Blog

Entries with Years 2020 .

Terpercaya: Building a supply chain of understanding and trust

By Jeremy Broadhead


I’m frequently asked why tropical countries shouldn’t clear forests when many industrialised countries cleared theirs years ago. It’s an interesting question and one that I’ve been grappling with since I first went to Indonesia over 25 years ago.

I lived in Central Kalimantan in 1994-1995 working on the research component of the Indonesia-UK Tropical Forest Management Programme. From Palangkaraya, the provincial capital, it was around eight hours drive to the project’s hut where I lived – the pondok – in a pristine forested valley in the Kayu Mas timber concession in Kotawaringin Timur. All along the route, the forest had been logged and heavily loaded logging trucks were a frequent sight and a considerable danger in travelling along the steep slippery roads.


Wheel loader and logging truck in Central Kalimantan, 1994 by Jeremy Broadhead


I spent a lot of time counting and measuring trees across the project’s permanent sample plots, each of which contained over 200 tree species - far more than my home country, the UK, which has only around 50 native species in total. Most of the plots were ultimately logged as part of a growth and yield experiment. At that time, forest cover in Indonesia was still over 60% compared to 11% at home.

In recent years, as the rewilding and reforestation movements have gained strength in the UK, I’ve thought more about this discrepancy. In the UK the situation was the result of an ice age which sharply reduced species diversity, and thousands of years of human activity and forest clearance. In England, forest cover has been estimated to have been only 15% in 1086 when Britain’s earliest public record the Domesday Book was written. Having reached a low point of 5% at the turn of the last century, significant efforts were made to increase UK forest cover to a present-day 13%.

That Indonesia had much more forest and with much higher species diversity did not mitigate the loss of forest. But it was also clear that the demand for land and forest products was increasing as it has done all over the world for many centuries. In the years since, oil palm plantations have been established on 40% of the land area in Kotawaringin Timur. Just over half the district is natural forest but only 1.9% of that is intact. Since 2000 the district has lost 43% of its tree cover and many actors, economies and consumers around the world have played a part in this transition.

Click to enlarge
Global Forest Watch information on Kotawaringin Timur by Global Forest Watch


In 2015, just over 1 million tonnes of palm oil were produced in Kotawaringin Timur, the fourth highest-producing district in Indonesia, with 3.5% of national production. Half was consumed domestically, about 9% in the EU and a minor quantity in the UK. India and China consumed around 10% each. Kotawaringin Timur has, however, experienced significant economic growth since the 90s and between 2003 and 2017 poverty rates more than halved while GDP almost doubled between 2010 and 2019.

Click to enlarge
Trase palm oil supply chain data for Kotawaringin Timur by Trase


Extensive areas of forest have been lost to agricultural development in Kotawaringin Timur and I often wonder about the Dayak communities and forest technicians with whom I used to work. Sangai, the village where the Camp 48 concession headquarters stood along with the project’s guesthouse and laboratory, must have been a quiet place before the loggers arrived. Along the road between Camp 48 and the project’s pondok were small houses, constructed by Dayak workers to honour the forest spirits. 

Living a transitory life between the pondok and Camp 48 with occasional visits to Palangkaraya and Jakarta, I didn’t get many insights into traditional life but I was fortunate enough to visit Tumbang Gagu, a village in Upper Mentaya District in Kotawaringin Timur where a famous longhouse stands. We spent the night with the inhabitant Dayaks, slaughtering and roasting a pig to eat with rice and plants from the forest. They couldn’t tell us how old the longhouse was, only that it was there when Krakatau erupted, which was in 1883. As well as using timber for construction, villagers were reliant on the surrounding forests for food, medicine and other products used in daily life such as rattan and dyes.


Tumbang Gagu longhouse by Jeremy Broadhead

 

Forest protection and restoration – whose responsibility?

Inequalities in land acquisition have plagued human development the world over and desire for agricultural land and economic development has played a huge part. However, if deforestation and dispossession are accepted as a part of economic development, then where does that leave the environment and forest-dependent people? To suggest that all countries let their forest cover fall to the levels seen in the UK could also constitute a race to the bottom which would do untold damage to the global environment and the legacy left to future generations. And in this age of increased awareness of human rights, capabilities also exist to uphold local rights and labour rights and to separate economic growth from negative social and environmental impacts.

In the context Kotawaringin Timur, although customary groups have been able to claim forest since the milestone ruling of the Indonesian Constitutional Court in 2013, there are still no registered customary forests. This may be a result of a lack of information, organisation or leadership, or the choice of a different ownership and/or management model by local people. Unfortunately, information is not readily available but by tracking customary forests as they are claimed and registered, information from organisations like the Customary Territory Registration Agency (BRWA) can allow supply chain actors to determine whether local rights are being respected. This, in turn, can help to protect forests, as has been found in many parts of the world.

 

Development, agriculture and forests – time for a new story

Through past centuries production of agricultural and forest commodities has supported livelihoods, driven economic growth and underpinned welfare improvements, but it has also been a major cause of forest loss. Demand for many products considered to be drivers of tropical deforestation and forest degradation continues to increase, but in recent decades, climate change and biodiversity loss have driven countervailing efforts to protect and restore forests.

The palm oil industry is a major contributor to the economy of Indonesia and in 2018, 36.6 million tonnes of palm oil were produced, equal to roughly half of the world’s supply. More than 80% of the palm oil was exported, valued at USD 18.2 billion. The expansion of oil palm plantations has helped lift more than 10 million Indonesians out of poverty since 2000 and the palm oil industry supported the livelihoods of 23 million people in 2018, 4.6 million of them involved in independent smallholdings. Palm oil is also used in an astonishing array of products used around the world, its productivity and versatile characteristics making it highly valued.

Despite all the positives, the palm oil industry is often seen in a negative light. Along with other agricultural commodities, such as rubber, soya, coffee, and cocoa, palm oil has been blamed for destroying the environment and violating the rights of communities and workers in areas where it is produced.

While various initiatives have responded by making efforts to reduce deforestation in commodity supply chains, political rifts have opened with different lobbies making opposing claims regarding the impetus for, and fairness of advocacy and regulation. The differences in opinion have highlighted the need for improved supply chains of information on land and forest management. Better information exchange could help bridge gaps in understanding along the commodity supply chain and better differentiate factors underpinning the contradictory huge EU demand for palm oil and its negative reputation.

EU economies undoubtedly want palm oil, but the call to stop exporting deforestation and the emissions it produces are growing ever louder. For supply chains of sustainably produced commodities to be successfully established, however, the greatest need is not only for a supply chain of objective information but a supply chain of understanding and trust working in both directions.


Production of agricultural and forest commodities has supported livelihoods and driven economic growth, but it has also been a major cause of forest loss by Jeremy Broadhead

 

Working together

In spite of arguments over palm oil sustainability, reducing deforestation and forest degradation is fortunately a goal agreed by many countries, and related aspirations have been formalised in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. However, land and forest governance is complex, and the distribution of rights and responsibilities for forest protection, economic welfare and social protection need to be understood and broadly agreed upon for effective, equitable and sustainable progress to be achieved.

Industrialised countries are increasingly taking responsibility for negative impacts overseas but to ensure that positive impacts of trade are not extinguished in the process, support is needed such that SDGs and NDC targets can be met. Most countries have committed to reducing deforestation and forest degradation along with many companies, while in industrialised countries forest area is generally on the increase and forest conditions are improving.

Questions over rights and responsibilities remain. But with domestic legal frameworks supportive of elements encapsulated in the SDGs and NDC, a foundation for equitable progress exists. Through accompanying dialogue and data collection, domestic laws can serve to facilitate sustainable production of commodities, and market-related benefits of sustainable production can be more widely communicated. The EU-Indonesia Voluntary Partnership Agreement which has now been licensing timber exports from Indonesia since 2016 pioneered this approach.

By discussing complex land and forest governance issues with stakeholders along the supply chain and sharing objective information, mutual understanding of European and Indonesian perspectives can help create a chain of trust parallel to the commodity supply chains. This can inform choices to drive progress towards common goals and distribute responsibilities to ensure that principles are upheld, benefits accrue to those making progress and costs are not born by the vulnerable.

 

The Terpercaya Initiative

The aim of the Terpercaya initiative is to support dialogue and cooperation on sustainability and trade and to accelerate district transitions to sustainability in Indonesia. Terpercaya means ‘trustworthy’ in Bahasa Indonesia. The rationale behind the initiative is that by collectively defining sustainability at scale and disseminating information on related indicators, trust can be built amongst supply chain actors and policy and market incentives can be established to encourage positive progress. This approach supports attainment of SDGs and NDC targets in producer countries, while reducing the environmental footprint of consuming countries.

The Terpercaya Advisory Committee is chaired by the Indonesian National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas) and includes members from a wide range of key stakeholder groups. Terpercaya effectively allocates accountability to producers and supply chain actors associated with individual districts, as a means of promoting progress towards sustainability while adhering to principles of legality and legitimacy. Legality is upheld by alignment with domestic legal frameworks, and legitimacy strengthened through the leadership of the multi-stakeholder Advisory Committee. 

The system is designed to work at scale so that all actors are included, and to draw on available, objective, independently verifiable data for regular tracking of progress against indicators reflecting the environmental, economic, social and governance dimensions of sustainability. By building on laws relevant for sustainable palm oil production, they also support widespread adoption of the Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) standard. Indicators allow questions to be answered such as:

  • Are smallholders being supported and are they benefiting?
  • Are forests and peatlands being protected?
  • Are indigenous and local people’s rights being upheld?
  • Are equitable systems of governance operating?



 

The district approach hinges on the role local governments can play given their authority and legitimacy to promulgate regulations and policies for sustainability. Districts, for example, have the authority to issue certain permits as well as monitor and enforce laws and regulations, and resolve tenure legality issues. In this way, district approaches underpin the transition of the entire jurisdiction towards sustainability. 

A data collection and dissemination platform currently being developed with support from Inobu should provide visibility for sustainable districts and enable sourcing decisions and assessment of due diligence by responsible buyers. Bappenas has expressed interest in using indicator data to help programme support for districts in reaching goals set out in the national mid-term development plan. Work is also underway to determine ways that the platform could be used to support transactions between buyers and companies trading palm oil from sustainable districts. Through the Terpercaya approach it is hoped that forest protection can be a part of socio-economic development in moving towards a greener future.

 

Towards a greener future

Much positive progress has been seen in recent years in Indonesia through Government adoption of a moratorium on oil palm expansion, ISPO revamp, peatland restoration efforts. The country’s timber legality assurance system (SVLK) has been successfully implemented, the Indonesia-EU Voluntary Partnership Agreement in place, and there is falling poverty and steady, measurable reductions in deforestation rates.

What we’re seeing is a change from conflict between nature and industrialisation to complementarity. A healthy environment is an economic necessity, and the dichotomy between environment and economy no longer holds. By building a supply chain of understanding and trust, supply chains of sustainable commodities can hopefully flourish.

 


Jeremy Broadhead

Asia coordinator

EU REDD Facility

 

 

A pragmatic approach to deforestation-free supply chains: spotlight on Brazilian soy exports to France

By Thomas Sembres and André Vasconcelos
Lire la version française


Vast swathes of the Brazilian Amazon and the Cerrado went up in smoke last year. And the fire season may be worse this year as deforestation is on the rise again to make way for cattle pasture and soy fields. Brazil is the main source of soy imports to Europe, with the Netherlands, Spain and France among the biggest importers. In fact imported soy, primarily used for animal feed, is responsible for half of the European Union’s (EU) tropical forest footprint.

Facing up to the global climate and biodiversity challenges, companies and governments have committed to reduce their deforestation footprints. 

Ongoing deforestation in Brazil and elsewhere undermines their efforts, damaging the reputation of entire sectors. But how can the deforestation-free soy be sorted from the rest?
 

Identifying the hotspots 

Surprising as it may seem, few buyers are likely to know where their soy imports have come from. Commodity supply chains are complex, with soy from different areas bulked for shipping. This means that even relatively small quantities of soy associated with deforestation can contaminate the whole supply chain. 

The latest review of commodity deforestation by Trase shows that more than half the soy deforestation risk linked to Brazilian exports is concentrated in 1% of the municipalities producing soy.

Focusing on Brazilian soy exports, we know that soy-related deforestation is highly concentrated in the region known as Matopiba, covering parts of the vulnerable Amazon and Cerrado biomes. Nearly 90% of the recent deforestation risk associated with Brazil’s soy exports is found in this region. 

For European importers, just 7% of the EU’s soy imports from Brazil in 2018 came from this high-risk region. Yet these imports accounted for 61% of the EU’s exposure to soy deforestation risk. How can governments and buyers best make use of this kind of information to tackle the deforestation risk linked to their supplies?  


Illegal deforestation (ha) on soy farms per municipality in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Half of France’s risk is concentrated in the three municipalities highlighted by Trase
 

A need for focus

Recent stakeholder discussions on the implementation of the national strategy to address imported deforestation in France have highlighted the need for a pragmatic approach. Traceability and engagement in the areas known to have the biggest problem with deforestation are prioritised – going down to farm level where possible.

For French buyers, this would mean that traceability and more transparency in just 12% of the soy-producing municipalities in Brazil would allow them to see what was happening on the farms in the areas where 90% of the deforestation for soy occurs. 

Some of the biggest soy traders have been taking a similar approach through the work of the Soft Commodities Forum. They are working towards full farm-level traceability in 25 high-risk municipalities in Brazil, but the actual disclosure of this information for independent verification is yet to be seen.
 

Identifying the source of the problem

A recent study by Trase, Imaflora, and ICV shows the potential for conducting farm-level assessments of deforestation at scale with publicly accessible data. The authors used official data on deforestation licences to identify where deforestation had taken place without a licence and so was illegal. 

In Mato Grosso, the leading Brazilian state for soy production, 95% of the deforestation on soy farms was found to be illegal and 80% of this illegal deforestation was on just 400 farms ─ 2% of all the soy farms in the state. 

France is one of the countries in Europe that is most exposed to soy associated with illegal deforestation. Almost a quarter (23%) of France’s soy imports from Mato Grosso in 2018 were likely to have come from farms where illegal deforestation had taken place. 

But the source of this risk can be pinpointed more precisely - with just three municipalities (Paranatinga, Gaúcha do Norte, and Porto Alegre do Norte) accounting for 50% of that risk. When assessing trading patterns from these municipalities, the study found that a handful of companies dominated the soy exports trade.
 

Opportunities for action

Because deforestation associated with soy is highly concentrated in particular places and among specific suppliers, targeting action in those areas can have a relatively high impact.

Governments in consumer countries are sitting on untapped opportunities to trigger a wider transformation of the sector, built on greater transparency and collaboration. To make a real difference, this would require far greater transparency from suppliers on the origin of exports, and governments and companies would need to work together to identify and monitor the priority, high-risk areas within global supply chains. 

This would level the playing field for buyers, allowing them to much better manage deforestation risks in their business. 

By pulling these levers, governments and companies could make far greater progress towards a deforestation-free economy.

 


Thomas Sembres

Supply chain transparency and land-use planning

EU REDD Facility

 


André Vasconcelos

Research associate

Trase/Global Canopy

 

 

Une approche pragmatique des chaînes d'approvisionnement zéro-déforestation : coup de projecteur sur les exportations de soja brésilien vers la France

Par Thomas Sembres et André Vasconcelos


De vastes étendues de l'Amazonie brésilienne et du Cerrado sont parties en fumée l'année dernière. Et la saison des incendies est repartie de plus belle cette année, car la déforestation continue à progresser pour faire place aux pâturages pour le bétail et aux champs de soja. Le Brésil constitue aujourd’hui la principale source d'importation de soja en Europe ; les Pays-Bas, l'Espagne et la France comptant parmi les plus gros importateurs. En effet, le soja importé, principalement destiné à l'alimentation animale, est responsable de la moitié de l'empreinte de l'Union européenne (UE) sur les forêts tropicales.

Face aux défis mondiaux en matière de climat et de biodiversité, les entreprises et les gouvernements se sont engagés à réduire leur empreinte sur la déforestation.

La déforestation en cours au Brésil, et dans d’autres régions du monde, mine néanmoins ces efforts, nuisant aussi à la réputation de secteurs entiers. Mais comment distinguer le soja zéro-déforestation du reste ?
 

Identifier les points chauds 

Aussi surprenant que cela puisse paraître, peu d'acheteurs sont susceptibles de connaître la provenance de leurs importations de soja. Les chaînes d'approvisionnement en matières premières agricoles sont complexes. En effet, issu de différentes régions, le soja est conditionné en vrac avant d’être expédié. Cela signifie que même des quantités relativement faibles de soja associé à la déforestation peuvent contaminer l'ensemble de la chaîne d'approvisionnement.

La dernière étude de Trase sur la déforestation liée aux matières premières agricoles montre que plus de la moitié du risque de déforestation lié aux exportations brésiliennes est concentré au sein de 1 % des municipalités produisant du soja.

Si l'on se concentre sur les exportations de soja brésilien, on sait que la déforestation liée au soja est fortement concentrée dans la région du nom de Matopiba, qui couvre une partie des biomes vulnérables de l'Amazonie et du Cerrado. Il s’avère que près de 90 % du risque de déforestation récent associé aux exportations de soja du Brésil se trouve dans cette région.

Pour les importateurs européens, seuls 7 % des importations de soja de l'UE en provenance du Brésil en 2018 provenaient de cette région à haut risque. Pourtant, ces importations représentaient 61 % de l'exposition de l'UE au risque de déforestation du soja. Comment les gouvernements et les acheteurs peuvent-ils utiliser au mieux ce type d'informations pour lutter contre le risque de déforestation lié à leurs approvisionnements ?   


Déforestation illégale (ha) dans les exploitations de soja par municipalité dans le Mato Grosso, au Brésil. La moitié du risque importé en France est concentré dans les trois municipalités mises en évidence by Trase
 

La nécessité d’une attention particulière

Les récentes discussions des parties prenantes sur la mise en œuvre de la stratégie nationale de lutte contre la déforestation importée en France ont mis en évidence la nécessité d’adopter une approche pragmatique. La traçabilité et l'engagement dans les zones que l’on sait les plus touchées par la déforestation s’avèrent prioritaires, tout en descendant si possible au niveau des exploitations agricoles.

Pour les acheteurs français, cela signifierait que la traçabilité et une plus grande transparence dans seulement 12 % des municipalités productrices de soja au Brésil leur permettraient de vérifier ce qui se passe au sein des exploitations agricoles des zones où a lieu 90 % de la déforestation liée au soja.

Certains des plus grands négociants en soja ont adopté une approche similaire dans le cadre des travaux du Soft Commodities Forum (le Forum des matières premières agricoles). Ils travaillent à la mise en place d'une traçabilité complète au niveau des exploitations dans 25 municipalités à haut risque au Brésil, mais la divulgation effective de ces informations à des fins de vérification indépendante reste à voir.
 

Identifier l’origine du problème

Une récente étude de Trase, Imaflora et ICV montre qu'il est possible de réaliser des évaluations de la déforestation au niveau des exploitations agricoles à l'aide de données accessibles au public. Les auteurs ont ainsi utilisé des données officielles relatives aux licences de déforestation afin d’identifier les endroits où la déforestation avait eu lieu sans licence et qui, par conséquent, s'avérait illégale.

Dans le Mato Grosso, premier État brésilien en matière de production de soja, 95 % de la déforestation dans les exploitations de soja a été jugée illégale et 80 % de celle-ci s’est produite au sein de seulement 400 exploitations, soit 2 % de l’ensemble des exploitations de soja de l'État.

La France est l'un des pays d'Europe les plus exposés au risque de soja associé à la déforestation illégale. Près d'un quart (23 %) des importations françaises de soja provenant du Mato Grosso en 2018 était probablement issu d'exploitations dont la déforestation était illégale.

Par ailleurs, la source de ce risque peut être identifiée plus précisément : seules trois municipalités (Paranatinga, Gaúcha do Norte et Porto Alegre do Norte) concentrent 50 % de ce risque. En évaluant les débouchés commerciaux du soja dans ces municipalités, l'étude a montré qu'une poignée d'entreprises dominaient le commerce d'exportation du soja.
 

Les possibilités d’action

La déforestation liée au soja étant fortement concentrée dans des localités particulières et des entreprises spécifiques, des actions ciblées dans ces domaines pourraient avoir un impact relativement élevé.

Les gouvernements des pays consommateurs passent ainsi à côté de possibilités inexploitées qui permettraient une transformation profonde du secteur, sur la base d’une transparence et une collaboration accrues. À cet effet, il faudrait que les fournisseurs fassent preuve de davantage de transparence concernant l'origine des exportations, et que les gouvernements et les entreprises travaillent conjointement en vue d’identifier et de surveiller les zones prioritaires à haut risque au sein des chaînes d'approvisionnement mondiales.

Les acheteurs, mis sur un pied d'égalité, pourraient ainsi mieux gérer les risques de déforestation au sein de leurs activités commerciales.

En activant ces leviers, les gouvernements et les entreprises pourraient réaliser des progrès réels en vue d’une économie sans déforestation.

 


Thomas Sembres

Transparence de la chaîne d'approvisionnement et planification de l'utilisation des terres

EU REDD Facility

 


André Vasconcelos

Associé de recherche

Trase/Global Canopy

 

Mapping climate finance to influence policy, plan investments, and measure progress

By Adeline Dontenville and Angela Falconer


As climate change impacts grow ever more apparent, it becomes more urgent to stop carbon flowing into the atmosphere and increase resilience to rising threats. Much will depend on how and where finance flows. Countries are enacting plans for adapting to and mitigating climate change, so they need to know what money is available and — crucially — if any flows of finance are working against their climate objectives.

Monitoring past, present, and future spending and investment patterns is therefore essential. Such information can help countries to measure progress, identify gaps, and align flows and instruments for maximum impact and scale. It can optimize the deployment of public resources in a way that can effectively and efficiently unlock private investment at the transformational scales needed.

To discuss how best to do this, the EU REDD Facility, Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) gathered experts from governments, donor agencies, and organisations that are engaged in tracking domestic climate finance during the COP25 climate change conference.


Sankey diagrams are a useful and effective resource to provide an overall picture of the land-use finance mapping results by EU REDD Facility
 

Varied approaches

Different approaches and tools are already used by countries to map and track domestic climate finance. These include: climate budget tagging; land-use finance mapping; climate public expenditure and institutional reviews; private sector climate expenditure and institutional reviews; and investment and financial flows assessments. Countries like Nepal and Kenya have been at the forefront of developing such national systems and are now joined by many countries around the world following similar approaches.

There is also something called the ‘climate finance landscape approach,’ which CPI developed with partners in 2011. It tracks the life cycle of climate finance flows – from provider of finance, through intermediaries, instruments and disbursement channels to end uses. This approach has been key in helping policymakers understand who finances what, and the extent to which finance is aligned with policy objectives.

It also identifies barriers to investment, potential incentive mechanisms, and provides a baseline for monitoring progress in mobilising resources. CPI and the EU REDD Facility have since developed an open source tool that makes this methodology available to countries. Côte d’Ivoire is among the countries to have used it to map investments related to their climate and forests objectives.

During the event, a panel of country representatives, practitioners, and partners shared their experiences of monitoring and planning domestic climate and land-use finance. They gave examples of positive outcomes, but also raised a number of challenges. These ranged from the methodological —such as a lack of data gaps and a lack of clarity about definitions of climate finance in the national context — to the institutional, such as a lack of capacity and poor inter-ministerial coordination.
 

Taking it to the next level

Given the challenges, it is clear that simply quantifying financial flows is itself a big step. The next level is using those estimates to influence policy, plan investments and measure progress. Critically, mapping finance can also help to mobilize new money and redirect old towards climate objectives. So how do we move from producing nice reports to bringing systemic changes to budgeting and spending patterns at domestic level?

Participants spoke of a need to simplify information and present it visually to facilitate dialogue among stakeholders and garner support for proposals. They also raised the need for more transparency, better sharing of data and a greater understanding of best practices based on what has worked in different countries. To support this, governments would also need to improve coordination among ministries and ensure their staff have adequate capacity through training.

Summing up the event, Dr. Barbara Buchner, Global Managing Director at CPI, highlighted the need for improved coordination among technical partners to develop and share methodologies, tools and potentially data. One suggestion was that continued and regular exchanges among the participants and other interested parties would help start to create an informal community of practice enabling us to share experiences and best practices. With this in mind, CPI and the EU REDD Facility are planning to organise a follow-up and virtual half-day workshop at the end of 2020. If you want to know more about climate finance tracking and mapping, or if you have experiences to share, we hope to see you there.


Read the report summarizing the event:

 


Adeline Dontenville

Land-use finance and Côte d'Ivoire

EU REDD Facility

 

- Dr. Angela Falconer, Associate Director in Climate Policy Initiative’s climate finance division, is also an author of this blog post.
- The workshop was funded by the EU REDD Facility and International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU).
- This blog post was originally published on 14 February 2020.

 

Bringing our voices to the land-use governance dialogue

By Christophe van Orshoven


A key contributor to climate change, species loss, and threat to the livelihoods of the 1.6 billion people who depend on forests for food and livelihoods: deforestation ranks among the great challenges of this century.

Since our inception in 2010, the EU REDD Facility has learnt that combining climate, aid and trade-related interventions has great potential to address drivers of deforestation. We’ve also found that protecting forests and incentivising sustainable land use are only possible if governments, private sectors, and civil societies of tropical forest regions partner to generate change.
 

Momentum for sustainable land use and supply chains 

As a Facility, we’re focused on finding opportunities for contributing to progress in climate change mitigation and sustainable land use and supply chains. There’s good momentum for us to build on.

Countries are starting to act on their commitments under the Paris Agreement on climate change. More companies are committing to eliminating deforestation from supply chains. And the EU has set out a new plan to protect and restore the world’s forests and is exploring options to strengthen implementation of its action plan on illegal logging.
 


Aerial views of Buluq Sen village, East Kalimantan, Indonesia by Nanang Sujana, CIFOR
 

What we’ll be blogging

I’m pleased to introduce this new EU REDD Facility blog, where our experts will share their thoughts about and experiences with working with our partners in tropical forest countries in Africa, Asia and South America on:

This will be a space for free thought, where we’ll push the boundaries of our institutional agenda. But always within sight will be our mission to support tropical forest countries find innovative approaches and solutions to their land-use governance and sustainable development goals. 

In all of our work and through the tools and approaches we develop, we promote dialogue among people with varied interests in forests - from policy-makers and business leaders to civil society and community representatives. This blog will complement and further that ongoing discourse. We hope it will also bring additional knowledge and understanding to policy-makers in Europe as they move ahead with new policies to promote sustainable land use and investment.

The challenges ahead can sometimes seem insurmountable. But with joint, creative action, we can affect real and lasting change. We look forward to sharing our ideas and collaborating with you to find creative solutions to the complex drivers of deforestation.
 


Christophe van Orshoven

Team leader

EU REDD Facility

 

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the original authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the EU REDD Facility, or other contributors to this site.