•Tropical deforestation for agriculture and tree plantations releases 2.6 GtCO2 yr.•29–39% of emissions are driven by international trade, mainly in beef and oilseeds.•Deforestation emissions make up ...large share of carbon footprint of forest-risk commodities.•A sixth of the carbon footprint of av. EU diets is due to deforestation emissions.•Imported deforestation emissions rival domestic agricultural emissions in many countries.
Deforestation, the second largest source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, is largely driven by expanding forestry and agriculture. However, despite agricultural expansion being increasingly driven by foreign demand, the links between deforestation and foreign demand for agricultural commodities have only been partially mapped. Here we present a pan-tropical quantification of carbon emissions from deforestation associated with the expansion of agriculture and forest plantations, and trace embodied emissions through global supply chains to consumers. We find that in the period 2010–2014, expansion of agriculture and tree plantations into forests across the tropics was associated with net emissions of approximately 2.6 gigatonnes carbon dioxide per year. Cattle and oilseed products account for over half of these emissions. Europe and China are major importers, and for many developed countries, deforestation emissions embodied in imports rival or exceed emissions from domestic agriculture. Depending on the trade model used, 29–39% of deforestation-related emissions were driven by international trade. This is substantially higher than the share of fossil carbon emissions embodied in trade, indicating that efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from land-use change need to consider the role of international demand in driving deforestation. Additionally, we find that deforestation emissions are similar to, or larger than, other emissions in the carbon footprint of key forest-risk commodities. Similarly, deforestation emissions constitute a substantial share (˜15%) of the total carbon footprint of food consumption in EU countries. This highlights the need for consumption-based accounts to include emissions from deforestation, and for the implementation of policy measures that cross these international supply-chains if deforestation emissions are to be effectively reduced.
This paper presents a spatially explicit method for making regional estimates of the potential for biogas production from crop residues and manure, accounting for key technical, biochemical, ...environmental and economic constraints. Methods for making such estimates are important as biofuels from agricultural residues are receiving increasing policy support from the EU and major biogas producers, such as Germany and Italy, in response to concerns over unintended negative environmental and social impacts of conventional biofuels. This analysis comprises a spatially explicit estimate of crop residue and manure production for the EU at 250 m resolution, and a biogas production model accounting for local constraints such as the sustainable removal of residues, transportation of substrates, and the substrates' biochemical suitability for anaerobic digestion. In our base scenario, the EU biogas production potential from crop residues and manure is about 0.7 EJ/year, nearly double the current EU production of biogas from agricultural substrates, most of which does not come from residues or manure. An extensive sensitivity analysis of the model shows that the potential could easily be 50% higher or lower, depending on the stringency of economic, technical and biochemical constraints. We find that the potential is particularly sensitive to constraints on the substrate mixtures' carbon-to-nitrogen ratio and dry matter concentration. Hence, the potential to produce biogas from crop residues and manure in the EU depends to large extent on the possibility to overcome the challenges associated with these substrates, either by complementing them with suitable co-substrates (e.g. household waste and energy crops), or through further development of biogas technology (e.g. pretreatment of substrates and recirculation of effluent).
While many developed countries are increasing their forest cover, deforestation is still rife in the tropics and subtropics. With international trade in forest-risk commodities on the rise, it is ...becoming increasingly important to consider between-country trade linkages in assessing the drivers of-and possible connections between-forest loss and gain across countries. Previous studies have shown that countries that have undergone a forest transition (and are now increasing their forest cover) tend to displace land use outside their borders. However, lack of comprehensive data on deforestation drivers imply that it has not been possible to ascertain whether this has accelerated forest loss in sourcing countries. To remedy this, we present a land-balance model that quantifies deforestation embodied in production of agricultural and forestry commodities at country level across the tropics and subtropics, subsequently tracing embodied deforestation to countries of apparent consumption using a physical, country-to-country trade model. We find that in the period 2005-2013, 62% (5.5 Mha yr−1) of forest loss could be attributed to expanding commercial cropland, pastures and tree plantations. The commodity groups most commonly associated with deforestation were cattle meat, forestry products, oil palm, cereals and soybeans, though variation between countries and regions was large. A large (26%) and slightly increasing share of deforestation was attributed to international demand, the bulk of which (87%) was exported to countries that either exhibit decreasing deforestation rates or increasing forest cover (late- or post-forest transition countries), particularly in Europe and Asia (China, India, and Russia). About a third of the net forest gains in post-forest transition countries was in this way offset by imports of commodities causing deforestation elsewhere, suggesting that achieving a global forest transition will be substantially more challenging than achieving national or regional ones.
Production of commercial agricultural commodities for domestic and foreign markets is increasingly driving land clearing in tropical regions, creating links and feedback effects between ...geographically separated consumption and production locations. Such teleconnections are commonly studied through calculating consumption footprints and quantifying environmental impacts embodied in trade flows, e.g., virtual water and land, biomass, or greenhouse gas emissions. The extent to which land-use change (LUC) and associated carbon emissions are embodied in the production and export of agricultural commodities has been less studied. Here we quantify tropical deforestation area and carbon emissions from LUC induced by the production and the export of four commodities (beef, soybeans, palm oil, and wood products) in seven countries with high deforestation rates (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Papua New Guinea). We show that in the period 2000-2011, the production of the four analyzed commodities in our seven case countries was responsible for 40% of total tropical deforestation and resulting carbon losses. Over a third of these impacts was embodied in exports in 2011, up from a fifth in 2000. This trend highlights the growing influence of global markets in deforestation dynamics. Main flows of embodied LUC are Latin American beef and soybean exports to markets in Europe, China, the former Soviet bloc, the Middle East and Northern Africa, whereas embodied emission flows are dominated by Southeast Asian exports of palm oil and wood products to consumers in China, India and the rest of Asia, as well as to the European Union. Our findings illustrate the growing role that global consumers play in tropical LUC trajectories and highlight the need for demand-side policies covering whole supply chains. We also discuss the limitations of such demand-side measures and call for a combination of supply- and demand-side policies to effectively limit tropical deforestation, along with research into the interactions of different types of policy interventions.
•Theories about PES impact pathways have become more nuanced over time.•PES outcomes are often determined by known scheme design and context factors.•PES research still lacks a systematic evidence ...base.•A stronger social-ecological perspective is needed in PES research.
We adopt a theory-based approach to synthesize research on the effectiveness of payments for environmental services in achieving environmental objectives and socio-economic co-benefits in varying contexts. Our theory of change builds on established conceptual models of impact pathways and highlights the role of (1) contextual dimensions (e.g., political, institutional, and socio-economic conditions, spatial heterogeneity in environmental service values and provision costs, and interactions with pre-existing policies), and (2) scheme design (e.g., payment type and level, contract length, targeting, and differentiation of payments) in determining environmental and socio-economic outcomes. To shed light on the overall effectiveness of payment schemes, and its determinants, we review counterfactual-based empirical evaluations, comparative analyses of case-studies, and meta-analyses. Our review suggests that program effectiveness often lags behind the expectations of early theorists. However, we also find that theory has advanced sufficiently to identify common reasons for why payment schemes fail or succeed. Moreover, payment schemes are often rolled out along with other policy instruments in so-called policy mixes. Advances in theory and evaluation research are needed to improve our understanding of how such policy mixes interact with the targeted social-ecological systems.
Tropical deforestation continues at alarming rates with profound impacts on ecosystems, climate, and livelihoods, prompting renewed commitments to halt its continuation. Although it is well ...established that agriculture is a dominant driver of deforestation, rates and mechanisms remain disputed and often lack a clear evidence base. We synthesize the best available pantropical evidence to provide clarity on how agriculture drives deforestation. Although most (90 to 99%) deforestation across the tropics 2011 to 2015 was driven by agriculture, only 45 to 65% of deforested land became productive agriculture within a few years. Therefore, ending deforestation likely requires combining measures to create deforestation-free supply chains with landscape governance interventions. We highlight key remaining evidence gaps including deforestation trends, commodity-specific land-use dynamics, and data from tropical dry forests and forests across Africa.
Forest loss for food
Agricultural expansion is recognized as a major driver of forest loss in the tropics. However, accurate data on the links between agriculture and tropical deforestation are lacking. Pendrill
et al
. synthesized existing research and datasets to quantify the extent to which tropical deforestation from 2011 to 2015 was associated with agriculture. They estimated that at least 90% of deforested land occurred in landscapes where agriculture drove forest loss, but only about half was converted into productive agricultural land. Data availability and trends vary across regions, suggesting complex links between agriculture and forest loss. —BEL
A review shows that most tropical deforestation is associated, directly or indirectly, with agriculture.
BACKGROUND
Agricultural expansion is a primary cause of tropical deforestation and therefore a key driver of greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, and the degradation of ecosystem services vital to the livelihoods of forest-dependent and rural people. However, agriculture-driven deforestation can take many forms, from the direct expansion of pastures and cropland into forests to more complex or indirect pathways. A clear understanding of the different ways in which agriculture drives deforestation is essential for designing effective policy responses. To address this need we provide a review of the literature on pantropical agriculture-driven deforestation and synthesize the best available evidence to quantify dominant agricultural land-use changes relating to deforestation. We consider the policy implications of this assessment, especially for burgeoning demand-side and supply-chain interventions seeking to address deforestation.
ADVANCES
New methods and data have advanced our understanding of deforestation and subsequent land uses. However, only a handful of studies estimate agriculture-driven deforestation across the entirety of the tropics. Although these studies agree that agriculture is the dominant land use following forest clearing, their estimates of pantropical rates of agriculture-driven deforestation during the period 2011 to 2015 vary greatly—between 4.3 and 9.6 million hectares (Mha) per year—with our synthesized estimate being 6.4 to 8.8 Mha per year. This apparent uncertainty in the amount of agriculture-driven deforestation can be disentangled by distinguishing between the different ways in which agriculture contributes to deforestation; we find that while the overwhelming majority (90 to 99%) of tropical deforestation occurs in landscapes where agriculture is the dominant driver of tree cover loss, a smaller share (45 to 65%) of deforestation is due to the expansion of active agricultural production into forests. Multiple lines of evidence show that the remainder of agriculture-driven deforestation does not result in the expansion of productive agricultural land but instead is a result of activities such as speculative clearing, land tenure issues, short-lived and abandoned agriculture, and agriculture-related fires spreading to adjacent forests.
Different land uses and commodities often interact to drive deforestation. However, pasture expansion is the most important driver by far, accounting for around half of the deforestation resulting in agricultural production across the tropics. Oil palm and soy cultivation together account for at least a fifth, and six other crops—rubber, cocoa, coffee, rice, maize, and cassava—likely account for most of the remainder, with large regional variations and higher levels of uncertainty.
OUTLOOK
This Review points to three key areas where a stronger evidence base would advance global efforts to curb agriculture-driven deforestation: First, consistent pantropical data on deforestation trends are lacking. This limits our ability to assess overall progress on reducing deforestation and account for leakage across regions. Second, with the exception of soy and oil palm the attribution of deforestation to forest risk commodities is often based on coarse-grained agricultural statistics, outdated or modeled maps, or local case studies. Third, uncertainties are greatest in dry and seasonal tropics and across the African continent in particular.
This assessment highlights that although public and private policies promoting deforestation-free international supply chains have a critical role to play, their ability to reduce deforestation on the ground is fundamentally limited. One-third to one-half of agriculture-driven deforestation does not result in actively managed agricultural land. Moreover, the majority—approximately three-quarters—of the expansion of agriculture into forests is driven by domestic demand in producer countries, especially for beef and cereals, including much of the deforestation across the African continent. These data suggest that the potential for international supply chain measures to help reduce tropical deforestation is more likely to be achieved through interventions in deforestation risk areas that focus on strengthening sustainable rural development and territorial governance.
Agriculture contributes to deforestation in many ways which often interact.
Most tropical deforestation occurs in landscapes where agriculture is the dominant driver of forest loss. Part of this agriculture-driven deforestation results in agricultural production (left) meeting domestic and export demand for various agricultural commodities. However, agriculture-driven deforestation also occurs without expansion of managed agricultural land through several mechanisms (right), which may lead to the deforested area being abandoned or semi-abandoned. Incomplete agricultural records also explain a share of such deforestation.
While we know that deforestation in the tropics is increasingly driven by commercial agriculture, most tropical countries still lack recent and spatially-explicit assessments of the relative ...importance of pasture and cropland expansion in causing forest loss. Here we present a spatially explicit quantification of the extent to which cultivated land and grassland expanded at the expense of forests across Latin America in 2001-2011, by combining two "state-of-the-art" global datasets (Global Forest Change forest loss and GlobeLand30-2010 land cover). We further evaluate some of the limitations and challenges in doing this. We find that this approach does capture some of the major patterns of land cover following deforestation, with GlobeLand30-2010's Grassland class (which we interpret as pasture) being the most common land cover replacing forests across Latin America. However, our analysis also reveals some major limitations to combining these land cover datasets for quantifying pasture and cropland expansion into forest. First, a simple one-to-one translation between GlobeLand30-2010's Cultivated land and Grassland classes into cropland and pasture respectively, should not be made without caution, as GlobeLand30-2010 defines its Cultivated land to include some pastures. Comparisons with the TerraClass dataset over the Brazilian Amazon and with previous literature indicates that Cultivated land in GlobeLand30-2010 includes notable amounts of pasture and other vegetation (e.g. in Paraguay and the Brazilian Amazon). This further suggests that the approach taken here generally leads to an underestimation (of up to ~60%) of the role of pasture in replacing forest. Second, a large share (~33%) of the Global Forest Change forest loss is found to still be forest according to GlobeLand30-2010 and our analysis suggests that the accuracy of the combined datasets, especially for areas with heterogeneous land cover and/or small-scale forest loss, is still too poor for deriving accurate quantifications of land cover following forest loss.
► We develop a conceptual framework of determinants of the impact of CCT and PES programs. ► Compliance with conditions in the absence of payments is a good predictor of efficiency. ► CCT and PES ...efficiency is highly eroded by selection bias in participation. ► The framework can guide policy choice through ex-ante estimates of program impacts.
We develop a conceptual framework elucidating the main determinants of the impact of Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) and Payments for Environmental Services (PES) programs. Using a simple multi-agent model and evaluations of existing programs, we show that (1) the share of the population who would meet the program’s conditions in the absence of payments is a powerful predictor of program efficiency, and that (2) program efficiency is eroded by selection bias (people who already meet conditions self-select into the programs at higher rates than others). We then discuss possibilities for increasing efficiency and criteria for evaluating and choosing between CCTs/PES or other policy instruments.
Successfully implemented payment for ecosystem services (PES) programs can provide both conservation of nature and financial support to rural communities. In this paper, we explore how PES programs ...can be designed so as to maximize the amount of additional ecosystem services provided for a given budget. We also provide a brief summary of the use of auction mechanisms in real world PES programs. To explore the potential additionality of different PES program designs we use a conceptual agent based simulation model where payments are either fixed, or set through a uniform or discriminatory auction. The program can also be designed to target payments to land-owners based on their provision of ecosystem services. Theoretically, auctions should be the most effective design, especially if payments are differentiated and targeted by ecosystem service provision. However, what we find is that the context in which the PES program is implemented—baseline compliance with program standards among the participants, correlation between opportunity costs and ecosystem services in the landscape, heterogeneity in costs and budget size—has a determining impact on the relative effectiveness of the different payment designs, with fixed payments schemes being much more effective than auctions in certain settings. Our findings suggest that context should be taken into serious consideration when a PES program design is chosen.
•Context factors strongly influence the relative performance of PES design options.•Fixed payments can in certain contexts provide higher additionality than auctions.•If bidders learn the effectiveness of discriminatory auctions decreases over time.•Benefit targeting increases impacts, but introduces an efficiency-equity trade-off.
A shift in dietary habits will be required to meet global climate targets. However, from a social dilemma perspective, major voluntary shifts in diet patterns are unlikely. Hence, government ...interventions are called for. This may be a perilous political endeavor, since food habits and choices are assumed to be personal and contentious matters and any food regulation policy risks stepping over the line for what people accept, risking policy legitimacy. In order to construct feasible policy measures, it is therefore important to gain knowledge of the prerequisites for support of climate food regulations and to understand why people accept or oppose regulations. The aim of this paper is to do so by analyzing the public debate concerning meat-free days in school canteens and a tax on meat in two public online social forums in Sweden. We seek to 1) map the arguments supporting (non)acceptability of the two food consumption regulation issues and 2) analyze what policy-specific and factual beliefs are reflected in the arguments and then detangle their meaning and content as revealed in the arguments. We find that policy-specific beliefs around freedom, fairness, and effectiveness are commonly used in support of or objection to these policies, but to different degrees, and often linked to factual beliefs about consequences for health or disadvantaged social groups. We conclude that the general reluctance of policy makers to interfere with what people eat is not necessarily well founded, and that better policy design, framing, and communication have the potential to increase policy support.
PDF
