CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 88Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementForest Management and PolicyEnvironmental Conservation and Management

Eighty-six EU policy options for reducing imported deforestation

Open access
Bager, Simon L., Persson, U. Martin, dos Reis, Tiago N.P.·2021·One Earth
DOI 10.1016/j.oneear.2021.01.011
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.oneear.2021.01.011

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The understanding of land-use and agricultural activities as supply chains takes consumer regions' vantage point, with social or environmental issues potentially regarded merely as undue contamination to be managed away.

    “Indeed, the understanding of land-use and agricultural activities as supply chains takes consumer regions' vantage point, with social or environmental issues (potentially) being regarded merely as undue”

    From Beyond the “supply chain” framing: Cattle ranching as a vanishing mediator of deforestation and dispossession in the Brazilian and Colombian Amazon (2026) · cites this paper as Bager et al., 2021

    The sections on EU demand and supply-chain interventions frame deforestation policy around consumer demand and supply chains. ‘Resolving the feasibility-impact dilemma’ also warns that marginalized groups may be sidelined and that risks may shift to less scrupulous buyers. But the paper does not characterize social or environmental issues as ‘undue contamination’ to be managed away. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Pirlot, P., Delreux, T., and Farcy, C. (2018). Forests: a multi-sectoral and multi-level approach to sustainable forest management. In European Union External Environmental Policy, C. Adelle, K. Biedenkopf, and D. Torney, eds. (Springer International Publishing), pp. 167-187.
  2. European Commission (2017). European Commission Conference on Illegal Logging and Deforestation 21-23 June 2017. In Conference on Illegal Logging and Deforestation 21-23 June 2017, pp. 1-16. https:// ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/conf_21_06_2017.htm
  3. Schilling-Vacaflor, A., and Lenschow, A. (2019). Bringing the State back in: exploring new public environmental policy approaches for governing the Brazil-Europe soy chain. In International Public Policy Association ((IPPA) Conference), pp. 1-21.
  4. Jewell, J., and Cherp, A. (2020). On the political feasibility of climate change mitigation pathways: is it too late to keep warming below 1.5 C? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 11, 1-12.
  5. Martius, C., Angelsen, A., Larson, A.M., Thuy, P.T., Sonwa, D.J., and Belcher, B. (2018). Pathway to impact. Is REDD+ a viable theory of change? In Transforming REDD+: Lessons and New Directions (Center for International Forestry Research), pp. 17-28.
  6. Pollitt, M., and Shaorshadze, I. (2011). The Role of Behavioural Economics in Energy and Climate Policy (University of Cambridge). https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.5237. · DOI
  7. DeFries, R.S., Fanzo, J., Mondal, P., Remans, R., and Wood, S.A. (2017). Is voluntary certification of tropical agricultural commodities achieving sustainability goals for small-scale producers? A review of the evidence. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 033001.
  8. Carlson, K.M., Heilmayr, R., Gibbs, H.K., Noojipady, P., Burns, D.N., Morton, D.C., Walker, N.F., Paoli, G.D., and Kremen, C. (2018). Effect of oil palm sustainability certification on deforestation and fire in Indonesia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 115, 121-126.
  9. Thorlakson, T., de Zegher, J.F., and Lambin, E.F. (2018). Companies' contribution to sustainability through global supply chains. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 115, 2072-2077.
  10. Potts, J., Lynch, M., Wilkings, A., Huppe ´, G., Cunningham, M., and Voora, V. (2014). The State of Sustainability Initiatives Review 2014: Standars & the Green Economy (International Institute for Sustainable Development). https://www.iisd.org/publications/state-sustainability- initiatives-review-2014-standards-and-green-economy.
  11. Blackman, A., Corral, L., Lima, E.S., and Asner, G.P. (2017). Titling indig- enous communities protects forests in the Peruvian Amazon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 114, 4123-4128.
  12. Robinson, B.E., Holland, M.B., and Naughton-Treves, L. (2017). Community land titles alone will not protect forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 114, E5764.
  13. Duchelle, A.E., Simonet, G., Sunderlin, W.D., and Wunder, S. (2018). What is REDD+ achieving on the ground? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 32, 134-140. 102. West, T.A.P., Bo ¨rner, J., Sills, E.O., and Kontoleon, A. (2020). Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 117, 24188-24194. 103.
  14. Roopsind, A., Sohngen, B., and Brandt, J. (2019). Evidence that a na- tional REDD+ program reduces tree cover loss and carbon emissions in a high forest cover, low deforestation country. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 116, 24492-24499. 104. Angelsen, A. (2017). REDD+ as result-based aid: general lessons and bilateral agreements of Norway. Rev. Dev. Econ. 21, 237-264. 105. Wunder, S., Duchelle, A.E., Sassi, C.de, Sills, E.O., Simonet, G., and Sunderlin, W.D. (2020). REDD+ in theory and practice: how lessons from local projects can inform jurisdictional approaches. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 3, 1-17. 106. Olesen, A., Bo ¨ttcher, H., Siemons, A., Herrmann, L., Martius, C., Roman- Cuesta, R.M., et al. (2018). Study on EU Financing of REDD+ Related Activities, and Results-Based Payments Pre and Post 2020: Sources, Cost-Effectiveness and Fair Allocation of Incentives (Publications Office of the European Union). https://doi.org/10.2834/687514. 107. Bo ¨rner, J., Baylis, K., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Honey-Rose ´s, J., Persson, U.M., and Wunder, S. (2017). The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Dev. 96, 359-374. 108. Bo ¨rner, J., Marinho, E., and Wunder, S. (2015). Mixing carrots and sticks to conserve forests in the Brazilian Amazon: a spatial probabilistic modeling approach. PLoS One 10, e0116846. 109. · DOI
  15. Muir, G., Murray, J., Sartoretto, E., Hewitt, D., Simpson, R., and Fox, J. (2016). Coordinating climate action: experiences from REDD+ and FLEGT. Unasylva 67, 37-44. 111. Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L., Rist, R.C., and Vedung, E. (1998). Carrots, Sticks & Sermons: Policy Instruments & Their Evaluation (Routledge). 112.
  16. Nepstad, D., McGrath, D., Stickler, C., Alencar, A., Azevedo, A., Swette, B., Bezerra, T., DiGiano, M., Shimada, J., Seroa da Motta, R., et al. (2014). Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and inter- ventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science 344, 1118-1123. 125. Jonsson, R., Giurca, A., Masiero, M., Pepke, E., Pettenella, D., Prestemon, J., et al. (2015). Assessment of the EU Timber Regulation and FLEGT Action Plan (European Forest Institute), From Science to Policy 1. https://efi.int/sites/default/files/files/publication-bank/2018/ efi_fstp_1_2015.pdf. 126. Nagendra, H., and Ostrom, E. (2012). Polycentric governance of multi- functional forested landscapes. International Journal of the Commons 6, 104-133, https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.321. 127. · DOI
  17. Dauvergne, P. (2017). Is the power of brand-focused activism rising? The case of tropical deforestation. J. Environ. Dev. 26, 135-155. 128. Sethi, S.P. (1994). Multinational Corporations and the Impact of Public Advocacy on Corporate Strategy (Springer Netherlands). 129.
  18. Juerges, N., and Hansj€ urgens, B. (2018). Soil governance in the transition towards a sustainable bioeconomy -a review. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 1628-1639. 130. Steurer, R. (2011). Soft instruments, few networks: how ''new gover- nance'' materializes in public policies on corporate social responsibility across Europe. Environ. Policy Gov. 21, 270-290. 131. Gupta, J., Shin, H.Y., Matthews, R., Meyfroidt, P., and Kuik, O. (2013). The forest transition, the drivers of deforestation and governance ap- proaches. In Climate Change, Forests and REDD, J. Gupta, N. van der Grijp, and O. Kuik, eds. (Routledge), pp. 25-51. 132. Bo ¨cher, M. (2012). A theoretical framework for explaining the choice of instruments in environmental policy. For. Policy Econ. 16, 14-22. 133. Agrawal, A., Hajjar, R., Liao, C., Rasmussen, L.V., and Watkins, C. (2018). Editorial overview: forest governance interventions for sustainability through information, incentives, and institutions. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 32, A1-A7. 134. Wilson, G.A., and Buller, H. (2001). The use of socio-economic and envi- ronmental indicators in assessing the effectiveness of EU agri-environ- mental policy. Eur. Environ. 11, 297-313. 135.
  19. Ferretti-Gallon, K., and Busch, J. (2014). What drives deforestation and what stops it? A meta-analysis of spatially explicit econometric studies. Cent. Glob. Dev. Work. Pap. 361, 44. 140. Angelsen, A. (2010). Policies for reduced deforestation and their impact on agricultural production. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 107, 19639-19644.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bager, S. L., Persson, U. M., & dos Reis, T. N. P.
Affiliations
  • UCLouvain (BE)
  • Chalmers University of Technology (SE)
Corresponding author
  • Bager, Simon L.
  • Persson, U. Martin
ORCID
Venue
One Earth
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-02
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
289-306
ISSN
2590-3322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.oneear.2021.01.011
OpenAlex
W3131185686
Cited by
88
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 8
FWCI
5.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • One Earth (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DIAL (Catholic University of Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (765408)
  • Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas (213:2014-1181, 2016-00351)
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
  • Horizon 2020
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Conservation and Management
Keywords
tropical forest conservation, policy options, political feasibility, theory of change, policy mix, market-based policy, regulatory policy, stakeholder engagement, supply chain, European Union

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review