Our Work
Scientific publications
Authors
Uyen Tran, Yaghoob Jafari, Lisa Biber-Freudenberger, Stefan Partelow, Jan Börner
Abstract
Global aquaculture is expanding rapidly, yet both production and consumption can pose risks to human and environmental health. To mitigate these risks, governments increasingly implement standard-like non-tariff measures (NTMs) that align market access requirements of imported products with domestic regulations. These measures may influence domestic producers by altering domestic market dynamics via changing consumer demand for higher-quality and safer products, or as unintentional side effects of protectionist policies. However, NTM impact on domestic producers has received limited attention, raising the need to better understand their role in sustainable aquaculture expansion. We ask whether NTMs implemented by importers hinder their domestic producers and how these impacts vary across countries with different contexts specific to aquaculture development (i.e., social, economic, governance, and environmental conditions). We use two-way fixed-effect regressions with a panel data of 99 countries between 2010 and 2020. On average, implementing NTMs has a small and positive impact on production output. The effects vary by type: sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPSs) increase production output, while technical barriers to trade (TBTs) exhibit a negative but statistically insignificant impact. NTMs also have heterogeneous effects across archetypes: overall NTMs increase the production of aquaculture producers in emerging economies, while SPSs most negatively affect producers in wealthy economies, and TBTs pose the greatest challenges for producers in developing countries. Our findings highlight the potential of NTMs as policy instruments to enhance food safety and environmental sustainability in aquaculture while enabling the growth of domestic production, if carefully designed to consider the diverse aquaculture production contexts.
Authors
Théo Rouhette, Neus Escobar, Xin Zhao, María José Sanz and Dirk-Jan van de Ven
Abstract
Forests-based measures such as afforestation/reforestation (A/R) and reducing deforestation (RDF) are considered promising options to mitigate climate change, yet their mitigation potentials are limited by economic and biophysical factors that are largely uncertain. The range of mitigation potential estimates from integrated assessment models raises concerns about the capacity of land systems to provide realistic, cost-effective and permanent land-based mitigation. We use the Global Change Analysis Model to quantify the economic mitigation potential of forests-based measures by simulating a climate policy including a tax on greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, forestry, and other land uses. In addition, we assess how constraining unused arable land (UAL) availability, forestland expansion rates, and global bioenergy demand may influence the forests-based mitigation potential by simulating scenarios with alternative combinations of constraints. Results show that the average forests-based mitigation potential in 2020–2050 increases from 738 MtCO2.yr−1 through a forestland increase of 86 Mha in the fully constrained scenario to 1394 MtCO2.yr−1 through a forestland increase of 146 Mha when all constraints are relaxed. Regional potentials in terms of A/R and RDF differ strongly between scenarios: unconstrained forest expansion rates mostly increase A/R potentials in northern regions (e.g., +120 MtCO2.yr−1 in North America); while unconstrained UAL conversion and low bioenergy demand mostly increase RDF potentials in tropical regions (e.g., +76 and +68 MtCO2.yr−1 in Southeast Asia, respectively). This study shows that forests-based mitigation is limited by many factors that constrain the rates of land use change across regions. These factors, often overlooked in modelling exercises, should be carefully addressed for understanding the role of forests in global climate mitigation and defining pledges towards the Paris Agreement.
Authors
Rafaella Ferraz Ziegert & Metodi Sotirov
Abstract
This paper analyses the unique hybrid governance of Brazil’s Amazon Soy Moratorium (ASM) in regulating soybean production in the Amazon, where private actors have created a state-like ban on commodity production to reduce deforestation that goes beyond national law. Despite existing research regarding impact assessment, the study aims to fill knowledge gaps in explaining the ASM’s alliance-building processes, its longstanding maintenance, and its potential for regulatory replicability. Informed by the application of the Baptist and Bootlegger political economic theory of regulation and empirical data from qualitative interviews and document analysis, we provide an actor-centered explanation of the design, adoption, and maintenance of the ASM over a 19-year timeframe. Our results show how NGOs and businesses had opposite motivations and negotiated their roles to form a successful strategic alliance, reinforced by the inclusion of third parties (e.g., technical and governmental actors) to assist in its monitoring and transparency. Developed as an exclusive private market regulation, the ASM agreement, however, relies on a policy mix: private and public actors play a role in implementation, which includes assisting and relying on existing public policies, instruments, and official data. This policy mix was necessary for the ASM’s noteworthy hybrid and long-term governance. Its successful formation in 2006 was enabled by factors including an economic crisis, foreign pressure linked with national enforcement failure, and, most importantly, the Amazon scope. Our analysis shows who gains or loses from the regulatory design. Furthermore, we shed light on the biggest regulatory spillover, to the Cerrado, where the failed attempt at replicability emphasizes the regulatory uniqueness of the ASM. The study concludes with a discussion of what will help or hinder the ASM’s longevity, providing lessons for similar regulatory mechanisms on forest-risk agricultural production, such as EU’s recent Regulation on Deforestation-free Products.
Authors
Claudia Azevedo-Ramos and Rayssa Yuki Murakami Lima
Abstract
Recent claims by producing countries, like Brazil, flag critical flaws in the European Union regulation on
deforestation-free products. Failing to acknowledge the critics from Brazil and other countries may impact
the sustainability goals set for trading forest-risk commodities.
Authors
Mathias Cramm, Theresa Frei, Aida Greenbury, Georg Winkel, Yitagesu Tekle Tegegne & Metodi Sotirov
Abstract
This paper addresses knowledge gaps related to implementation of corporate zero deforestation commitments (ZDCs). Drawing on an analytical framework of organizational change, we scrutinize changes and processes internal to a company in adjusting to zero deforestation supply chains. The empirical data consists of 48 online questionnaires and 49 online interviews with actors involved in forest-risk commodity supply chains, both internal actors in companies and external actors (e.g., non-governmental organizations). Concerning organizational changes, the findings show that diverse drivers have triggered companies to adopt ZDCs, but most are external drivers. Organizational change following ZDCs has taken place within companies but only to a limited extent. Our study concludes that while corporate ZDCs can be seen as having advanced private governance in the fight against deforestation, more is needed still for effective implementation. Public governance and regulations could play an increasing role in stimulating adoption and implementation of private governance initiatives, like corporate ZDCs.
Authors
Gustavo M. Oliveira, Rafaella F. Ziegert, Andrea Pacheco, Laila Berning, Metodi Sotirov, Jochen Dürr, Daniel Braun, Felipe S. M. Nunes, Britaldo S. Soares-Filho & Jan Börner
“The European Union’s Regulation on Deforestation-free products (Reg-ulation (EU) 2023/1115) (EUDR) aims to reduce the impact of the EU on the world’s forests by impos-ing mandatory due diligence requirements on forest-risk commodities, such as beef, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber, soy and wood (as well as a number of derived products), starting from 31 December 2024. Here we raise the concern that the EUDR, as a transnational regulation, may have unintended effects when it poorly aligns with existing national policies and value-chain governance mechanisms in trading partners.” Blind spots in the EU’s Regulation on Deforestation-free products” Article published in the Nature Ecology & Evolution journal on 3 July 2024.
Authors
Ubirajara Oliveira, Britaldo Soares-Filho, Felipe Nunes
Abstract
Sampling bias and gaps have a direct influence on the perceived patterns of biodiversity, hence limiting our ability to make well-informed decisions about biodiversity conservation. Yet most methods either disregard or underestimate the effects of sampling bias and gaps in modelling biodiversity patterns. Our objective is to test the sensitivity of commonly used methods for modelling biodiversity dimensions (richness, endemism, and beta diversity) to sampling bias and collection gaps, and as a way to mitigate those effects we introduce a novel approach that employs the sampling effort to minimize the effects of collection bias and gaps in biodiversity models.
Authors
Yannic Damm, Elías Cisneros, Jan Börner
Abstract
Global commodity supply chains contribute significantly to environmental degradation and greenhouse gas emissions. Improving supply chain transparency can create public awareness and encourage relevant actors to improve their ecological footprint. We exploit Brazil’s Priority List policy for the Amazon region, a public disclosure mechanism introduced in 2008 that effectively reduced deforestation rates, to study how land users and commodity traders respond to the corresponding reputational risk exposure. Specifically, we combine remotely sensed land use data with spatio-temporally disaggregated soy trade statistics covering 15 years and 770 municipalities to measure the effect of priority listing on land-use change, sourcing patterns, and trade destinations. Using the Generalized Synthetic Control method, we find that priority listing led to a sizeable drop in deforestation and a corresponding reduction in pasture expansion. At the same time, soy expansion increased significantly, but instead of expanding into natural forests, it mostly replaced existing pastures and other cropland. The additional soy production was exported predominantly to China, whereas exports to the EU stagnated.
Authors
Laila Berning, Metodi Sotirov
Abstract
This paper analyses the belief- and interest-driven coalitional politics of the new European Union Regulation on deforestation-free products (EUDR) by applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Baptist & Bootlegger Theory. Our results first show how two PRO-Regulation Coalitions advocated for new European Union (EU) trade rules: key members of a Sustainable Development Coalition and an Environmental Coalition include key sustainability- and environmentally-oriented EU institutions, import-dependent EU Member States, non-governmental organisations, civil society groups, and some food and forest certifiers. Second, a PRO-EUDR Business Coalition – mainly composed of multinational business actors such as consumer goods companies and retailers, import-dependent European companies, some EU domestic producers from the agricultural sector, and their respective associations – joined the PRO-Coalitions in a strategic cross-coalitional PRO-Regulation Alliance to pursue business-oriented pro-regulatory interests. Third, the building of this Alliance facilitated political momentum for the EUDR’s agenda-setting, drafting and adoption despite opposition from a weaker CONTRA-Regulation Coalition of status-quo-oriented policy advocates among some EU institutions, forest-rich EU Member States, agricultural certifiers, tropical producer country governmental authorities, as well as European and non-EU companies and their associations from the forest, agricultural and food sectors. Fourth, the EUDR’s final legislative text is a compromise solution, institutionalising different core beliefs and interests of pro- and contra-regulatory state and non-state actors. Pro-change actors were more powerful in institutionalising their beliefs and interests.
Authors
Abstract
The European Union (EU) has recently introduced the Deforestation Regulation to close regulatory gaps in the sustainability and legality of global forest and agricultural commodity supply chains. We analyze this regulatory policy change by drawing on accountability scholarship and institutionalist theories of regulation. Our results show that the Regulation aims to enhance corporate accountability mechanisms through mostly state-based hard regulation of commodity supply chains, reducing the role of market incentives and private regulation. This policy change is found to be the result of strategic policy-oriented learning from perceived accountability failures of existing soft market-based instruments, voluntary trade agreements, and experience with market-correcting EU timber legality trade rules in a politically favorable context. The institutionalization of new forest-risk commodity supply chain accountability norms in new EU trade rules would, by design, harden foreign corporate accountability for negative socio-environmental externalities. However, the de-facto hardening will depend on the final regulatory design, acceptance, compliance, implementation, enforcement improvements, and avoidance of leakage effects.
Policy Briefs
Deliverables and Milestones
Our deliverables are available in Zenodo. Check them out!
- D2.3 Biodiversity impact estimates and documentation for indicators on multi-dimensional biodiversity aspects ready for use in WP3
- D2.4 Biodiversity impact database including characterization factors and documentation ready for Module C
- D3.1 Database on biomass trade, production, demand, biodiversity proxies – Report
- D4.1 Map of public and private policies and governance mechanisms – Final report
- D4.3 Deliverable D4.3: Assessing horizontal and vertical policy and regulatory governance (in)coherence
- D5.1 Behavioral responses to value chain related policies and governance initiatives
- D5.2 Qualitative assessment of leakage and other spillover potentials in selected value chains
- D5.3 Actor-specific leverage points for transformative change
- D6.1 Non-food biomass production based on biophysical modelling
- D6.2 New supply chain modeling in GLOBIOM
- D6.3 Implementation of improved indicators on biodiversity loss
- D6.4 Biodiversity interdependencies with environmental and socio-economic indicators
- D7.1 Modelling the Impacts of International Trade Policies on Biodiversity – Co-designed Modelling Framework for Supply Chain Governance Initiatives
- D8.1 Mapping an Impact Network for Transformational Change in CLEVER – Stakeholder Mapping Report
- D 8.5 Stakeholder Engagement in CLEVER – Approaches to and Insights from Stakeholder Engagement at the End of the First Year of the Project
- D 8.7 Catalog of narratives co-designed with media representatives
- M20 Stakeholder Engagement Canvas
