| 1. |
- Kehoe, Laura, et al.
(författare)
-
Make EU trade with Brazil sustainable
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Science. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 0036-8075 .- 1095-9203. ; 364:6438, s. 341-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 2. |
- Bager, Simon L., et al.
(författare)
-
Eighty-six EU policy options for reducing imported deforestation
- 2021
-
Ingår i: One Earth. - : Elsevier BV. - 2590-3322 .- 2590-3330. ; 4:2, s. 289-306
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Despite the importance of tropical forest conservation in achieving global sustainability goals and the key role of forest-risk commodity trade in driving deforestation, consumer country policy options for reducing imported deforestation have received limited scholarly attention. Drawing on gray literature and a European Commission public consultation, we identify 86 policy options for the European Union to address deforestation. We assess the political feasibility and map the “theory of change” (TOC)—the causal chain through which the policies address deforestation—for each of these policy options, identifying a trade-off between feasibility and potential impacts: information-based and cooperative policies, which dominate our sample, typically exhibit high feasibility, but mostly lack convincing TOCs, while more stringent regulatory and market-based policy options generally have lower feasibility. We propose three principles for overcoming the feasibility-impact dilemma: (1) build policies on proven TOCs, (2) use policy mixes, and (3) work with key stakeholders, supply chains, and regions. Images of distressed orangutans in Indonesia and forest fires in Brazil have increased public awareness of deforestation across the globe. Still, deforestation continues more or less unabated, driven by demand for forest-risk commodities, such as palm, soy, cocoa, and beef. What can the European Union (EU) and other consumer regions do to address this problem? Here we present 86 policy options for the EU to address tropical deforestation, identified through a review of gray literature and EU stakeholder consultation responses. Analyzing these, we show that policy options that are politically feasible policies tend to have a weaker theory of change—the causal chain through which the policies address deforestation—setting up a trade-off between feasibility and impact. However, there are exceptions, such as mandatory due diligence, which show potential impact and appear politically feasible. Through policy mixing and working with key stakeholders, supply chains, and producer regions, these barriers can be overcome. Images of distressed orangutans in Indonesia and forest fires in Brazil have increased public awareness of deforestation. Still, deforestation continues unabated, driven by demand for forest-risk commodities, such as palm and soy. Here, we present 86 policy options for the EU to reduce imported deforestation. We identify a trade-off between policy feasibility and potential impact. Mixing different policies and working with key stakeholders, supply chains, and producer regions can help overcome this trade-off.
|
|
| 3. |
- Kehoe, Laura, et al.
(författare)
-
Inclusion, Transparency, and Enforcement: How the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement Fails the Sustainability Test Comment
- 2020
-
Ingår i: One Earth. - : Elsevier BV. - 2590-3322 .- 2590-3330. ; 3:3, s. 268-272
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Trade agreements could help to protect human rights, critical ecosystems, and the climate-but only if sustainability becomes a cornerstone of international trade. The EU-Mercosur trade agreement fails to meet our three tenets of sustainable trade agreements: (1) inclusion of local communities, (2) transparency mechanisms to trace commodities and provide open-access information, and (3) enforcement to legally uphold sustainability commitments.
|
|
| 4. |
- Russo Lopes, Gabriela, et al.
(författare)
-
Maldevelopment revisited: Inclusiveness and social impacts of soy expansion over Brazil's Cerrado in Matopiba
- 2021
-
Ingår i: World Development. - : Elsevier BV. - 0305-750X .- 1873-5991. ; 139
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cash crops such as soy, cocoa and oil palm have expanded at great speed in developing countries, often at the expense of customary landowners, traditional livelihoods, and biodiversity. These landscape transformations have global drivers, but they are often justified by a dominant rationale that they bring development to otherwise underprivileged regions. Such development claims, however, are either taken at face value or conflated with simplistic macroeconomic indicators that gloss over most social issues. Those claims may, therefore, hide severe inequities. To better analyze these phenomena, we revisit and conceptualize the notion of maldevelopment, here defined as inequitable and exclusive processes of change that deprive most local stakeholders of their social and material capabilities. Using an inclusiveness framework, we then conduct an in-depth analysis of soy expansion in the Matopiba region of Brazil's Cerrado. This rich biome with a mosaic of land uses forms an agriculture-savanna landscape that is rapidly giving way to soy monoculture – under the guise of development. Through fieldwork and primary data collection in 18 Matopiba municipalities, we have interviewed 62 stakeholders in that landscape transformation from different social groups. We assess how soy expansion has altered access and allocation patterns of key resources such as land and water, as well as participation in the local food systems and governance initiatives. When looking beyond general economic indicators, our findings expose a brutally exclusive process of environmental degradation and resource dispossession. Yet the stakeholders we interviewed do not want to simply be left undisturbed but to experience inclusive development instead, with participation in governance and support for bottom-up initiatives. We conclude that the frequently cited claim that industrial monocultures bring development to underserved regions deserves far greater scrutiny, and that inclusiveness in the design and execution of interventions is crucial for avoiding maldevelopment.
|
|
