Eighty-six EU policy options for reducing imported deforestation

Abstract

•From 1,141 proposals, we identify 86 EU policy options for reducing deforestation•We assess the political feasibility to identify policy barriers•Many policy options lack a proven theory of change for reducing deforestation•We identify a trade-off between political feasibility and potential policy impact Images of distressed orangutans in Indonesia and forest fires in Brazil have increased public awareness of deforestation across the globe. Still, deforestation continues more or less unabated, driven by demand for forest-risk commodities, such as palm, soy, cocoa, and beef. What can the European Union (EU) and other consumer regions do to address this problem? Here we present 86 policy options for the EU to address tropical deforestation, identified through a review of gray literature and EU stakeholder consultation responses. Analyzing these, we show that policy options that are politically feasible policies tend to have a weaker theory of change—the causal chain through which the policies address deforestation—setting up a trade-off between feasibility and impact. However, there are exceptions, such as mandatory due diligence, which show potential impact and appear politically feasible. Through policy mixing and working with key stakeholders, supply chains, and producer regions, these barriers can be overcome. 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. 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. About 200 million hectares of forests—just under a tenth of the total forest area—have been lost across the tropics since the turn of the century,1Hansen M.C. Potapov P.V. Moore R. Hancher M. Turubanova S.A. Tyukavina A. Thau D. Stehman S.V. Goetz S.J. Loveland T.R. et al.High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change.Science. 2013; 342: 850-853Crossref PubMed Scopus (4933) Google Scholar and even greater areas have been degraded.2IPCCClimate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems.in: Shukla P.R. Skea J. Calvo Buendia E. Masson-Delmotte V. Pörtner H.-O. Roberts D.C. Zhai P. Slade R. Connors S. van Diemen R. Ferrat M. Haughey E. Luz S. Neogi S. Pathak M. Petzold J. Portugal Pereira J. Vyas P. Huntley E. Kissick K. Belkacemi M. Malley J. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2019Google Scholar As a result, deforestation is the second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, after fossil fuels,2IPCCClimate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems.in: Shukla P.R. Skea J. Calvo Buendia E. Masson-Delmotte V. Pörtner H.-O. Roberts D.C. Zhai P. Slade R. Connors S. van Diemen R. Ferrat M. Haughey E. Luz S. Neogi S. Pathak M. Petzold J. Portugal Pereira J. Vyas P. Huntley E. Kissick K. Belkacemi M. Malley J. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2019Google Scholar and the primary driver of terrestrial biodiversity loss.3IPBESSummary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services..in: Díaz S. Settele J. Brondízio E.S. Ngo H.T. Guèze M. Agard J. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany2019: 1-56https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579Google Scholar The forest fires in Brazil,4Berenguer E. Carvalho N. Anderson L.O. Aragão L.E.O.C. França F. Barlow J. Improving the spatial-temporal analysis of Amazonian fires.Glob. Chang. Biol. 2020; 27: 469-471Crossref PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar,5Barlow J. Berenguer E. Carmenta R. França F. Clarifying Amazonia’s burning crisis.Glob. Chang. Biol. 2020; 26: 319-321Crossref PubMed Scopus (88) Google Scholar which were particularly critical in 2019–2020, have again put the spotlight on the plight of tropical deforestation, increasing public awareness of this issue across the world. Protecting the remaining tropical forests is key to meeting several of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),6Seymour F. Busch J. Why Forests? Why Now?: The Science, Economics, and Politics of Tropical Forests and Climate Change. Center for Global Development, 2016Google Scholar as tropical forests, among other ecosystem services, provide climate mitigation, water circulation, climate regulation, biodiversity protection, and livelihood support. Several international agreements aim to reduce deforestation, from SDG target 15.2 to “halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally” to the New York Declaration on Forests and the Paris Agreement. Unfortunately, none of these pledges are on track to be met.7NYDF Assessment PartnersProtecting and Restoring Forests: A Story of Large Commitments yet Limited Progress.2019Google Scholar Despite public and private conservation efforts, tropical deforestation rates remain high—or have even accelerated—as new deforestation frontiers are opening in Africa and parts of Latin America previously spared from deforestation.7NYDF Assessment PartnersProtecting and Restoring Forests: A Story of Large Commitments yet Limited Progress.2019Google Scholar,8FAOGlobal Forest Resources Assessment 2020. FAO, 2020Google Scholar Production of forest and agricultural commodities is the main driver of deforestation across the tropics. Expanding cropland, pasture, and forest plantations account for approximately 60% of total forest loss.9Pendrill F. Persson U.M. Godar J. Kastner T. Deforestation displaced: trade in forest-risk commodities and the prospects for a global forest transition.Environ. Res. Lett. 2019; 14: 055003Crossref Scopus (52) Google Scholar This expansion is, in turn, driven by increased demand for forest-risk commodities (FRCs) from consumers in rapidly growing urban areas in the countries of production and international markets.10DeFries R.S. Rudel T. Uriarte M. Hansen M. Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century.Nat. Geosci. 2010; 3: 178-181Crossref Scopus (760) Google Scholar The European Union (EU) is among the leading international consumers of deforestation embodied in trade,11Pendrill F. Persson U.M. Godar J. Kastner T. Moran D. Schmidt S. Wood R. Agricultural and forestry trade drives large share of tropical deforestation emissions.Glob. Environ. Chang. 2019; 56: 1-10Crossref Scopus (86) Google Scholar due to limited production of most FRCs, high per-capita consumption levels, and the presence of large food and feed industries.12IDHBager S.L. Schwöppe C. Hoang M.L. Swee C.W. Olesen A.S. Lan C.C. Sleurink N. The Urgency of Action to Tackle Tropical Deforestation: Protecting Forests and Fostering Sustainable Agriculture. Prepared for IDH by FACTS Consulting, COWI A/S and AlphaBeta Singapore. IDH - the Sustainable Trade Initiative, Utrecht, Netherlands2020Google Scholar From 2015 to 2017, EU imports of FRCs were associated with an estimated annual deforestation risk of 190,000 ha.13Pendrill F. Persson U.M. Kastner T. Deforestation Risk Embodied in Production and Consumption of Agricultural and Forestry Commodities 2005-2017 (Version 1.0) [Data Set]. Zenodo, 2020https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4250532Google Scholar This embodied deforestation was largely due to the import of palm oil, soybeans, forest products, cocoa, and coffee from a handful of countries (Figure 1). For some FRCs, EU imports constitute a large share of the global trade, especially cocoa and coffee, of which the EU imports more than 50% of global production, but also beef, rubber, palm oil, soy, and wood pulp.12IDHBager S.L. Schwöppe C. Hoang M.L. Swee C.W. Olesen A.S. Lan C.C. Sleurink N. The Urgency of Action to Tackle Tropical Deforestation: Protecting Forests and Fostering Sustainable Agriculture. Prepared for IDH by FACTS Consulting, COWI A/S and AlphaBeta Singapore. IDH - the Sustainable Trade Initiative, Utrecht, Netherlands2020Google Scholar Although the EU's relative import share of many FRCs has declined in recent years—in part due to growing demand by the Asian market, especially China—EU imports have been increasing in absolute numbers.12IDHBager S.L. Schwöppe C. Hoang M.L. Swee C.W. Olesen A.S. Lan C.C. Sleurink N. The Urgency of Action to Tackle Tropical Deforestation: Protecting Forests and Fostering Sustainable Agriculture. Prepared for IDH by FACTS Consulting, COWI A/S and AlphaBeta Singapore. IDH - the Sustainable Trade Initiative, Utrecht, Netherlands2020Google Scholar The EU does not have direct regulatory competence on forests and currently no EU policy specifically addresses deforestation caused by FRCs.14Pirlot P. Delreux T. Farcy C. Forests: a multi-sectoral and multi-level approach to sustainable forest management.in: Adelle C. Biedenkopf K. Torney D. European Union External Environmental Policy. Springer International Publishing, 2018: 167-187Crossref Google Scholar Deforestation is only partially covered through the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR), the Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (FLEGT) Action Plan and related voluntary partnership agreements (VPAs) with producer countries, which aim to reduce imports of illegally harvested wood. The Renewable Energy and Indirect Land Use Change Directives indirectly address deforestation by targeting the deforestation risk associated with EU bioenergy demand. The EU also supports efforts to address deforestation through REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) activities. There is, however, an ongoing process to formulate a deforestation-specific EU policy. This process began in 2008, when the European Commission's (EC) first communication on deforestation was adopted,15European CommissionCommunication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Addressing the Challenges of Deforestation and Forest Degradation to Tackle Climate Change and Biodiversity. Publications Office of the European Union, 2008Google Scholar guiding the ECs efforts, though not constituting an official mandate to act. This was followed by studies,16COWI, Ecofys, MilieuOlesen A.S. Bager S.L. Brack D. Jespersen M.S. Hansen D.S. Wähler L.C. Feasibility Study on Options to Step up EU Action against Deforestation. Publications Office of the European Union, 2018Google Scholar, 17Cuypers D. Geerken T. Gorissen L. Lust A. Peters G. Karstensen J. et al.The Impact of EU Consumption on Deforestation: Comprehensive Analysis of the Impact of EU Consumption on Deforestation. Publications Office of the European Union, 2013Google Scholar, 18Devriendt N. Lust A. Lemeire C. Cuypers D. Prieler S. Fisher G. et al.The Impact of EU Consumption on Deforestation: Proposal of Specific Community Policy , Legislative Measures and Other Initiatives for Further Consideration by the Commission. Publications Office of the European Union, 2013Google Scholar, 19Devriendt N. Lust A. Lemeire C. Cuypers D. Prieler S. Fisher G. et al.The Impact of EU Consumption on Deforestation: Identification of Critical Areas where Community Policies and Legislation Could Be Reviewed. Publications Office of the European Union, 2013Google Scholar public consultation processes, and workshops,20European CommissionPublic Consultation on Stepping up EU Action against Deforestation and Forest Degradation. European Commission, 2019https://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/deforestation.htmGoogle Scholar,21European 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.htmGoogle Scholar which have resulted in a Roadmap on Deforestation22European CommissionRoadmap. Ref. Ares(2018)6516782. European Commission, 2018https://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/deforestation.htmGoogle Scholar and an updated communication.23European CommissionStepping up EU Action to Protect and Restore the World’s Forests. European Commission, 2019https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1565272554103&uri=CELEX:52019DC0352Google Scholar In 2019, the European Council adopted conclusions on the main principles of future EU actions to reduce imported deforestation resulting from EU consumption, an essential milestone in the process of the EU identifying if and how to regulate this topic. These conclusions gave the EC a mandate to develop policies and revise existing ones across its many policy areas affecting deforestation, including, among others, consumers, agriculture, development cooperation, research, trade, and finance. These principles also provide a clear sense of direction for EU member states (MSs) considering unilateral steps related to reducing deforestation for a particular commodity, industry, or geography. France24Ministère de la Transition Écologique et SolidaireStratégie nationale de lutte contre la déforestation importée: 2018-2030 (National strategy to combat imported deforestation: 2018-2030). Ministère de la Transition Écologique et Solidaire, 2018https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2018.11.14_SNDI_0.pdfGoogle Scholar and Germany25Bundesministerium für Ernährung und LandwirtschaftLeitlinien der Bundesregierung zur Förderung von entwaldungsfreien Lieferketten von Agrarrohstoffen. Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft, 2016https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/_Wald/leitlinien-entwaldungsfreie-lieferketten.htmlGoogle Scholar have adopted broad policy plans for addressing imported deforestation. In 2020, the European Parliament published an own-initiative legislative report calling on the EC to take legislative action on deforestation,26Burkhardt D. Motion for a European Parliament Resolution with recommendations to the Commission on an EU legal framework to halt and reverse EU-driven global deforestation (2020/2006(INL)).Eur. Parliam. 2020; : 1-10https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2020-0179_EN.html#title1Google Scholar following up with a European added-value assessment (EAVA) analyzing four demand-side regulatory policy options at the EU level.27Heflich A. An EU Legal Framework to Halt and Reverse EU-Driven Global Deforestation: European Added Value Assessment. European Parliament, 2020https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/654174/EPRS_STU(2020)654174_EN.pdfGoogle Scholar As a follow-up to the EU communication,23European CommissionStepping up EU Action to Protect and Restore the World’s Forests. European Commission, 2019https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1565272554103&uri=CELEX:52019DC0352Google Scholar a public consultation of potential regulatory options took place in 2020. This will feed into an EU Impact Assessment investigating various demand-side measures to address deforestation and forest degradation associated with EU consumption. The impact assessment is expected during 2021, with the eventual adoption of a proposal for regulation taking place thereafter. With the issue firmly set on the EU agenda, there is currently a “policy window”28Kingdon J.W. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Little, Brown, 1984Google Scholar for addressing deforestation. Still, the role of consumer governments in reducing commodity-driven deforestation has so far received limited scholarly attention,29Schilling-Vacaflor A. Lenschow A. 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, 2019: 1-21Google Scholar despite the contribution of internationally traded FRCs to overall deforestation.9Pendrill F. Persson U.M. Godar J. Kastner T. Deforestation displaced: trade in forest-risk commodities and the prospects for a global forest transition.Environ. Res. Lett. 2019; 14: 055003Crossref Scopus (52) Google Scholar,11Pendrill F. Persson U.M. Godar J. Kastner T. Moran D. Schmidt S. Wood R. Agricultural and forestry trade drives large share of tropical deforestation emissions.Glob. Environ. Chang. 2019; 56: 1-10Crossref Scopus (86) Google Scholar This paper aims to fill this research gap and inform the EU policy process by identifying and analyzing policy options for the EU and MSs to reduce tropical deforestation. First, we map the option space for EU action on deforestation by compiling an extensive database of over 1,100 policy proposals from public consultations and gray literature. Using a proponent, instrument type, and target actor typology (see Experimental procedures and Figure 5 for details), we consolidate this database into a smaller set of 86 unique policy options. Second, we assess these policy options based on two key determinants of potential policy impact: political feasibility and “theory of change” (TOC) (Figure 2). Understanding the political feasibility of policy options is crucial for facilitating sustainability transitions.30Fesenfeld L.P. Wicki M. Sun Y. Bernauer T. Policy packaging can make food system transformation feasible.Nat. Food. 2020; 1: 173-182Crossref Scopus (16) Google Scholar,31Jewell J. Cherp A. 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. 2020; 11: 1-12Crossref Scopus (30) Google Scholar Here, we empirically assess three different determinants of political feasibility:32Skodvin T. Exploring the Notion of Political Feasibility in Environmental Policy. CICERO, 2007https://pub.cicero.oslo.no/cicero-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/192286/CICERO_Working_Paper_2007-03.pdfGoogle Scholar,33Majone G. On the notion of political feasibility∗.Eur. J. Polit. Res. 1975; 3: 259-274Crossref Scopus (58) Google Scholar advocacy, which measures the support for a policy across different actors; institutional setting, which captures the institutional complexity of defining and adopting a given policy; and costs, which expresses the magnitude and distribution of societal costs resulting from policy implementation. A TOC explains how and why a given policy intervention is expected to achieve change, detailing “who will do what differently and why.”34Martius C. Angelsen A. Larson A.M. Thuy P.T. Sonwa D.J. Belcher B. Pathway to impact. Is REDD+ a viable theory of change?.in: Transforming REDD+: Lessons and New Directions. Center for International Forestry Research, 2018: 17-28Google Scholar A clearly elucidated TOC not only improves the chances that an intervention affects deforestation35Garcia C.A. Savilaakso S. Verburg R.W. Gutierrez V. Wilson S.J. Krug C.B. Sassen M. Robinson B.E. Moersberger H. Naimi B. et al.The global forest transition as a human affair.One Earth. 2020; 2: 417-428Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (11) Google Scholar by helping “identify assumptions, enabling factors and stumbling blocks,”34Martius C. Angelsen A. Larson A.M. Thuy P.T. Sonwa D.J. Belcher B. Pathway to impact. Is REDD+ a viable theory of change?.in: Transforming REDD+: Lessons and New Directions. Center for International Forestry Research, 2018: 17-28Google Scholar but also builds policy legitimacy by engaging stakeholders in a discussion on how to best achieve a given end.35Garcia C.A. Savilaakso S. Verburg R.W. Gutierrez V. Wilson S.J. Krug C.B. Sassen M. Robinson B.E. Moersberger H. Naimi B. et al.The global forest transition as a human affair.One Earth. 2020; 2: 417-428Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (11) Google Scholar,36Sullivan H. Stewart M. Who owns the theory of change?.Evaluation. 2006; 12: 179-199Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar Here, we draw upon theoretical and empirical evidence to map the TOC underlying each of the identified policy options to facilitate a discussion of the potential impact of the identified policies on reducing imported deforestation. By contrasting the TOC and feasibility assessments, we aim to identify feasible and impactful policy options for the EU to reduce deforestation. We end by discussing the implications of our findings for the EU policy agenda on deforestation and propose three principles to increase the feasibility and impact of policy action on deforestation. In reviewing the collected data, we identify 1,141 individual policy proposals put forward by the five types of proponents (Figure 3). By grouping these by target actor and policy instrument, we summarize the individual proposals in 86 unique policy options, which are proposed anywhere from 1 to 60 times (Tables 1, 2, and 3). The most frequently proposed option is to introduce mandatory due diligence regulation for companies importing FRCs, followed by support for multistakeholder fora, partnerships, and processes; capacity building for good governance in producer countries; and access to technology for FRC producers.Table 1Political feasibility of information-based policy options, by actor targetedPolicy proposalNo.A/I/CForest-risk commodity producersIP1: Advocate for a reduced amount and increased environmental efficiency of FRC production21/3/3Producer governmentsIG1: Identify conservation hotspots31/3/3IG2: Monitor and identify jurisdictional/national progress toward zero deforestation21/3/3IG3: “Carding” system with countries exporting FRCs to the EU, issuing yellow or red cards to countries failing to act effectively to combat deforestation and illegal behavior in the supply chain21/2/3Supply-chain actorsIS1: Encourage reporting, transparency, and public disclosure and access to information242/3/3IS2: Monitor progress on corporate commitments, pledges, and initiatives for deforestation61/3/3IS3: Define industry-wide sustainability criteria, such as zero deforestation and “sustainable” forestry and agricultural practices141/3/3IS4: Encourage the use of voluntary sourcing guidelines, certification, and joint/individual commitments202/3/3IS5: Encourage the use of residues, waste, and by-products and reduction of (food) waste31/2/3IS6: Promote due diligence for FRCs11/3/3IS7: Develop a blacklist of supply-chain operators not conforming to sustainability criteria31/3/3IS8: Develop a whitelist for suppliers who demonstrate and adhere to best practices for sustainability21/3/3IS9: Develop labels for origin, forest/carbon footprint, deforestation-free, etc.121/2/3ConsumersIC1: Increase citizens' awareness to reduce consumption of meat and FRCs and promote local, vegetable-based diets282/3/3IC2: Increase citizens' awareness to reduce food waste61/3/3IC3: Increase citizens' awareness to increase support for forest and climate policies11/3/3IC4: Use nudging, choice architecture, and behavioral approaches to promote sustainable consumption41/3/3EU governmentsIE1: Increase knowledge, research, and data collection313/3/3IE2: Promote sustainability criteria in public procurement and dietary guidelines142/3/3IE3: Increase transparency, information, and sharing of public data on land use and deforestation101/3/3IE4: Provide information and transparency on trade agreements21/2/3IE5: Increase international public commitments on climate (e.g., NDCs, nationally determined contribution) and land use (e.g., REDD+)71/2/1Finance actorsIF1: Encourage traceability and transparency of financial flows involved in commodity production, trade, and consumption, e.g., using monitoring and reporting tools61/3/3IF2: Encourage due diligence for financial institutions21/3/3IF3: Encourage voluntary commitments on sustainability standards by financial actors71/3/3IF4: Provide guidelines, standards, or labels on sustainable or responsible investment, divestment, or green financial products101/3/3Summary policy options classified as information-based, by actor targeted. Numbers (No.) indicate the number of times each policy option was proposed in our sample. The political feasibility assessment is displayed (1, low; 2, medium; 3, high feasibility) for the three determinants: advocacy (A), institutional setting (I), and cost (C). Open table in a new tab Table 2Political feasibility of cooperative policy options, by actor targetedPolicy proposalNo.A/I/CForest-risk commodity producersCP1: Provide access to technology, technical support, and training for better practices, sustainable intensification, climate-smart agriculture, and sustainable forest management433/3/3CP2: Provide access to finance and credit lines81/3/3CP3: Support alternative livelihoods and production systems182/3/3CP4: Support and scale-up cooperation, conflict resolution, and community monitoring51/3/3Producer governmentsCG1: Support capacity building for good governance, policy coordination, and enforcement of existing laws and regulations593/3/2CG2: Support forest conservation and restoration through technical capacity building, monitoring, research and data collection, etc.363/3/3CG3: Support sustainable agriculture in producer countries through technical capacity building (e.g., through official development assistance [ODA])131/3/3CG4: Support tax and tariff reform in exporting countries to promote sustainable production of FRCs61/3/2CG5: Make ODA and other financial support mechanisms conditional on sustainable production and deforestation targets31/3/2CG6: Support establishment and enforcement of tenure and land rights, human rights, and free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC)202/3/3Supply-chain actorsCS1: Support uptake and implementation of existing production standards (e.g., sustainability criteria, certification, zero deforestation)222/3/3CS2: Support the development of new guidelines, criteria, standards, and roadmaps81/3/3CS3: Support for traceability and transparency61/3/3CS4: Support and improve access to finance for alternative business models, product service systems, and sharing platforms81/3/3CS5: Support the uptake of and compliance with procurement policies and other sourcing guidelines41/3/3CS6: Support industry commitments through technical capacity building for monitoring, data collection, etc.81/3/3EU governmentsCE1: Mainstream deforestation concerns in EU policies and promote synergy between policy areas323/2/3CE2: Improve implementation of existing EU policies (e.g., FLEGT, RED I and II) related to deforestation212/3/3CE3: Formulate and implement an EU action plan (on deforestation, sustainable agriculture)81/3/3CE4: Strengthen institutional capacity and cross-ministerial cooperation111/2/3Finance actorsCF1: Support the development of a responsible investment framework (e.g., environmental, social, and governance [ESG] criteria) and mechanisms for internal monitoring and external compliance31/3/3CF2: Support innovative financial mechanisms for sustainable production, including blending instruments and public-private, results-based, and up-front financing142/3/3CF3: Provide insurance, guarantees, and reinsurance mechanisms to de-risk investments in sustainable land use91/3/3MultistakeholderCM1: Promote dialogue and cooperation with other producer and consumer countries293/3/3CM2: Alignment and harmonization of international, national and private-sector definitions, targets and commitments92/3/3CM3: Support multistakeholder fora, partnerships, and processes (jurisdictional or commodity roundtables, moratoria, etc.)613/3/3CM4: Facilitate data collection and information sharing among stakeholders152/3/3CM5: Strengthen certifications (e.g., through robust auditing