IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v70y2018icp580-590.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do national strategies under the UN biodiversity and climate conventions address agricultural commodity consumption as deforestation driver?

Author

Listed:
  • Henders, Sabine
  • Ostwald, Madelene
  • Verendel, Vilhelm
  • Ibisch, Pierre

Abstract

Forest conversion in the tropics is increasingly driven by global demand for agricultural forest-risk commodities such as soy, beef, palm oil and timber. In order to be effective, future forest conservation policies should include measures targeting both producers (the supply side) and consumers (the demand side) to address commodity-driven deforestation. Whereas the UN Conventions on Biodiversity (CBD) and Climate Change (UNFCCC) do not make reference to this driving factor, here we explore whether and how recent national strategies by member states to the Conventions acknowledge the role of agricultural commodities in tropical deforestation. A text analysis of 139 Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) to climate change mitigation and 132 National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) shows that the general trade-off between national development aspirations and forest conservation is commonly acknowledged. However, only few strategies link deforestation to commodity production and consumption, whereas most documents do not mention this topic. This lack of reference to a key driver of tropical deforestation limits the prospects of safeguarding tropical forests for biodiversity and climate change mitigation purposes as part of the two UN Conventions, and might jeopardise their overall effectiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Henders, Sabine & Ostwald, Madelene & Verendel, Vilhelm & Ibisch, Pierre, 2018. "Do national strategies under the UN biodiversity and climate conventions address agricultural commodity consumption as deforestation driver?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 580-590.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:70:y:2018:i:c:p:580-590
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.043
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717300509
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.043?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barbier, Edward B., 2000. "Links between economic liberalization and rural resource degradation in the developing regions," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 299-310, September.
    2. Henders, Sabine & Ostwald, Madelene, 2014. "Accounting methods for international land-related leakage and distant deforestation drivers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 21-28.
    3. Erb, Karl-Heinz & Krausmann, Fridolin & Lucht, Wolfgang & Haberl, Helmut, 2009. "Embodied HANPP: Mapping the spatial disconnect between global biomass production and consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 328-334, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sauer, Sérgio, 2018. "Soy expansion into the agricultural frontiers of the Brazilian Amazon: The agribusiness economy and its social and environmental conflicts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 326-338.
    2. Shyamsundar, Priya & Sauls, Laura Aileen & Cheek, Jennifer Zavaleta & Sullivan-Wiley, Kira & Erbaugh, J.T. & Krishnapriya, P.P., 2021. "Global forces of change: Implications for forest-poverty dynamics," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    3. Anne‐Kathrin Weber, 2020. "Corporate Role Conceptions in Global Forest Governance," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(5), pages 611-627, November.
    4. Beatrice Nöldeke & Etti Winter & Yves Laumonier & Trifosa Simamora, 2021. "Simulating Agroforestry Adoption in Rural Indonesia: The Potential of Trees on Farms for Livelihoods and Environment," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-31, April.
    5. Yvonne Hargita & Lukas Giessen & Sven Günter, 2020. "Similarities and Differences between International REDD+ and Transnational Deforestation-Free Supply Chain Initiatives—A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-33, January.
    6. Pinillos, Daniel & Poccard-Chapuis, René & Bianchi, Felix J.J.A. & Corbeels, Marc & Timler, Carl J. & Tittonell, Pablo & R. Ballester, Maria Victoria & Schulte, Rogier P., 2021. "Landholders' perceptions on legal reserves and agricultural intensification: Diversity and implications for forest conservation in the eastern Brazilian Amazon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Claudia Parra Paitan & Peter H. Verburg, 2019. "Methods to Assess the Impacts and Indirect Land Use Change Caused by Telecoupled Agricultural Supply Chains: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, February.
    2. Kastner, Thomas & Kastner, Michael & Nonhebel, Sanderine, 2011. "Tracing distant environmental impacts of agricultural products from a consumer perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1032-1040, April.
    3. Vasiliki Tzelepi & Myrto Zeneli & Dimitrios-Sotirios Kourkoumpas & Emmanouil Karampinis & Antonios Gypakis & Nikos Nikolopoulos & Panagiotis Grammelis, 2020. "Biomass Availability in Europe as an Alternative Fuel for Full Conversion of Lignite Power Plants: A Critical Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-26, July.
    4. Kim, Yeon-Su & Rodrigues, Marcos & Robinne, François-Nicolas, 2021. "Economic drivers of global fire activity: A critical review using the DPSIR framework," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    5. Karl Steininger & Pablo Munoz & Jonas Karstensen & Glen Peters & Rita Strohmaier & Erick Velazquez, 2017. "Austria’s Consumption-Based Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Identifying sectoral sources and destinations," EcoMod2017 10472, EcoMod.
    6. Meghan Beck-O’Brien & Stefan Bringezu, 2021. "Biodiversity Monitoring in Long-Distance Food Supply Chains: Tools, Gaps and Needs to Meet Business Requirements and Sustainability Goals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-23, July.
    7. Demeke, Bayou, 2004. "Is Globalization Bad For The Environment? International Trade And Land Degradation In Developing Countries:The Case Of Small Open Economy," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20376, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Reardon, Thomas & Barrett, Christopher B., 2000. "Agroindustrialization, globalization, and international development: An overview of issues, patterns, and determinants," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 195-205, September.
    9. Philippe Delacote, 2008. "The Safety-net Use of Non Timber Forest Products," Working Papers - Cahiers du LEF 2008-04, Laboratoire d'Economie Forestiere, AgroParisTech-INRA.
    10. Priyanka deSouza & Yadvinder Malhi, 2018. "Land Use Change in India (1700–2000) as Examined through the Lens of Human Appropriation of Net Primary Productivity," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(5), pages 1202-1212, October.
    11. Winslow D. Hanse & Helen T. Naughton, 2013. "Social and Ecological Determinants of Land Clearing in the Brazilian Amazon: A Spatial Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(4), pages 699-721.
    12. Schwerhoff, Gregor & Wehkamp, Johanna, 2018. "Export tariffs combined with public investments as a forest conservation policy instrument," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 69-84.
    13. Nugun P. Jellason & Elizabeth J. Z. Robinson & Abbie S. A. Chapman & Dora Neina & Adam J. M. Devenish & June Y. T. Po & Barbara Adolph, 2021. "A Systematic Review of Drivers and Constraints on Agricultural Expansion in Sub-Saharan Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-17, March.
    14. Gavrilova, Olga & Jonas, Matthias & Erb, Karlheinz & Haberl, Helmut, 2010. "International trade and Austria's livestock system: Direct and hidden carbon emission flows associated with production and consumption of products," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 920-929, February.
    15. Alder Keleman, 2010. "Institutional support and in situ conservation in Mexico: biases against small-scale maize farmers in post-NAFTA agricultural policy," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 27(1), pages 13-28, March.
    16. Johanna Kramm & Melanie Pichler & Anke Schaffartzik & Martin Zimmermann, 2017. "Societal Relations to Nature in Times of Crisis—Social Ecology’s Contributions to Interdisciplinary Sustainability Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-12, June.
    17. Agus Dwi Nugroho & Priya Rani Bhagat & Robert Magda & Zoltan Lakner, 2021. "The impacts of economic globalization on agricultural value added in developing countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-23, November.
    18. ERREYGERS, Guido & FEREDE, Tadele, 2009. "The end of subsistence farming: Growth dynamics and investments in human and environmental capital in rural Ethiopia," Working Papers 2009008, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    19. Bridget, Bwalya Umar, 2012. "Reversing Agro-Based Land Degradation through Conservation Agriculture: Emerging Experiences from Zambia’s Smallholder Farming Sector," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 1(2).
    20. Giljum, Stefan & Burger, Eva & Hinterberger, Friedrich & Lutter, Stephan & Bruckner, Martin, 2011. "A comprehensive set of resource use indicators from the micro to the macro level," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 300-308.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:70:y:2018:i:c:p:580-590. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.