programs [39,64,65]. |
Comparison | Assessment | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Characteristics | DFSC | UNFCCC REDD+ | Similarities/Differences | Outlook/Comment |
Contributing Factors | ||||
Driver: commercial agriculture | Direct impact on most important commodities: soy, beef, palm oil [26]. | No direct linkage in UNFCCC REDD+ documents, rather part of UNFCCC NAMAs. | Both concepts come from different angles; DFSC can complement and strengthen national land use policies that support forest conservation under REDD+. | Companies need supporting national policies and legal framework to fulfil their commitments [23,176]. |
Driver: subsistence agriculture | Per definition not part of supply chains, but potential overlapping with smallholders contributing to commercial supply chains [23,206]. | “Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities, by taking into account relevant international obligations, (…)” [7]. | Not explicitly considered under DFSC; Part of REDD+ safeguards, supposed to be addressed under nationally appropriate mitigation actions (e.g., low emission rural development) [207]. | Ongoing informal/illegal deforestation within a sourcing area (e.g., for subsistence) represents reputational risk for companies’ commitments, danger of pushing those depending on subsistence into illegality. |
Consideration of degradation | Considered for timber [208], but not relevant for agricultural products. | When it is a relevant source of emissions it should be included the moment robust data is available [209]. | Consideration under REDD+ could reduce forest degradation, which otherwise could be a precursor for ongoing deforestation of degraded forests. | Degradation often part of subsistence [1], therefore its drivers needs to be addressed by policy. |
Opportunity costs | With increasing demand for DFSC products, opportunity costs could decrease. | Payments for verified emission reductions, estimated USD 5/tC [210]. | Reinforcing synergies possible: decrease in demand for commodities linked to deforestation could reduce the opportunity costs and make the REDD+ payments more competitive. | Unsecure finance under REDD+ can weaken governments’ willingness/ability to engage in forest conservation. |
Land tenure | Compliance with law, all land has to be owned/rented with contract [194,211]. | “To address (…) land tenure issues”[7]. | Governmental tenure clarification provides legal certainty for all involved parties. | Unsecure tenure fuels conflicts between different parties and can result in ongoing deforestation; Responsibility for clarification lies with the governments. |
Comparison | Assessment | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Characteristics | DFSC | UNFCCC REDD+ | Similarities /Differences | Outlook/ Comment |
Increasing Acceptance | ||||
Environmental co-benefits | Certification has potential to provide multiple benefits [221,222], HCS [223] or HCV [121] approach attractive for CSR, zero-gross vs. zero-net. | Acknowledged in the Safeguards [7], ideally inherent in REDD+ understanding, implementation of REDD+ in biodiversity hotspots [58]. | Acknowledged under both concepts [22,27,52]; positive contribution by HCV/HCS approaches expected [120,175]. | Successful implementation of both concepts can direct economic development to areas of lower carbon and biodiversity value [224]. |
Stakeholder participation | Multistakeholder initiatives are relevant aspect for DFSC, e.g., in Round Tables [184]. | “Full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders” [7]. | Required under both concepts and essential part of DFSC as these are based on civil society’s demand. | Involvement of other sectors and stakeholders is in the interest of both concepts. |
Indigenous’ rights | Mainly in the context of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) [225,226], but no common binding procedure [227]. | “Respect of knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples” [7]. | Aspect acknowledged under both concepts, also linked partly to tenure and usage rights. | Sensitive aspect for all interventions affecting forest-dependent communities and/or traditional usage rights. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hargita, Y.; Giessen, L.; Günter, S. Similarities and Differences between International REDD+ and Transnational Deforestation-Free Supply Chain Initiatives—A Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 896. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030896
Hargita Y, Giessen L, Günter S. Similarities and Differences between International REDD+ and Transnational Deforestation-Free Supply Chain Initiatives—A Review. Sustainability. 2020; 12(3):896. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030896
Chicago/Turabian StyleHargita, Yvonne, Lukas Giessen, and Sven Günter. 2020. "Similarities and Differences between International REDD+ and Transnational Deforestation-Free Supply Chain Initiatives—A Review" Sustainability 12, no. 3: 896. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030896