Project
Deforestation-free supply chains – Opportunities & Limits of private sector's initiatives
Deforestation-free supply chains – Opportunities & Limits of private sector's initiatives
The deforestation-free production of agricultural commodities has moved into the focus of civil society since the connection between industrial agriculture and the loss of tropical forests has reached public awareness.
Background and Objective
A study for the European Commission (2013) analysed “The impact of EU consumption on deforestation” for crop, livestock and wood products. The study highlighted inter alia the role of the EU27 in the global trade of soy, where the European Union imports 60% of Brazilian and 50% of Argentinian soy exports - both countries where soy is one of the most important drivers of deforestation. With the Amsterdam Declaration in 2015, the German government together with other European countries declared their willingness to support the private sector’s goal to eliminate deforestation from agricultural supply chains by 2020.
One objective of this project is to evaluate whether certification standards are appropriate for the target of stopping deforestation. Furthermore, we aim at identifying synergies and challenges of the potential linkage of different concepts aiming at reducing deforestation and try to provide solutions.
Approach
The production of soy is an important driver for the deforestation of primary forests, especially in Brazil. The European Union, and in particular Germany, is a relevant importer of soy and thereby indirectly contributes to the ongoing deforestation. Usually companies use certification schemes to ensure deforestation-free sourcing and in general the compliance with social or ecological requirements. Our analysis of those soy certification schemes that are compliant with the Soy Sourcing Guidelines of the European Feed Manufacturers' Federation (FEFAC) has shown that requirements between the schemes are quite different.
Results
In joint collaboration with the Thünen Institute of Market Analysis, we evaluated the FEFAC compliant standards regarding their requirements for conservation of natural ecosystems, good agricultural practice, social criteria, auditing and traceability systems. We identified ISCC PLUS and ISCC EU as the schemes with the highest overall scores. ProTerra and RTRS have high requirements in place, as well. These certification schemes are in line with the political goals of the Amsterdam Declaration, but also with the voluntary commitments of relevant private sector organizations and business networks, such as the Consumer Goods Forum.
- Project brief 2020/14 (DE) Yvonne Hargita
DOI:103220/PB1587381727000 - Project brief 2020/14a (EN) Yvonne Hargita
DOI:103220/PB1587381393000
Links and Downloads
New York Declaration on Forests
The impact of EU consumption on deforestation
Thünen-Contact
Publications
- 0
Köthke M, Lippe M, Elsasser P (2024) Ein Vergleich von EUTR und EUDR : im Hinblick auf Unternehmen und Kontrollbehörden sind einige Auswirkungen zu erwarten. Holz Zentralbl 150(20):338-339
- 1
Köthke M, Lippe M, Elsasser P (2023) Comparing the former EUTR and upcoming EUDR: Some implications for private sector and authorities. Forest Pol Econ 157:103079, DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2023.103079
- 2
Köthke M, Weimar H (2022) Handel mit holzbasierten Produkten: Abdeckung durch EUTR und die geplante Nachfolgeverordnung. Hamburg: Thünen-Institut für Waldwirtschaft, 1 p, Project Brief Thünen Inst 2022/39, DOI:10.3220/PB1667295381000
- 3
Zhunusova E, Ahimbisibwe V, Sen LTH, Sadeghi A, Toledo-Aceves T, Kabwe G, Günter S (2022) Potential impacts of the proposed EU regulation on deforestation-free supply chains on smallholders, indigenous peoples, and local communities in producer countries outside the EU. Forest Pol Econ 143:102817, DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102817
- 4
Köthke M, Weimar H (2022) Trade in wood-based products in the EU27 - wood content and coverage by the current EUTR and the proposed regulation on deforestation-free value chains. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 52 p, Thünen Working Paper 193, DOI:10.3220/WP1655114210000
