dashboard.forestdeclaration.org

Theme 2: Sustainable production and development

It is important to track the value of internationally traded agricultural commodities with embodied deforestation as a measure for how international demand drives unsustainable commodity production and associated deforestation. This indicator is defined as the amount of deforestation associated with the production of a given commodity. However, no data is yet available to support measurement of this indicator. 

It is important to track the value of internationally traded agricultural commodities with embodied deforestation as a measure for how international demand drives unsustainable commodity production and associated deforestation. This indicator is defined as the amount of deforestation associated with the production of a given commodity. However, no data is yet available to support measurement of this indicator. 

Much of the demand for the commodities that drive forest loss in the few countries that can deliver the majority of the world’s cost-effective, land based mitigation potential occurs in the world’s wealthiest countries. For example, China, the European Union (EU), India, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States collectively accounted for over 70% of deforestation emissions embodied in international trade flows on average between 2010 and 2014. To reduce this demand, some governments are beginning to adopt trade policies to facilitate more sustainable commodity consumption.  The EU, for example, recently adopted a regulation that requires companies to ensure that covered forest-risk commodities (soy, cattle, palm oil, cocoa, coffee, rubber and wood along with specified derivatives) are produced without deforesting or degrading forests before they are allowed to sell them on the EU market. Similar legislation has been proposed in the United States and passed in the UK, for which secondary legislation specifying commodity scope and due diligence requirements is under development. 

Much of the demand for the commodities that drive forest loss in the few countries that can deliver the majority of the world’s cost-effective, land based mitigation potential occurs in the world’s wealthiest countries. For example, China, the European Union (EU), India, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States collectively accounted for over 70% of deforestation emissions embodied in international trade flows on average between 2010 and 2014. To reduce this demand, some governments are beginning to adopt trade policies to facilitate more sustainable commodity consumption.  The EU, for example, recently adopted a regulation that requires companies to ensure that covered forest-risk commodities (soy, cattle, palm oil, cocoa, coffee, rubber and wood along with specified derivatives) are produced without deforesting or degrading forests before they are allowed to sell them on the EU market. Similar legislation has been proposed in the United States and passed in the UK, for which secondary legislation specifying commodity scope and due diligence requirements is under development. 

The green public procurement (GPP) policy uses the purchasing power of governments to drive more sustainable commodity consumption by generating demand for sustainably sourced products, and in doing so, helps to increase their market share. Public procurement carries significant buying power as it accounts for 12% of OECD countries’ gross domestic product and 14% for low-income countries. More and more governments have been using it as a tool to meet their environmental, economic, and social objectives. GPP is an element of sustainable public procurement that employs public sector buying to reach environmental policy goals.  
As of 2021, 53% of countries had at least one GPP institutional arrangement in place (at differing levels of development), indicating there is much room for improvement. These arrangements included GPP practices incorporated in procurement law, standardized environmental criteria in certain procurement categories, GPP strategies or action plans, and the collection/reporting of GPP activities, among others. However, many countries are not monitoring their procurement operations or reporting on them.  

The green public procurement (GPP) policy uses the purchasing power of governments to drive more sustainable commodity consumption by generating demand for sustainably sourced products, and in doing so, helps to increase their market share. Public procurement carries significant buying power as it accounts for 12% of OECD countries’ gross domestic product and 14% for low-income countries. More and more governments have been using it as a tool to meet their environmental, economic, and social objectives. GPP is an element of sustainable public procurement that employs public sector buying to reach environmental policy goals.  
As of 2021, 53% of countries had at least one GPP institutional arrangement in place (at differing levels of development), indicating there is much room for improvement. These arrangements included GPP practices incorporated in procurement law, standardized environmental criteria in certain procurement categories, GPP strategies or action plans, and the collection/reporting of GPP activities, among others. However, many countries are not monitoring their procurement operations or reporting on them.  

Globally, about one-third of food is lost or wasted. Reducing food loss and waste presents an opportunity to promote more sustainable commodity consumption by minimizing the “waste” of agricultural land, water, and other agricultural inputs and processes associated with greenhouse gas emissions, thereby reducing the pressure on agricultural systems to expand to meet growing demand. Governments can motivate efforts to reduce food loss and waste across supply chains through a variety of actions such as developing and implementing national strategies to reduce food loss and waste; providing funding to support the adoption of new technologies and practices; standardizing food date labeling; changing laws to facilitate food donation and food waste diversion; and supporting education campaigns for farmers and consumers. The number of countries implementing large-scale policies or plans to reduce food loss and waste has increased substantially in recent years, from countries representing 14% of the global population at the end of 2018 to countries representing 35% of the global population by the end of 2021. 

Globally, about one-third of food is lost or wasted. Reducing food loss and waste presents an opportunity to promote more sustainable commodity consumption by minimizing the “waste” of agricultural land, water, and other agricultural inputs and processes associated with greenhouse gas emissions, thereby reducing the pressure on agricultural systems to expand to meet growing demand. Governments can motivate efforts to reduce food loss and waste across supply chains through a variety of actions such as developing and implementing national strategies to reduce food loss and waste; providing funding to support the adoption of new technologies and practices; standardizing food date labeling; changing laws to facilitate food donation and food waste diversion; and supporting education campaigns for farmers and consumers. The number of countries implementing large-scale policies or plans to reduce food loss and waste has increased substantially in recent years, from countries representing 14% of the global population at the end of 2018 to countries representing 35% of the global population by the end of 2021. 

Ruminant livestock such as cattle, sheep, and goats are particularly resource-intensive commodities to produce, requiring seven times as much land as poultry and pork and 20 times more than beans per gram of protein. Pasture expansion for beef production, in particular, drives over 40% of tropical deforestation. At the same time, ruminant livestock production provides livelihoods to millions of pastoralists, produces high-quality bioavailable protein and micronutrients, and uses arid lands that could not otherwise produce crops. In addition to sustainably increasing ruminant meat productivity, moderating ruminant meat consumption will be essential for reducing agricultural land demand and meeting global climate goals while feeding more people.  
Dietary shifts away from ruminant meat toward plant-based foods should be concentrated within high-consuming regions in the Americas, Europe, and Oceania,* where protein consumption is well above dietary requirements and alternative protein options are widely available. After declining for several decades, per capita ruminant meat consumption across high-consuming regions plateaued between 2016 and 2020, hovering around 91 kilocalories per day. 

—

* This diet shift does not apply to populations within the Americas, Europe, and Oceania that 1) already consume less than 60 kcal/capita/day and/or 2) have micronutrient deficiencies and/or 3) do not have access to affordable and healthy alternatives to ruminant meat. FAOSTAT’s definition of Oceania includes Australia, New Zealand, Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia. 

Ruminant livestock such as cattle, sheep, and goats are particularly resource-intensive commodities to produce, requiring seven times as much land as poultry and pork and 20 times more than beans per gram of protein. Pasture expansion for beef production, in particular, drives over 40% of tropical deforestation. At the same time, ruminant livestock production provides livelihoods to millions of pastoralists, produces high-quality bioavailable protein and micronutrients, and uses arid lands that could not otherwise produce crops. In addition to sustainably increasing ruminant meat productivity, moderating ruminant meat consumption will be essential for reducing agricultural land demand and meeting global climate goals while feeding more people.  
Dietary shifts away from ruminant meat toward plant-based foods should be concentrated within high-consuming regions in the Americas, Europe, and Oceania,* where protein consumption is well above dietary requirements and alternative protein options are widely available. After declining for several decades, per capita ruminant meat consumption across high-consuming regions plateaued between 2016 and 2020, hovering around 91 kilocalories per day. 

—

* This diet shift does not apply to populations within the Americas, Europe, and Oceania that 1) already consume less than 60 kcal/capita/day and/or 2) have micronutrient deficiencies and/or 3) do not have access to affordable and healthy alternatives to ruminant meat. FAOSTAT’s definition of Oceania includes Australia, New Zealand, Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia. 

Companies that sell or trade agricultural commodities and products associated with forest loss can help to support sustainable production by committing to only source commodities that are verifiably produced without contributing to deforestation. However, the zero deforestation commitments of the companies with the most exposure to, and influence on tropical deforestation, show considerable room for improvement. Global Canopy’s Forest 500 assessment evaluates the top 350 of such companies and found an average commitment strength score of just 29% in 2022. This is only a marginal improvement over the average score in 2018, and a downgrade from the average score in 2020.  
The commitment strength score assesses critical components of companies’ commitments, such as whether they are time bound, cover all sourcing regions and suppliers, and trace products to the point of production. 

Companies that sell or trade agricultural commodities and products associated with forest loss can help to support sustainable production by committing to only source commodities that are verifiably produced without contributing to deforestation. However, the zero deforestation commitments of the companies with the most exposure to, and influence on tropical deforestation, show considerable room for improvement. Global Canopy’s Forest 500 assessment evaluates the top 350 of such companies and found an average commitment strength score of just 29% in 2022. This is only a marginal improvement over the average score in 2018, and a downgrade from the average score in 2020.  
The commitment strength score assesses critical components of companies’ commitments, such as whether they are time bound, cover all sourcing regions and suppliers, and trace products to the point of production.