Introduction Foreward

Marco Albani

Director Tropical Forest Alliance 2020

World Economic Forum

The last few years have seen an exponential increase in commitments to take action to halt global deforestation by private sector companies in the consumer sector. Through voluntary declarations such the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF), well over 400 companies active in one or more of the four key commodities have made at least one relevant commitment to help eliminate deforestation from their value chains. The Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 (TFA 2020) was built to accelerate these commitments and support their implementation.

To take stock of progress, this year TFA 2020 has partnered with the NYDF Assessment Partners, an independent group of civil society and research organizations, to prepare the assessment of the progress against the elimination of deforestation from agricultural commodity supply chains, Goal 2 of NYDF. The assessment is a com­prehensive evaluation of supply chain efforts taken by private and public actors, drawing on existing work and data from partner organizations and filling in data gaps through company interviews. Its verdict calls for hope, but also for a strong recommitment of effort.

On one hand, clear progress has been made from those early days – in some cases a lot of progress – and a true movement for market transformation is on the way with TFA 2020 partners and NYDF endorsers leading the way across all supply chains. On the other hand, headwinds are strong, and with less than four years to the end of 2020, a lot remains to be done.

More companies need to commit, and many more need to move much faster to implementation. To do this, private sector companies need much more support from governments, civil society, and the financial sector. From forest governance to financial policies and regulation, from smallholder inclusion programs to public procurement pledges, there are encouraging early signs, but overall we need a step change in pace to meet the goal.

We need to build this change of pace on the positive political momentum, encapsulated in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement. There are strong policy signals to push markets towards deforestation-free development and growth plans but the implementation of policy priorities needs strong public-private collaboration and community engagement.  Encouragingly, the last year has seen some remarkable examples of public policy leadership by national and sub-national governments in forest countries, on which other stakeholders can build. Notable examples are the promulgation of the peatland moratorium and new green banking regulations in Indonesia, which are important steps towards achieving deforestation-free development. Many subnational governments across tropical forest regions have designed ambitious green growth and sustainable land use plans. A recent report by the World Wide Fund for Nature identified over 25 distinct geographies that are engaging in some form of jurisdictional forest and climate initiatives, of which notable examples are the Produce, Conserve and Include (PCI) strategy of Mato Grosso state in Brazil, and the 10-year jurisdictional program of the Sabah State Government in Malaysia.

In this context, the 2016-2017 TFA 2020 Annual Report provides an opportunity to reflect on the last 12 months of progress by TFA 2020 members and the alliance. The report includes member actions on driving impact while exploring opportunities for TFA 2020 to support emerging solutions. Since last year’s report, TFA 2020 has deepened and broadened its role as a public-private partnership for the implementation of commitments for deforestation-free supply chains. The Alliance now counts over 90 partners with 14 new private-sector partners from consumer, producer and other sectors, seven tropical forest country governments and 10 civil society organizations, and it has set up regional infrastructure, with three full-time regional coordinators now established in Southeast Asia, West and Central Africa, and Latin America.

To showcase progress, we have launched the partner Initiative Mapping, a voluntary collection of information on initiatives implemented by members of the Alliance that aim to halt deforestation from supply chains. Of the many achievements by TFA 2020 partners, two are worth calling out as examples of what public-private collaboration can do. In November 2016, seven West and Central African countries engaged in the Africa Palm Oil Initiative of TFA 2020 signed the Marrakesh Declaration at COP22, pledging to sustainably develop the oil palm sector in the region. Together, the seven countries cover over 250 million hectares of tropical forests, or 13% of the world’s total. A new de-risking facility was announced at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2017 to kick-start investments in deforestation-free agriculture in countries that are working to reduce their forest and peat degradation. The Government of Norway will work in partnership with the Global Environment Facility, UN Environment Programme, Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH), major food companies and environmental non-governmental organizations to protect over 5 million hectares of forests and peatlands by 2020, equivalent to the size of Costa Rica.

The Alliance is also continuing to contribute to the development of the agenda for deforestation-free development. Tropical forest governments and the financial sector have very important roles to play in the shift to deforestation-free supply chains, which is why this year the TFA 2020 prepared two research reports targeted at those audiences. The first, on the economic development benefits of sustainable supply chains, titled “Better Growth with Forests”, finds that efforts to end commodity-driven deforestation don’t have to come at the expense of local economic growth and that indeed there is emerging evidence that local economic development and forest protection are both compatible and synergistic. The second, “The Role of the Financial Sector in Deforestation-free Supply Chains” published in collaboration with the World Economic Forum, details how the production of forest-risk commodities in tropical forest countries is worth roughly US$ 180 billion annually, and transforming their supply chains to full sustainability is an investment opportunity to the tune of roughly $200 billion a year, an opportunity that the financial sector can embrace by scaling up emerging models of deforestation-free finance. In this annual report, we also share the results of an assessment of the potential that jurisdictional approaches hold for meeting TFA 2020 objectives, and of the role that TFA 2020 and its members can play.

On March 21-22 2017 we will hold the second TFA 2020 General Assembly in Brasilia, an opportunity to discuss progress, best practices and identify scalable solutions that will help us meet our joint objective of halting commodity driven deforestation in the supply chains by 2020. The members of the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 continue to work to fulfill the important growth and development benefits that decoupling commodity production from deforestation can bring to millions of people around the world. We invite interested governments, private sector companies, civil society organizations and international organizations to join our collective efforts in the coming year.


Marco Albani

Director Tropical Forest Alliance 2020

World Economic Forum

Section 1

An Alliance for deforestation free supply chains

TFA 2020 provides a platform for action

Partnership is critical to a successful transition to deforestation-free commodities. Companies need government and civil society support to translate commitments in the boardrooms to sustainable economic development at the forest frontier. Governments and civil society can use collaboration with business and the power of markets to accelerate and leverage up their sustainable development objectives. The TFA 2020 provides the kind of dedicated public-private platform for collaboration that helps achieve a deforestation-free rural economy.

Go to Section 2

Our mission

TFA 2020 is a global public-private partnership in which partners take voluntary actions, individually and in combination, to reduce tropical deforestation associated with the sourcing of commodities such as palm oil, soy, beef, and paper and pulp. Ending commodity-driven deforestation will significantly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, improve the livelihoods of millions of smallholder farmers, conserve natural habitats and protect tropical landscapes for future generations. It is a key aspect of delivering sustainable and inclusive rural economic development in tropical forest countries. TFA 2020 is uniquely positioned to foster cross-sector collaboration based on a common and ever-deepening understanding of the barriers and opportunities linked to deforestation-free supply chains. Its greatest offering is a partnership of champions for deforestation-free global and local economies, making the case for sustainable supply chains as an essential pathway towards a better economy and the achievement of the both the New York Declaration on Forests and, ultimately, the Sustainable Development Goals.

Our objectives

TFA 2020 and its partner countries, companies and civil society organizations work together to:

  • Improve planning and management related to tropical forest conservation, agricultural land use and land tenure
  • Share best practices for tropical forest and ecosystem conservation and commodity production, including working with smallholder farmers and other producers on sustainable agricultural intensification, promoting the use of degraded lands and reforestation
  • Provide expertise and knowledge to assist with the development of commodity and processed commodity markets that promote the conservation of tropical forests
  • Improve monitoring of tropical deforestation and forest degradation to measure progress

The Alliance

TFA 2020 was founded in 2012 at Rio+20 after the Consumer Goods Forum (CGF) committed to zero net deforestation by 2020 for palm oil, soy, beef, and pulp and paper supply chains in 2010. The CGF partnered with the US government to create the public private alliance with the mission of mobilizing all actors to collaborate in reducing commodity-driven tropical deforestation. Since June 2015, the TFA 2020 secretariat is hosted at the World Economic Forum offices in Geneva, with financial support from the governments of the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom. The Alliance consists of a diverse group of 90 member organizations, 38 of which are private sector, 14 governments, 36 civil society and 2 multilateral agencies. A full list of partners is available on the TFA 2020 website.

Our governance structure

TFA 2020 is an inclusive alliance; criteria for becoming a partner are designed to be simple and attainable by entities that share its mission, goals and objectives, with partners actively involved in programs and initiatives to end commodity-driven tropical deforestation. The governance structure allows the alliance to adapt as TFA 2020 matures and as its membership increases.

Steering Committee

TFA 2020 steering committee is comprised by Alliance members that are elected to make management decisions on behalf of TFA 2020 and steer the direction of TFA 2020. The Steering Committee 20 members provide a balanced representation of consumer and forest countries, private sector companies, both producers and consumers, and civil society organizations. They serve rotating two-year terms. The full list of the Steering Committee members is available on the TFA 2020 website.

TFA 2020 Secretariat

Since 2015, the Secretariat of the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 has been hosted at the World Economic Forum offices in Geneva, Switzerland, with financial support from the governments of Norway, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The Secretariat is made up of a small core team led by a Director, Marco Albani.

Regional Coordinators

In 2016, the TFA 2020 appointed three regional coordinators to support the activities of the Alliance in Southeast Asia, West and Central Africa, and Latin America. The Regional Coordinators are hosted by the Indonesian Business Council for Sustainable Development, the Palladium Group, and The Nature Conservancy of Brazil.

Regional Committees

To support the work of the Regional Coordinators, during the summer of 2016, TFA 2020 steering committee appointed regional committees for the three priority regions for the Alliance: West and Central Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America. Each regional committee consists of three steering committee members, and three other partner representatives from the region. The regional committees serve as strategic and operational guides for the TFA 2020 regional coordinators.

Our approach

Our six roles

As an action-oriented and commitment-based alliance, TFA 2020 is driven by the collaboration, engagement and activities of its members. It is the role of the TFA 2020 secretariat to enable and facilitate interaction for the successful implementation of the Alliance’s goals. The secretariat is supporting TFA 2020 partners achieve their objectives through the following six roles:

Co-creation: TFA 2020 takes a collaborative approach to the implementation of commitments made. With the support of the secretariat, TFA 2020 members take an active role in fostering the co-creation of strategic initiatives and solutions that partners need to achieve their goals at both a global and regional level

Convening: High-level and practitioners-level meetings and workshops are a key component of driving progress through the TFA 2020. The secretariat supports the Alliance through the organization of high-impact meetings, leveraging the resources and opportunities provided by the World Economic Forum, as well as other platforms, including at UN meetings, scientific and practitioners’ conferences, among others.

Communication: Communicating and disseminating the activities of the TFA 2020 and its members is a key priority, as it fosters and supports the mobilization of new partnerships and initiatives.

Connection: Enabling effective and targeted collaboration among TFA 2020 partners requires regular interaction through in-person and virtual meetings. The secretariat actively supports TFA 2020 members to enhance connectivity, fostering collaboration opportunities and exchange of information and best practices.

Recruitment: Further expansion of the TFA 2020 membership, including governments of forested countries, private sector companies and small-scale producers, constitutes a core aspect of the increased development of the Alliance’s in-country work. The secretariat is supporting the Alliance in achieving this goal through targeted engagement and recruitment of new members.

Delivery and project management: The secretariat ensures the effective and professional functioning of TFA 2020 governance and the smooth functioning of working groups through logistical support for meetings and teleconferences, and through facilitation and keeping record of discussions.

Section 2

Actions to drive impact

In late 2015, the TFA 2020 steering committee laid out six strategic initiatives of focus for the work of the Alliance until 2018. Three of the initiatives focus on engagement in tropical forest areas and building the regional platform of TFA 2020 on a regional and national level – Latin America Initiative, West and Central Africa Initiative that includes the signature initiative of Africa Palm Oil and Southeast Asia Initiative.

The three global initiatives of TFA 2020 focus on cross-cutting issues of the alliance, two of the initiatives – Better Growth with Forests and Finance Sector Engagement at are implementation phase and the Emerging Markets demand for deforestation-free commodities initiative is currently being developed.

Regional Initiative Latin America Initiative
Photo by James Anderson, World Resources Institute.

The objective of the TFA 2020 Latin America Initiative it to support ongoing collaborative efforts taking place in the region that share the goal of eliminating deforestation from key agricultural and forest commodity supply chains (e.g. soy, palm oil, cattle, pulp and paper). To date, the work of TFA 2020 has focused on Brazil and Colombia, while the TFA 2020 platform has also provided light touch communication and connectivity support the ongoing efforts of TFA 2020 partners in other Latin American countries.


TFA 2020 work in Brazil was formulated through stakeholder consultations and discussion, which took place at a regional strategy meeting in Brazil in June 2015. At the time, a number of consumer companies and civil society representatives agreed to support the development of a guide on the implementation of corporate commitments to eliminate deforestation from commodity supply chains in Brazil by building on existing laws, initiatives and incentives.

Since then, TFA 2020 partners have recognized that TFA 2020’s value-add in Brazil is to build relationships between Brazilian stakeholders and the international community. Thus, TFA 2020 is focusing on facilitating relationships between Brazilian producers and international companies and catalysing the efforts of existing national and subnational actors.

In 2016, to help in this effort, TFA 2020, WWF and Proforest published a report outlining the opportunities brought about by supporting legal compliance and zero-deforestation in Brazil, including a mapping of 73 local tools and initiatives to facilitate better partnerships and connections.[1] In addition, the Brazilian Coalition on Climate, Forests and Agriculture and the TFA 2020 Brazil working group formed a joint team to work together to help companies comply with Brazil’s Forest Code and identify how best practices can be better shared and implemented across the country.

The involvement of subnational governments in Brazil has been a component of TFA 2020’s regional work in 2016 – to be continued in 2017. The work in 2016 consisted of initial engagement with leading representatives of the Pará and Mato Grosso subnational governments, identification of TFA 2020 partners consistently working in these jurisdictions, and examination of how TFA 2020 can add value to their efforts. In the second half of the year, TFA 2020 focused on showcasing the progress made at the subnational level by incorporating jurisdictional leaders in a public panel at NYC Climate Week 2016 and conducting a jurisdictional assessment with explicit case studies on Pará and Mato Grosso. The case studies increase the understanding of the subnational governments and the opportunities offered to TFA 2020 partners in the transition to the sustainable production of key forest risk commodities. A recent application from the Government of Mato Grosso to become a member of TFA 2020 exemplifies the commitment of the subnational leadership and the opportunity for the alliance to engage at this level.

In the recent months, the Alliance has increased its ability to engage with government and other domestic stakeholders, communicate TFA 2020 objectives and outline the opportunities for collaboration, thanks to the establishment of the Latin America Regional Coordinator in Sao Paulo. The upcoming TFA 2020 General Assembly taking place in Brasilia from 18-22 March 2017, will see the presence of several Brazilian stakeholders, from government to civil society and indigenous people, and offer the opportunity to sustain and accelerate the momentum of the initiative.

[2] TFA 2020, WWF and Proforest, Legal compliance and elimination of deforestation from commodity production in Brazil: useful tools and initiatives for value chain companies, 2016.


Building on engagement carried out throughout the last year, in January 2017 Colombia became the first Latin American country to become a member of TFA 2020 and to be represented at the TFA 2020 Steering Committee, and President Santos was the first head of state to attend a TFA 2020 Partners meeting during the 2017 Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos. TFA 2020 partners in Colombia are now working to develop a platform for public private cooperation, aimed at meeting Colombia’s deforestation goals.

Regional Initiative African Palm Oil Initiative
Photo by: M. Edliadi/ CIFOR

TFA 2020 Africa Map

The Africa Palm Oil Initiative (APOI) is the first signature initiative of TFA 2020, currently engaging 10 West and Central African countries, leading palm oil consumers, trading and producing companies, civil society, and indigenous and local peoples groups. The objective of the initiative is to help transform the regional palm oil sector into a sustainable driver of low-carbon development in a way that is socially beneficial and protects the biodiversity-rich tropical forests of the region. During the year, APOI increased its momentum and engagement, with five additional countries joining the initiative – Cote d’Ivoire joint in the first half of the year and Central Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo and Sierra Leone in the second half of 2016, joining Ghana and Liberia as members of TFA 2020.

The APOI engagement process includes three phases 1) engagement at the national level, 2) development of principles and a national action plan with an established country team and 3) implementation of the national action plans through support of TFA 2020 global platform.   Throughout 2016, APOI conducted initial national workshops in each newly affiliated country to begin phase one and two. The national workshops in Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and Liberia focused on finalizing national action plans and preparing for the implementation phase. In addition, two regional workshops were held, in Accra, Ghana in March 2016 and in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire in October 2016, to develop and agree harmonized action for sustainable palm oil production at the regional level. Through this regional process, the countries jointly negotiated the text of the Marrakesh Declaration, a regional pledge by seven African governments to shift towards sustainable palm oil production. The undertaking will simultaneously help improve smallholder incomes and drive greater action on tropical deforestation. By signing this pledge at the UN Climate Change Conference in Marrakesh on 16 November, the African governments endorsed an unprecedented new regional market for sustainable palm oil production across the region. They vowed to work with partners to fully implement national development plans for sustainable oil palm development, guided by the declaration’s underlying principles in favour of sustainability, good governance, transparency, recognition of community and human rights, partnerships, and the equitable sharing of benefits. In addition, the Declaration has been recognized and supported by leaders in the industry with commitment to support its implementation.

In February 2017, global palm oil producers, buyers, financial institutions, multilaterals, donors and country teams of Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana and Liberia came together for the first Implementation Dialogue. This workshop provided an opportunity for multistakeholder engagement in the implementation of the Marrakesh Declaration and identification how public-private collaboration can help realize the shared objective of deforestation-free palm oil development in Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana and Liberia. During the workshop, the country teams presented the state of oil palm production in their respective countries, highlighted priorities of their national action plan and opportunities for partnerships. In response, specific partnerships and support opportunities were identified to help the countries implement their priorities.

The Africa Palm Oil Initiative is coordinated by Proforest on behalf of the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020, thanks to financial support from UK DFID through the Partnership for Forests Program. 

Regional Initiative Southeast Asia Initiative
Photo by James Anderson, World Resources Institute.

SouthEast Asia Tfa 2020 Report

TFA 2020 Southeast Asia Initiative aims to support Southeast Asian partners, businesses, non-governmental organizations and governments to build upon the efforts under way in the region to eliminate deforestation from key commodities’ supply chains by 2020. Thus far the initiative’s greatest presence has been in Indonesia, with growing efforts in Malaysia, especially in the Sabah jurisdiction.

In the lead up to TFA 2020 General Assembly 2016, partners identified three main value adds of TFA 2020: (i) smallholder farmer support; (ii) a Better Growth with Forests regional approach; and (iii) green investment and responsible financing for deforestation-free commodity supply chains. During the TFA 2020 General Assembly in Jakarta, Indonesia in March 2016, members of the Indonesia working group and partners reviewed the three focus areas, elaborated on the criteria for success in each area and created work streams under which specific activities in each area could lead to success. An overview of these activities in 2016 follows:

Supporting Smallholder Farmers

A Smallholder Farmer Task Force was created to exchange best practices on smallholder inclusion in sustainable supply chains and show the positive relationship between the development of sustainable land use models and the economic and social impact on rural populations at the forest frontier.

Chaired by the head of the Indonesia Palm Oil Pledge (IPOP) and the Indonesian head of the IDH, since its establishment the Task Force has held periodic conference calls and in-person working sessions on the topic. It has successfully mapped smallholder work in Indonesia that includes 12 initiatives forming part of cross-learning efforts that is also included in the broader TFA 2020 Partner Initiative Mapping. During the third quarter of 2016, the IPOP was dissolved due to the Government of Indonesia’s increasing efforts to transform the palm oil sector and strengthen the Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) standard, thus phasing out IPOP as an entity. This change created a temporary pause in the Task Force’s work in the fall of 2016, but the TFA 2020 Southeast Asia Regional Coordinator is planning to continue facilitating and coordinating its work.

A regional approach to better growth with forests

Building on the TFA 2020 Better Growth with Forests initiative, TFA 2020’s objective in 2016 was to show factual evidence of the connection between the development of sustainable land use models and the economic and social impact on rural populations at the forest frontier. In the case of the Southeast Asia region, the benefits include peatland restoration and fire prevention, as well as the “produce-protect” approach at the jurisdictional level, which endeavors to increase agricultural production while protecting forests.

The activities included strengthening the engagement of the Government of Indonesia, especially with the Peatland Restoration Agency, as well as of the subnational governments in Indonesia and Malaysia. Efforts involved showcasing the leadership behind progressive jurisdictional approaches to shared understanding of effective ways to realize jurisdictional sustainability in private meetings, and organizing official events, such as the Climate Action and Sustainable Land Use in Forestry and Agriculture session during NYC Climate Week 2016.

Enabling green investment and responsible financing

A recent study conducted by the TFA 2020 Financial Sector Engagement initiative estimated that sustainable commodity production represents a $200 billion investment opportunity.[i] A Better Growth with Forests approach could unlock this opportunity in Southeast Asia while maintaining and restoring tropical forests. Efforts are under way, such as the new de-risking facility fund announced in January 2017 by the Government of Norway and other partners, with the aim of raising $400 million by 2020, which could lead to over $1.6 billion in deforestation-free agriculture investment.

[i] World Economic Forum and TFA 2020, The Role of the Financial Sector in Deforestation-free Supply Chains, Research Report, 2017.

Strategic Initiative Better Growth with Forest Initiative
Photo by Neil Palmer/CIAT for Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

The Better Growth with Forests initiative is about championing a new narrative for deforestation-free growth and increasing a practical understanding of how private-sector commitments and public-policy goals can be aligned. The initiative first focused on presenting unbiased facts that explain the relationship between the development of sustainable land use models linked to sustainable supply chains and the economic and social impact on rural populations at the forest frontier. The second phase presented in this report under TFA 2020 ‘s role in an evolving landscape of jurisdictional approaches aims to present examples of how this is being done and how it can be scaled.

In early 2016, an analysis of the economic and political benefits of zero-deforestation commitments in producing countries was completed, focusing on investment opportunities and rural development in those countries. The analysis, presented in March 2016 at the TFA 2020 General Assembly, found that sustainable production processes represent a sizeable investment opportunity. An initial estimate suggests investment requirements to adopt a sustainable land use approach in tropical rainforest regions could amount to roughly $160 billion annually.[3] In many cases, attractive investment returns are associated with these sustainable land use opportunities. Indeed, past academic research estimates that roughly 90% of opportunities have an internal rate of return that is greater than 10%.[4] Despite the data challenges, the evidence suggests: (i) the positive relationship between the deployment of sustainable land use models and local economic prosperity is strong (although trade-offs exist in some instances, particularly in the short term); (ii) the local economic impact varies significantly across the different types of levers (e.g. the effect is extremely positive on smallholder yield improvement, but generally weaker on interventions such as alternative livelihood development); and (iii) the economic impact on local growth and prosperity often depends on the specific context of the interventions (i.e. the impact is caused not necessarily by what is done but by how it is done).

A number of subnational governments have developed ambitious programmes to reduce deforestation and carbon emissions. However, the perception is still that reduced deforestation efforts are incompatible with attempts to promote economic growth in forest-rich regions. This perception, combined with many institutional challenges in tropical forest-rich countries, has made progress uneven and slower than hoped.

The second phase of the initiative has focused on addressing these gaps by examining the state of jurisdictional initiatives and the opportunities they offer to TFA 2020 members to support the transition to the sustainable production of the key forest risk commodities (palm oil, soy, cattle, pulp and paper, cocoa and rubber). The assessments of five jurisdictions have been completed and form part of this annual report. They are in-depth examinations of the approaches in Mato Grosso and Pará, Brazil, in Liberia, in Sabah, Malaysia and in East Kalimantan, Indonesia.

Strategic Initiative Finance Sector Engagement Initiative
TFA 2020, March 15, 2016

The objective of TFA 2020 Financial Sector Engagement initiative is to further improve the ability of financial institutions to help solve prevailing technical financial challenges (e.g. the absence of robust land tenure and technical and credit support that encourage sustainability) by highlighting the opportunities that can successfully drive deforestation-free production at scale. Key components of the engagement include 1) a clear and thorough articulation of the challenges and opportunities offered by the transition to deforestation-free supply chains and 2) offering a platform for broader engagement around practical solutions to increase financing mechanisms.

Challenges and Opportunities

To present the challenges and opportunities offer by transitioning to deforestation-free supply chains, Secretariat of TFA 2020 commissioned a research report completed by Vivid Economics and TFA 2020 partners.[5] The report states that the production of four major commodities – cattle, soy, palm oil, and pulp and paper – in tropical forest countries is worth approximately $180 billion annually, and transforming their supply chains to full sustainability is an investment opportunity to the tune of roughly $200 billion a year. The financial sector can embrace this opportunity by scaling up emerging models of deforestation-free finance.

At the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2017, TFA 2020 hosted a dialogue between producing governments, supply chain companies and investors offering a dialogue on how the investment opportunity in sustainable commodity production can be harnessed. Anchored in concrete country and commodity examples, the discussion focused on how policy and corporate commitments to low-carbon and sustainable growth are creating new investment and financing prospects, and how various public and corporate actions help lower investment barriers for sustainable commodity production at scale.

Scalable Solutions

In addition, the initiative hosted the first Transaction Workshop in September 2016, offering an occasion for broader engagement around practical solutions to increase financing mechanisms, featuring actual financial transactions in the sustainable commodities space. These included the Global Canopy Programme project, Unlocking Forest Finance, in San Martin, Peru, whose focus is on channeling finance towards sustainable landscaping, as a strategy for the environment, the people and the economy and Wilmar’s Financing Sustainable Smallholder Replanting project, which builds the future supply of sustainable palm oil production from smallholders by providing financial support.

2016-2017 Events and Workshops

This year was an important reflection point for the forest community on progress against commitments and exchange of emerging solutions. This is reflected in the TFA 2020 convened and co-convened meetings and workshops, the list provides a high-level overview of the main events and workshops delivered since March 2016.

March, 2016 Accra, Ghana Africa Palm Oil Initiative 1st Regional Meeting
March, 2016 Accra, Ghana
Africa Palm Oil Initiative 1st Regional Meeting

In March, Africa Palm Oil Initiative organized the first regional knowledge exchange workshop bringing together six country teams to Accra Ghana. This gave an opportunity for sharing of knowledge and learning across the countries that are at different stages of their national action plans. The participants of the workshop successfully developed the first draft of a regional accord that included a generic set of principles to palm oil development in the region.

May, 2016 Kigali, Rwanda World Economic Forum on Africa
May, 2016 Kigali, Rwanda
World Economic Forum on Africa

Building upon the Africa Palm Oil Initiative and regional workshop held in Ghana earlier in the year, the World Economic Forum hosted a private dinner to discuss the new frontier of deforestation in Africa and the strength of the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 as a regional and global platform to transform the palm oil sector in the region. Session participants included Ministers, representatives of financial institutions, buyer and producer companies to explore how such partnerships can scale the sustainable investment and benefits for the local communities.

An important piece of the discussion was the work of the Africa Palm Oil initiatives in developing a joint regional accord to transition to sustainable palm oil production.

June, 2016 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia World Economic Forum on Southeast Asia
June, 2016 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
World Economic Forum on Southeast Asia

In June 2016, the World Economic Forum hosted a breakfast with TFA 2020 partners and potential partners focused on how the Better Growth with Forest study conducted by TFA 2020 results can be integrated into the Southeast TFA 2020 work plan. The session was an opportunity to highlight the subnational leadership in Sabah towards deforestation-free supply chains. As a result of the meeting, the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020, undertook the jurisdictional assessment presented in this report.

June, 2016 Medellin, Colombia World Economic Forum on Latin America
June, 2016 Medellin, Colombia
World Economic Forum on Latin America

In June 2016, the World Economic Forum hosted a private session focused on the deforestation-free agenda development in Colombia with Minister Murillo and Vice Minister Pineda Azuero. The session was an opportunity to explore and align the value of the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 in the context of Colombia and its ambitious plans.

June, 2016 London, UK Global Landscape Forum Investment Case
June, 2016 London, UK
Global Landscape Forum Investment Case

Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 held a session during the Global Landscape Forum: Investment Case with an aim to shed light on some critical, practical questions regarding successful engagement of key financial sector actors (especially private investors and banks) in the emerging market for deforestation-free commodities.

June, 2016 London, UK London Business and Climate Summit
June, 2016 London, UK
London Business and Climate Summit

Achieving climate-positive land use in agriculture & forestry session hosted by TFA 2020, showcased how leading private sector are taking action to realize climate-friendly growth through sustainable land use in agriculture and forestry. The important role of collaborative approaches and public-private partnerships to accelerate the transition towards low-carbon growth and development in the land use-based economy was highlighted.

September, 2016 London, UK TFA 2020 Transaction Workshop
September, 2016 London, UK
TFA 2020 Transaction Workshop

The Finance Sector Engagement Initiative of the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 provides a platform to design scalable and bankable solutions for sustainable investment. The first Transaction Workshop offered an opportunity for broader engagement around practical solutions for scaling up finance and review of actual financial transactions in the sustainable commodities space.

September, 2016 New York, USA New York City Climate Week
September, 2016 New York, USA
New York City Climate Week

Through a collaborative partnership effort, TFA 2020 held an official half-day event during the NYC Climate Week focused on climate action and sustainable land use in forestry and agriculture, exploring key questions on jurisdictional programs. Panellist including Helen Clark, Administrator of UNDP, Andrew Steer, President and CEO of World Resource Institute, Governor from South Sumatra, Indonesia, and Mato Grosso, Brazil, Norwegian Minister of Climate and Environment and many more, discussed the role of private sector, communities, and civil society parts in the success of jurisdictional approaches supported by examples of successful jurisdictional approaches.

October, 2016 Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire Africa Palm Oil APOI 2nd Regional Workshop
October, 2016 Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire
Africa Palm Oil APOI 2nd Regional Workshop

The second regional workshop of the Africa Palm Oil Initiative brought together regional and national stakeholder representatives engaged in the APOI process to finalize the text of the TFA 2020 Marrakesh Declaration and prepare for the official signing event during COP 22 Marrakesh. In addition, the workshop provided an opportunity for peer-to-peer exchange and creation of a regional alignment on sustainable oil palm development across the countries and stakeholders.

November, 2016 Marrakesh Morocco Official Signing of the Marrakesh Declaration at COP22
November, 2016 Marrakesh Morocco
Official Signing of the Marrakesh Declaration at COP22

On 14 November, seven of African governments publicly signed the 2020 Marrakesh Declaration for the Sustainable Development of the Oil Palm Sector in Africa. The pledge to place sustainability, good governance, and the recognition of community and human rights at the heart of the expanding palm oil industry in Africa took place at COP22 in Morocco.

December, 2016 Berlin, Germany Industry Agenda 2016 Workshop
December, 2016 Berlin, Germany
Industry Agenda 2016 Workshop

Part of the Action Agenda 2020 work a stakeholder consultation meeting was held in Berlin with a group of experts to explore the emerging solutions to scale transformation of the key commodities supply chains. The outcomes have feed into the Agenda 2020 work being further explored during TFA 2020 General Assembly 2017.

January, 2017 Davos, Switzerland Annual Meeting of World Economic Forum
January, 2017 Davos, Switzerland
Annual Meeting of World Economic Forum

Building upon the important progress made in 2016, World Economic Forum hosted a high-level private meeting of TFA 2020 partners and potential partners at the forum Annual Meeting 2017. The meeting convened Ministerial and CEO level partners to discuss the tropical forest country progress on deforestation-free commitments and how the public private partnership continues to play an enabling role for transformational progress. President Santos of Colombia announced the government’s membership in the Alliance and the importance of it to help meet Colombia’s green growth agenda.

February, 2017 Geneva, Switzerland TFA 2020 Africa Palm Oil Initiative Country Dialogues
February, 2017 Geneva, Switzerland
TFA 2020 Africa Palm Oil Initiative Country Dialogues

Broadening the alliance membership

The partnership has seen substantive growth over the last year, especially on the producers’ side, having added 6 tropical forest countries and 11 private sector oganizations. As of March 2017, the partnership includes 90 members, with a full and up-to-date list of partners is available on the TFA 2020 website.

Partner Initiative Mapping

With partners, the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 secretariat developed a voluntary stocktaking of TFA 2020 partner initiatives that are contributing to the implementation of deforestation-free supply chain commitments. The ambition is to create a platform that exemplifies leadership and best practices, for knowledge sharing, for connecting opportunities and for identifying gaps that limit our ability to reach shared objectives. Since its launch in November 2016, 41 partner initiatives have been added to the library by over 15 members of the TFA 2020, with the collection expected to grow further in the coming months. Information about the initiatives is collected through the private TFA 2020 digital collaboration platform, where partners have the ability to create, edit, and share their initiatives and explore and collaborate other partners’ initiatives.

Interactive Map

To showcase the progress of the partnership, selected information about the initiatives is presented on on a GFW engine visual map.

If you are having problems viewing our interactive map, please click here.

Below section provides an aggregated view of where available partner initiatives are active, what commodities are of focus, at what stage are their initiatives and at what value chain segment. Included are also examples of on going initiatives of TFA 2020 partner initiatives.

The initiative mapping process is an ongoing project of TFA 2020 and will continue to be populated and updated through the visual map on

Global Initiatives

Global Initiative Infographic


Landscape Fund for Tropical Landscapes and Forests

IDH, the Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH)
Region of Focus: Forested tropical sourcing areas, with an initial focus on Brazil, Indonesia and Liberia
Commodity of Focus: Soy, Palm Oil, Beef, Pulp & Paper and Tropical Timber

TFA 2020. Photo: Rodrigo Ordonez
TFA 2020. Photo: Rodrigo Ordonez

The Landscape Fund for Tropical Landscapes and Forests, which IDH is expected to have operational mid-2017, aims to trigger private sector investment at a minimum leverage ratio of 1:4 into sustainable agricultural productivity that also protects 5 million hectares of forests, peatlands and biodiversity. The Fund will only catalyze private investments in countries and jurisdictions that are ready to implement strategies to protect forests and reduce related CO2 emission.

The Fund is developed in partnership with UNEP and GEF and will bundle political, commercial, and financial efforts to deliver maximum impact on forest and peatland protection and rural socioeconomic development through a production, protection and inclusion agenda, addressing SDG’s 1, 2, 8, 13, 15 and 16.

The Fund is launched with an initial commitment of up to $100 million from the Norwegian government, based on a capitalization goal of $400 million by 2020, to be drawn from other bilateral and multilateral donors and private sector partners making it a multi-donor, multi-investor fund.

Companies such as Carrefour, Marks & Spencer, Mars, Metro, Nestlé, and Unilever, as well as the Consumer Goods Forum and other industry associations support the Fund. Unilever is the first corporate investor with a US$25 million investment over a five year period

Collaboration with civil society organizations can help ensure monitoring of progress and/or provide technical assistance. WWF, WRI, and The Nature Conservancy are looking forward to collaborate with the Fund to make deforestation-free tropical agriculture a reality.

The Big Chain Tool

Lead Organization: South Pole Group
Region of Focus: Global 
Commodity of Focus :The BigChainTool offers a robust way to generate deforestation and greenhouse gas estimations of the production of more than 175 agro-commodities – including livestock – in any region of the world.

Photo by Neil Palmer/CIAT for Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
Photo by Neil Palmer/CIAT for Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

Until recently, actionable information on forest trends has been scarce, with little data available on the causes and effects of deforestation in corporate commodity sourcing. According to the latest corporate forest report by CDP, only 30% of the manufacturers and retailers who participated in the study are able to trace deforestation-linked commodities back to the point of origin. The inability to assess exposure to deforestation has been a challenge especially for the fast-moving consumer goods industry, where companies are increasingly pushed to take action on forest and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission related risks along their supply chains. This is the key obstacle that the BigChainTool tackles: by integrating cloud-sourced big data with satellite mapping and premium GHG accounting, the tool delivers high-quality maps and automatically generated reports on a specific commodity production zone. Developed by South Pole Group, with the support of Open Forests and with co-finance from EIT Climate-KIC, the tool opens the black box of corporate forest management in the most remote regions of developing countries.

Regional Initiatives Latin America

Latin America Initiative Infographic


Terra Bella Colombia Fund

Terra Global Capital, LLC
Region of Focus: Latin America
Commodity of Focus (if relevant): Shade Cacao, Shade Coffee, Acai, Natural Rubber, Zero Deforestation Milk and Beef, Other High-value NTPF Crops, Sustainable Timber (natural forests).

Photo by James Anderson, World Resources Institute.
Photo by James Anderson, World Resources Institute.

The Terra Bella Colombia Fund is designed to mobilize private equity investments to finance smallholder agriculture, non-timber forest products, and climate change mitigation in Colombia. The Fund utilizes an innovative public-private partnership structure, combining anchor investments from USAID/Colombia with private funds to deliver Colombia’s first investment fund dedicated to smallholders.

The Fund aims to generate long-term returns for investors while delivering measureable environmental and social benefits. The Fund’s investments target the production-end of value chains, focusing on the stages that are managed directly by the smallholder producers – enabling transformation to sustainable landscape management and increased rural incomes. The Fund also seeks to generate financial returns through the sale of emission reductions that are generated from avoiding deforestation, promoting reforestation, and adopting climate-smart agriculture.

The Fund contributes to rural development, especially in post-conflict areas of Colombia, through generating alternative income opportunities for smallholders, including Afro Colombians, Indigenous and other community groups and cooperatives.

Building a sustainable soy supply chain in Brazil

Region of Focus: Brazil
Commodity of Focus: Soy

Photo by Icaro Cooke Vieira for Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
Photo by Icaro Cooke Vieira for Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

In 2014, Cargill endorsed the New York Declaration on Forests, bringing a sharp focus on the company’s commitment to end deforestation. As a result, Cargill committed to end deforestation in its supply chains by 2020 and end it by 2030.

Building on over a decade of progress to protect the Amazon and the success of the Brazilian Soy Moratorium, Cargill is working with more than 15,000 soy farmers at all levels of production across the country to encourage sustainable land use, protect forests and improve farmer livelihoods.

With the Soy Moratorium extended, Cargill is now collaborating with industry, government and civil society groups to implement the Brazilian Forest Code and enforce the Rural Environmental Registry, or CAR. In 2015, Cargill assessed more than 12,000 farmers and found that 60 percent of the company’s direct sourcing is covered by the CAR. This is an important first step and the company is working to expand the implementation of the CAR with both direct and indirect suppliers.

To achieve this goal, Cargill has trained 300 employees to evaluate and track the code’s adoption and encourage producers to register in the CAR.

Cargill continues to work across sectors to advance sustainable soy production, including federal and state governments in Brazil, the Coalizao Brazil Clima, Forestas e Agricultura, the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, IMAFLORA and others. To meet the legal deadline for the CAR, Cargill is also incorporating registration as a requirement for direct sourcing and is asking all producers to provided documented confirmation or sign an agreement acknowledging a commitment to enroll.

These efforts continue to drive progress and complement Cargill’s other commitments to build a 100 percent transparent, traceable and sustainable palm supply chain by 2020, and ensure deforestation-free supply chains for cocoa in East Africa, soy in Paraguay, and sustainable sourcing of fiber-based packaging.

Sustainable Management on Palm oil

Poligrow Colombia SAS
Region of Focus: Colombia, Meta, Mapiripán
Commodity of Focus Palm oil

Photographer: © Daniel Alfonso León Fact Finding Mission Agrofuels Colombia 2009
Photographer: © Daniel Alfonso León Fact Finding Mission Agrofuels Colombia 2009

1) Recognition of local flora and fauna: Before establishing the palm oil plantations, the High Conservation Areas were delimited and an environmental base line was made to know which ecosystems, flora and fauna were within the farms. With this information the management plans were constructed to implement proper monitoring and having a specific plantation design to diminish any potential Impacts; enforcing ecosystems interaction with palm oil plantations; 2) Conservation: Protect local ecosystems by leaving a buffer zone and reforestation areas with native and timber species. This has main objectives, first to improve connectivity, second to separate local ecosystems from palm oil plantations, third diminish any potential negative environmental impact on ecosystems and biodiversity, fourth to have timber for any local use. 3) The use of agrochemicals is regulated to protect flora and fauna species, to avoid any health risk for workers and inhabitants and comply with national and international regulations, 4) Additionally the company promotes investigation on flora and fauna within the plantations to better understand the functioning and interaction between ecosystems and oil palm plantations, 5) Conservation of water bodies: the Company first identified the water bodies within the plantations to create conservation areas, likewise developing and implementing, monitoring plans for water conservation and water quality.

Regional Initiatives West & Central Africa

Tenure and Global Climate Change Program

Lead Organization: Tetra Tech
Region of Focus: Ghana
Commodity of Focus: Cocoa

Photo by M.Edliadi/ CIFOR
Photo by M.Edliadi/ CIFOR

In Ghana, the continued expansion of smallholder cocoa farms has involved clearing of tropical forestlands. Presently, the government seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the cocoa landscape by 45 percent even as Ghana’s Cocoa Board hopes to double cocoa production over the next decade. The United States Agency for International Development through its Tenure and Global Climate Change (TGCC) Program is examining how tenure arrangements impact cocoa productivity and therefore deforestation patterns in order to identify interventions for sustainable cocoa production.

TGCC’s tenure assessment indicates that since the large areas under cocoa experiencing productivity decline also confront tenure insecurity, farmers continue to clear old growth forests for new farms. Unwritten customary land tenure practices create tenure insecurity once cocoa trees reach the end of their productive life leading tenants to seek out new lands. Moreover, this boom-bust cycle has been accompanied by a shift from shade cocoa to sun cocoa to increase productivity.

An important factor in reducing deforestation is addressing prevailing tenure arrangements so that increased land and tree tenure security provides a secure platform through which investments in improving cocoa productivity become less risky. The TGCC project in 2017 will be implementing activities to strengthen land and tree tenure in order to establish the enabling conditions through which productivity increase is accompanied by reduced deforestation and improved forest conservation. Lessons learned from this small-scale pilot in Western Ghana in the near term will help inform sustainable cocoa production and Ghana’s Cocoa Forest REDD+ Program implementation.

Regional Initiatives Southeast Asia View


Integrated Forestry & Farming System/ Desa Makmur Peduli Api — IFFS/DMPA

Lead Organization: Asia Pulp & Paper Group (APP)
Region of Focus: Jambi, West Kalimantan, East Kalimantan, South Sumatra, Riau
Commodity of Focus: Varied agricultural produce.

Photo by Icaro Cooke Vieira/CIFOR
Photo by Icaro Cooke Vieira/CIFOR

IFFS is a community based agroecology programme that aims to reduce threats to the forest through developing productive economic activities at a village level, and encouraging communities’ participation in safeguarding forests from destructive actions such as peat degradation, encroachment, and fire.

The operating model facilitates agricultural reform, incorporating ecological values to determine the most effective way of cultivating crops, livestock, fisheries, processing, and marketing to bolster the local economy, increase food security and protect against climate vulnerability. The IFFS programme provides mentoring and assistance, village mapping (using a participatory approach with community involvement and rights at the centre, through the principle of Free Prior Informed Consent) and product market partnerships to facilitate the transition. In doing so, the project further facilitates strong relations with local communities, clarifies village boundaries and resolves land disputes and land use conflicts over forest resources.

All villages are located within APP concessions or within a 10km radius of concession boundaries. Villages have been selected on the basis of their interaction with forest resources, potential risk of illegal logging, encroachment, fire and social conflict, as well as existing community forest and crop programmes. The programme involves communities from planning through to implementation, with local technical support provided for each programme in its first year of implementation. APP has allocated $2 million per year towards the initiative and aims to implement it across 500 villages in 5 provinces by 2020.

Example: MuaraBengkal Village, Riau

Village Profile: 185 households across 20,000 hectares. 80% of the population work in the agricultural sector, farming rice, rubber or oil palm with an average income of around IDR 900,000/month.

IFFS aims of the village: Develop the village’s paddy cultivation area, improve agricultural diversification to increase the number of harvests per year, and receive mentoring in farming and vocational skills.

Results: Expected 20-30% income increase in the first year of implementation and up to 50-75% by the third year as a result of improved productivity.

GAR Innovative Financing Program

Lead Organization: Goldon Agri Resources Ltd
Region of Focus: Riau, Indonesia
Commodity of Focus: Palm Oil

Photo by M. Edliadi for the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
Photo by M. Edliadi for the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

In Indonesia, palm oil production is a source of livelihood for millions of smallholders and their communities. It provides direct and indirect employment for 16 million people (2016) and generates US$19 billion (2016) in export revenue for the country.

As part of its sustainability policy (GSEP), GAR is committed to helping smallholders improve their livelihoods within sustainable practices. To boost the productivity of one million independent smallholders in Indonesia, GAR initiated the Innovative Financing Program in which independent smallholders are able to secure loans with affordable interest rates through cooperative to fund their replanting. The goal is to increase smallholders’ annual CPO yield from 2-3 ton/ha, to 5-6 ton/ha, through the use of certified high quality seeds and implementation of GAP.

The objectives are:

  • To increase smallholders’ productivity and income while minimising additional land development
  • To engage farmersand build capacity via education and training
  • To support Governmentland certification program and legalise farmer’s land ownership
  • To provide subsistence income during replanting growth period

Since 2014, GAR has mapped out locations of potential smallholders as well as identified more than 1,000 smallholders in 3 districts, Kampar, Siak, and Indragiri Hulu. To date, GAR has successfully assisted independent smallholders to secure a loan facility of IDR 100 billion from a state-owned bank to replant 1,200 hectares with over 450 smallholders participating in this program.

GAR will continue to assist smallholders obtain loans as part of its commitment to sustainable palm oil.

A video of IF from GAR website

Press Release from GAR website (dated May 23rd 2016)


Section 3

Progress against deforestation commitments

A global commitment to eliminate deforestation from agricultural commodities.

New York Declaration on Forests: In September 2014, the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF) outlined 10 goals (figure 1) that provide en­dorsers—including 190 countries, subnational governments, companies, indigenous groups, and NGOs— with ambitious global targets to protect forests and end natural forest loss by 2030, including a 50% reduction by 2020 as a milestone toward its achievement. Goal 2 of the declaration calls for supporting the private sector in eliminating deforestation in the supply chain of major agricultural commodities by 2020, a commitment that is also at the heart of TFA 2020’s long-term objective.

Go to Section 4

Developing a mechanism to assess progress against commitments

An independent network of expert organizations, the NYDF Assessment Partners annually evaluate progress of the ten NYDF goals until 2020. Given the relevance for its mission, TFA 2020 supported the 2016 assessment report focused on evaluating progress towards goal 2, which seeks to eliminate deforestation from agricultural supply chains. The NYDF Assessment Partners developed a comprehensive assessment framework to measure company progress and support for forest commitments. This framework measures progress of companies in translating their commitments into operational steps and implementing policies to reduce their exposure to forest risks. It allows for a comprehensive evaluation of supply-chain efforts, drawing on existing work and data from partner organizations and filling in data gaps through company interviews. The framework is structured around four criterion:

  1. Commitment to deforestation-free commodities
  2. Implementation of private-sector forest commitments
  3. Support by non-supply chain actors
  4. Overall impact on deforestation

To complement the NYDF progress assessment TFA 2020 has partnered with Climate Focus, CDP and Supply Change – members of the NYDF Assessment Partners – to assess progress of TFA 2020 member companies towards their deforestation related commitments and to compare their progress with the larger group of companies that have made such commitments. The full 2016 report on the Progress on the New York Declaration on Forests is available online at

Result of the assessment

Commitment to deforestation-free commodities

The number of corporate commitments to reduce the deforestation of agricultural commodity supply chains continues to grow. Since 2015’s report, 108 companies have announced 212 new commitments, an increase of 43% over the previous year. Supply Change reports that, in total, more than 400 companies have made more than 700 pledges to reduce their impacts on forests and the rights of forest communities. The variety of deforestation-related commitments makes direct comparisons difficult. Commitments range from signing on to high-level pledges, such as those formulated in the NYDF, to individual targets on the production or sourcing of specific commodities. Very few companies commit to zero (gross) deforestation across their operations; most choose a step-wise approach that sets priorities and deadlines for individual commodities. The majority of the 629 companies assessed by Supply Change that source or produce palm oil (59%) and wood products (53%) have made commodity-specific commitments. For soy and cattle, the proportion of companies with commitments is considerably lower (21% and 12%, respectively). This is a matter of concern, considering that cattle have a deforestation footprint that is nine-times larger than the one associated with palm oil. The numbers correlate with the availability and use of certification as a tool to implement supply-chain pledges. Overall, more than 20% of global palm oil and 11% of timber is certified. Most of the companies that have announced commitments are manufacturers and retailers, nearly 90% of which are headquartered in Europe, North America, or Australia. Companies operating upstream in the supply chain (producers, processers, and traders) and those headquartered in Latin America, Africa, and Asia have been slower to act. This may be starting to change, however. More producer companies, particularly those involved in palm oil in Southeast Asia, are announcing their own pledges. These commitments are particularly important since large producers control a vast portion of the market share and have outsized impacts on land use and conversion. Meat processing companies headquartered in Brazil have also achieved progress in eliminating deforestation from their operations. Over 90% of the assessed companies source or produce in deforestation hotspots (Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Paraguay). Risk mitigation seems to be a major driver for companies to address deforestation in their supply chains.

Implementation of private-sector forest commitments

The growing number of commitments to reduce impacts on people and forests represents important progress, but more focus is needed on action. Implementation requires translating announcements into practice, and an important first step is adopting commodity-specific, concrete policies and systems, like production standards, procurement rules, operational plans, and key performance metrics. Significant advancement has been reported on deforestation-related risk assessments, a dialogue with suppliers, and the revision of procurement rules. Once these policies are in place, monitoring progress and compliance is the next step for ensuring deforestation impacts are avoided. More work is needed on this step. Strategies on how a company can eliminate deforestation from its supply chains are difficult to compare, as they depend on the targeted commodity, geography, work with suppliers, and the position of a company in the supply chain. There has been a significant effort to implement supply-chain commitments, yet less than half of the assessed companies have time-bound actionable plans (Forest 500), robust monitoring systems are still rare, and only 45% of companies are reporting on compliance to deforestation policies ( Tracing commodities to the producer level remains challenging for many companies, and very few can report on the impact of their pledges on deforestation. In particular, soy and palm oil face barriers to traceability to the farm level (CDP). Encouraging new technological developments are expected to move the tracing of commodities further upstream to the level of production and will tie them to local forest impact. The majority of companies opt to limit procurement to certified products rather than defining company product standards. Supply-chain efforts are generally more advanced in commodities with widely recognized certification standards and integrated supply chains, which provide easy and accessible options toward sustainability. In line with our findings on commitments, progress toward increasing certified production and sourcing has been good for wood products and palm oil, but less so for soy and beef. NYDF endorsers and TFA 2020 member companies are more advanced—across all supply chains—in terms of adopting commitments and translating them into actions. Companies that are engaged in these initiatives show significant progress in adopting policies and systems to implement their commitments. Companies producing or sourcing from deforestation hotspots are more advanced in operationalizing their commitments (approximately 10–20% higher) than those with less exposure to these regions. This is encouraging, given their ability to directly and significantly affect deforestation.

Support by non-supply chain actors

Meeting the targets of the NYDF, including Goal 2, will require collective action. Unfortunately, limited improvements have been made to forest governance and public-sector support in recent years, though specific success stories may provide a model for future collaboration and partnerships. Despite increasing civil society pressure, Forest 500 reports that only one-third of 150 assessed financial institutions have deforestation-related commitments in place. The United Nations Environment Programme finds only a small percentage of institutions that monitor compliance with such commitments, and even fewer that offer financial instruments to support the implementation of sustainability measures in supply chains. Weak forest governance presents a major barrier to private-sector efforts. Countries have taken measures to reduce deforestation, and REDD+ has increased the political will to improve forest governance. Companies have, however, experienced little concrete improvement in forest governance and limited public-sector support. Nevertheless, the companies highlighted specific incidents of improved collaboration and listed an increasing number of successful public-private initiatives. A growing number of public-private initiatives support the elimination of deforestation at the supply chain or landscape level. Large-scale public programs backed by private-sector announcements for preferential sourcing from such program areas provide a chance for “produce-and-protect” partnerships. Sectoral agreements and moratoria as piloted in the Brazilian Amazon have also had a major impact on deforestation.

Overall impact on deforestation

Finally, there are currently no available data that provide global coverage to determine whether cumulative company efforts are translating into measurable reductions in deforestation, though two tools are being refined and developed (Global Forest Watch-Commodities and Trase) that may help provide answers within the next couple of years.

Progress of TFA 2020 companies

The Assessment found that Alliance members consistently outperformed their peers in both their level of commitment across all commodities and at every step of the supply chain however for all companies assessed a step change in implementation efforts is necessary to meet the 2020 target. [1] Progress of TFA 2020 members was compared against all companies assessed by the respective datasets. Of the 21 TFA 2020 members with exposure to agricultural commodities and deforestation risks, the 2016 Supply Change data covers 19 and the 2016 CDP data covers 14 companies.

Commitment to deforestation-free commodities

Most TFA 2020 companies have commodity-specific commitments towards eliminating deforestation within their supply chain. The share of TFA 2020 companies that have commitments is consistently higher than for the larger group of companies assessed (62-89% compared to 12-59%, depending on commodity). For soy and cattle, which account for a significant share of global deforestation, the difference between TFA 2020 companies and the larger group assessed is significantly higher. Figure 1. TFA Commitments info 1 The higher share of companies with commodity-specific commitments in the TFA 2020 is remarkable considering also the higher prevalence of upstream companies in the TFA 2020 company set, a section of the value chain that has been slower to act. Figure 2. Companies with commitments operating at differentlevels of the supply chain

Implementation of private-sector forest commitments

TFA 2020 companies are consistently more advanced than the larger group of companies assessed and almost all have adopted standards for production or procurement of commodities. Interviews conducted for the NYDF Progress Assessment indicate that many supply chain efforts are however at an early or piloting stage, focused on specific geographies or supply chain segments. All TFA 2020 companies have conducted risk assessments and are significantly more advanced than the larger group of companies assessed. However only a small share of TFA 2020 companies (29-40% depending on commodity) considered risks beyond 6 years and more work remains to be done in assessing risks from a long-term perspective. The 14 TFA 2020 member companies in the sample also made significantly more progress in adopting standards to implement their commitments. With the exception of timber (75%), all producers, processors and traders (PPT) have adopted production standards, and all manufacturers and retailers (MR) have adopted procurement standards across commodities. For the larger group of companies assessed, CDP shows that the majority of upstream (53-69% depending on commodity) and downstream companies (62-87% depending on commodity) have adopted produc­tion or procurement standards. The difference between TFA 2020 members and other companies’ progress is particularly pronounced for the setting of production standards. Figure 3. Share of companies that have adopted specific policies or strategies Across commodities, almost all TFA 2020 manufacturing and retailing members, and most of the larger group of companies assessed report to work directly with their suppliers. When asked about their specific strategies to engage with suppliers, roughly half of TFA 2020 companies and less than one third of the larger group offer workshops and trainings to their suppliers (26-31% for all companies and 38-67% for TFA 2020 companies). Only a small share of companies implement joint projects with their suppliers (7-18% for all companies and 8-43% for TFA 2020 companies depending on commodity) or offer technical support for suppliers (2-9% for all companies and 0-14% for TFA 2020 companies depending on commodity). Figure 4.  Share of manufacturers and retailers that engagewith their suppliers CDP data shows that all TFA 2020 production, processing and trading members who were assessed have their own traceability systems in place across the four commodities, compared to lower shares (75-91% depending on commodity) for all companies responding to the questionnaire. TFA 2020 manufacturers and retailers[2] are only slightly more advanced than the larger group of companies, with a range of 80-86% compared to 66-78%. Figure 5. Companies with their own traceability systems in place

Section 4

Jurisdictional approaches to deforestation-free production offer a significant opportunity for the TFA 2020 agenda

Jurisdictional sustainability programs aim to reconcile competing social, economic, and environmental objectives at a scale that matches the administrative boundaries of sub-national or national governments.[1] This jurisdictional approach to sustainable sourcing is a promising complement to TFA 2020’s existing focus on supply chains. The jurisdictions currently engaged in sustainable development programs have the potential to provide a material contribution to the sustainable sourcing goals of the Alliance’s corporate partners, with the added benefit of reducing the system leakage risk of supply chain approaches, where the impact of sustainable sourcing on the ground can be undermined by actors who are not part of the sustainable supply chain.

Go to Section 5

1. Progressive jurisdictions supply significant shares of the global supply of forest risk commodities

The 34 relevant jurisdictions identified in the research represent a significant share of the total global supply of key commodities of interest to TFA 2020 members. This is particularly true for soy, palm oil, and cocoa, where the full set of 34 jurisdictions represented repectively 41%, 34%, and 21%, of the total global production of key commodities from tropical regions in 2015 (Figure 1). Successful implementation of jursicitional sustainability program in these 34 jurisdition would be then comparable in scale to the success attained by the certification movement, and could represent a material increase in the global supply of sustainable commodities. Figure 1.

2. The jurisdictional sustainability movement is now advanced and implementation in on the way in over a third of the jurisdictions examined

In the 34 jurisdictions, over 40% have begun implementing their sustainable development plans (Figure 2). Assessing the precise status of the land use sector’s sustainable development plans in each jurisdiction is a difficult task. However, three stages linked to milestones have been identified:

  • “Developing plans” refers to jurisdictions in the design and planning phase
  • “Finalized plans” refers to jurisdictions with ratified plans who are working to develop capacity and pilot projects
  • “Started implementation” refers to jurisdictions that have begun to carry out their plans

Figure 2. 

3. TFA2020 partners are well positioned to support implementation of jurisdiction’s plans

Approximately 88% of these jurisdictions have two or more TFA 2020 partners active in the region. Interviews with TFA 2020 partners identified both their willingness to explore collaborating with other partners, and the alliance’s potential interest to help bring them together to help accelerate implementation of these approaches. The review of past jurisdictional approaches has identified several preconditions for successful sustainable development. Each of the jurisdictions studied requires additional support to ensure these preconditions are in place. Specifically, the support would consist of:

  • Aligned incentives. Jurisdictional governments have committed to sustainable development, but the communication, consensus building and resilience required to pursue and complete the task can be challenging, especially after financial incentives have eroded. The government strongly supported a sustainable growth path in all the jurisdictions studied. However, all face potential trade-offs, with many stakeholders stressing that carbon markets alone will not provide sufficient incentives to adopt long-term sustainable growth.
  • Strong design. Planning ensures that projects do not overlap and that they avoid focusing too heavily on a few districts instead of the whole jurisdiction. This is a common challenge for many jurisdictions, particularly because many their programmes build on subregional activities that at times involve multiple levels of government. Weak communication between stakeholders on the scope of their projects often exacerbates this. In addition, many alternative livelihood plans remain underdeveloped in jurisdictional approaches, or are based on areas where scalable impact may be difficult to create.
  • Robust implementation. To function efficiently, stakeholder programmes need sufficient technical capacity to design, implement and evaluate projects. Jurisdictions vary significantly in this regard; in some, gaps exist in land planning and establishing capacity for enforcement. Moreover, the scale of the required investment becomes a key constraint on pursuing sustainable development pathways. Data challenges make it difficult to estimate the exact investment required to adopt a sustainable land use approach in tropical rainforest regions. However, previous TFA 2020 efforts suggest investment needs could total roughly $160 billion annually.[2] It can be useful to compare investment requirements to the assets under management of funds that invest in ecological and regenerative agriculture and food systems. Currently, these funds have just over $500 million in such assets.[3] Even considering broader agricultural funds, the capital base of the 31 leading funds amounts to just under $4 billion.[4] While large, this is less than 3% of annual investment requirements. Similar gaps appear in the jurisdictions examined by AlphaBeta.

Lessons learnt to support partner involvement

While many jurisdictional programs are developing, and finalizing plans, there are some emerging lessons. Based on a review of past academic literature and a series of expert interviews, 10 key lessons emerged.[5]

  1. Be focused. Successful strategies typically have no more than three to six priority areas.[6] It is crucial for jurisdictional efforts to be similarly focused in terms of their social, economic, and environmental objectives, avoiding a “layer cake” of objectives which dilute attention of senior policymakers. It is important that not only are these priorities and goals accepted by key local stakeholders, but they are also endorsed and recognized by key external systems, such as compliance with emerging jurisdictional standards and sustainable sourcing guidelines.
  2. Be transparent. It also vital to have targets that are specific, measurable, actionable, realistic (but challenging), and timely (SMART). Not only is it crucial to have clear outcome-level goals, but it is important to also have clear output and input level metrics to measure progress towards those end objectives. Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) techniques must be robust, but also practical given the starting point of local capabilities.
  3. National-level support. Few sub-national programs can succeed in isolation without strong national-level commitment and support. It is important for jurisdictions to work with national ministries to ensure alignment of their sub-national policies with national ones.
  4. The need for a compelling value proposition to local stakeholders. The reality of land-use decisions continues to be largely driven by near- to medium-term economic considerations such as household income, industrial growth, jobs, and tax revenues. Successful jurisdictional approaches have taken into account these considerations while simultaneously pursuing conservation and sustainability goals.
  5. Look for early wins to build momentum. Initiating site-level activities early in the program, in parallel with policy reforms and enabling conditions, is important to test innovative approaches and build early momentum.
  6. There is no simple answer to understanding the appropriate scale for jurisdiction approaches. The appropriate scale for a jurisdictional program depends largely on the country context, including where authority for land-use decisions resides, the capacity and resources available at different scales, the feasibility of working at larger jurisdictional scales, and the ecological and economic relationship of forest areas.
  7. Capacity, capacity, capacity. A lack of capacity (human, technical, and financial) was identified as the most important challenge facing jurisdictions. Additional support in this area is crucial to ensure the long-term sustainability of this approach.
  8. Enduring government support. Political and bureaucratic turnover is an issue. Jurisdictions need to “future proof” for these events.
  9. Move the focus from compensation to transformation. Early conceptions of jurisdiction approaches focused on compensating “opportunity costs” of reducing deforestation but did not sufficiently focus on integrating forest conservation into long-term economic development plans.
  10. Be flexible on outcomes. Transparency on outcomes is crucial. However, rewarding proxies (as opposed to full results-based financing) can contribute directly to reducing emissions, be simpler to implement, and may better respond to the interests of key actors.

Potential role for TFA 2020

Based on the TFA 2020’s capabilities and experience, several potential opportunities for collaboration emerge to support jurisdictional sustainable development

  • Signal the importance of the jurisdiction’s sustainable development plans and its associated goals and activities publicly to key stakeholders. Alliance members could indicate that progress on jurisdictional plans could be matched with greater sourcing opportunities through their operations. Public signalling and advocacy, particularly by major commodity producers, retail companies and private investors, could help build momentum and political will to implement and see through the sustainable development plans. This is vital, as many jurisdictions are at a critical inflection point; their programmes have either recently begun or are being renewed. The TFA 2020 could also support these jurisdictions by sharing success stories through platforms at international events.
  • Establish sustainable sourcing roadmaps and targets. The Alliance’s multi-stakeholder platform includes companies from various commodities and across the full length of the commodity value chain. Thus, TFA 2020 has a distinctive position in working with its private-sector members and other stakeholders to translate sustainable sourcing guidelines for different commodities into a clear roadmap – one that supports a jurisdiction’s development of a sustainable supply chain. This would require Alliance members in each jurisdiction to establish minimum criteria for sustainable practices for a given commodity, based on their own requirements and relevant, internationally recognized certifications. They could then develop a clear action plan and targets, together with a jurisdiction’s stakeholders, for achieving these criteria. The roadmap would help to scale-up efforts of individual TFA 2020 partners who often have their own sustainable sourcing guidelines, and reduce confusion around the sourcing process. Partners could build on some promising initiatives, for example, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation is working to implement harmonized, verified deforestation-free sourcing commitments for meatpackers, retailers and soy traders across supply chains in parts of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay.[7]

The sustainable sourcing roadmaps could also help identify gaps in the jurisdictional approach and provide opportunities for TFA 2020 partners to collaborate and/or support filling the gaps. Training for smallholder farmers on sustainable techniques and community engagement could be particularly interesting initiatives for further exploration and collaboration, given the large number of similar initiatives within jurisdictions. Alliance members could also help others understand the investments required to support the transition to sustainable sourcing, and the barriers limiting such investments (including risks that inflate the hurdle rate). The analysis of jurisdictions indicated that estimates of investment requirements varied significantly, in both their amount and components. The TFA 2020 could help formulate a rigorous, consistent and replicable methodology for quantifying requirements and the potential returns needed for sustainable practices across jurisdictions. This would improve confidence among investors and provide them with clarity. The Alliance could also support the development of a business case, and “match make” jurisdictions with potential investors. Such an approach could integrate effectively with other initiatives in this space, such as the Jurisdictional Partnerships for Forests, Climate, and Agriculture of the Governors’ Climate and Forests Fund. The Fund’s programme aims to support investment in public-private partnerships to reduce deforestation associated with producing commodities.

  • Develop a cross-jurisdictional platform. Research for the report found that while jurisdictional programmes are at different levels of maturity, they often face similar challenges when enacted. A cross-jurisdictional platform can shorten the learning curve for jurisdictions by providing a repository of local and international best practices for use with the private sector, local communities, smallholders, government agencies and civil society. While many platforms are active in this area – for example, the Territorial Performance System, the Sustainable Tropics Alliance, the Governors’ Climate and Forests Fund and the Global Canopy Programme – the TFA 2020 can play a key role due to its membership base. Many of the stakeholders interviewed stressed that including private-sector companies in the Alliance would create a more effective platform for sharing insights and scaling impact to other jurisdictions.
Jurisdictional Study Mato Grosso, Brazil
Photo: Radamés Manosso, Campo Magro, Paraná.

Size: 91 million hectares

Forest area: 54 million hectares

Population: 3.2 million

Economy: Dependent on agriculture – accounting for 48% of GDP; the state is the largest cattle and soybean producer in Brazil

Jurisdictional boundary: A state (1 administrative level below the national level – Brazil has 26 states); it covers 53% of Brazil’s Amazon region

What makes Mato Grosso a distinctive jurisdiction?

Mato Grosso provides special insight for developing a sustainable approach, which includes cattle intensification, zero-deforestation production and the restoration of degraded land, in a jurisdiction deeply entrenched in global supply chains. The state’s Produce, Conserve and Include (PCI) strategy, presented at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21), illustrates how economic and production goals can be aligned with those for conservation and social inclusion.

Mato Grosso has made substantial commitments to fight deforestation and develop sustainable supply chains. While some programmes have operated over several years, the recently introduced PCI strategy will better articulate production and conservation goals, and improve the coordination of these programmes:

PCI strategy. Mato Grosso’s governor presented the PCI strategy at COP21 in December 2015. The strategy represents a set of goals to increase agricultural and livestock productivity while committing to reducing deforestation by 90% in forests and 95% in the cerrado (tropical savannah) (Figure 1). Through this approach, projections show that the state can potentially reduce emissions by 6 GTCO2e by 2030. Government agencies and a broad coalition of organizations from the private sector and civil society helped to develop the PCI strategy. Figure 1. Mato Grosso 1

Examples of implementation under this strategy include:

  • Programa Mato-Grossense de Municípios Sustentáveis (PMS). The PMS is Mato Grosso’s municipal-level sustainability programme. Launched in March 2014, it aims to reduce deforestation within the state, end poverty and improve food security at the municipal level. To achieve these goals, PMS will strengthen municipal environmental management, regulate land tenure and promote sustainable production chains with a focus on smallholders.[1] Since its launch, about 38% (53 out of 141) of Mato Grosso’s municipalities have joined the PMS.[2] However, it has not become fully operational because land use plans and legislation at the municipal level remain unresolved.
  • Green Growth Initiative. Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI) and IDH are working with the Mato Grosso government to support its commitments to the PCI strategy. Established in September 2016, the Green Growth Initiative seeks to design land use planning for commercial and conservation goals, by support cattle intensification, rehabilitate degraded pastures, develop a de-risking facility for mainstream investments into intensification, and promote reforestation in Mato Grosso.[3]
  • Territorial performance system (TPS). The Earth Innovation Institute (EII) began working with several municipalities in 2015 to conduct spatial planning to improve land use and reduce deforestation. The TPS aims to develop the following: a shared consensus on targets for low-emission rural development; an integrated incentive system for reducing the financial and regulatory costs of implementing sustainable practices; and a transparent online monitoring platform.[4] A web-based mapping tool serves as the system’s core and uses data sources to efficiently monitor sustainability indicators on a territorial scale.[5]
  • The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Cargill responsible soy programme. Both organizations are working to train farmers in responsible farm management practices and ecological restoration techniques. The programme is also testing the environmental impact of deforestation and pesticide use, and aims to reach up to 20 municipalities in the state and cover 25 million hectares of land.[6]
  • Carrefour sustainable farming platform. In May 2016, Carrefour, Agrotools and the Mato Grosso government agreed to develop an electronic system to monitor purchases of domestically consumed beef. The system uses big data techniques to monitor farms and ensures that meat does not come from producers who engage in deforestation, ranch in embargoed and protected areas or on land held by indigenous communities, or use illegal labour.[7]
  • REDD and REDD+.[8] Mato Grosso recently began exploring REDD+ mechanisms to provide financial support for its conservation efforts. Two organizations are working with the state government on this. First, the Athelia Climate Fund looks to incorporate REDD+ structures and indicators in the state government. The Fund uses eco-investments in landscape conversion to provide financial incentives for jurisdictions to meet ecological and social performance indicators. Second, the German Development Bank’s REDD Early Movers programme is working to provide bridge financing to promote forest conservation. The programme aims to strengthen performance-based payments for demonstrated reductions in emissions.

Drivers of deforestation and degradation

  • Deforestation. The highest deforestation rate since 2008 was detected in Mato Grosso in 2015, increasing by 49% from 107,500 hectares in 2014 to 160,000 hectares.[9] Twenty (out of 141) municipalities in the north and northwest accounted for 72% of the state’s total deforestation.[10]
  • The three main drivers of deforestation in Mato Grosso are:
  • Cattle. Cattle ranching for Mato Grosso’s 25 million heads of cattle has been the single biggest driver of deforestation and degradation in the state. Conversion of forest to pasture has resulted in the clearing of over 20 million hectares of forest (equivalent to the size of Senegal).[11] Despite a significant slowdown in deforestation rates since 2005, nearly 26% of Mato Grosso’s land remains as pasture, most of which is unproductive or neglected.[12] According to interviews with experts on the ground, land speculation is particularly rife in cattle ranching in Mato Grosso (and also Pará). Cattle ranching causes further deforestation and land degradation as farmers clear forests to increase their land’s value.
  • Soybeans. Nearly 7 million hectares of agricultural land has been set aside to cultivate this crop.[13] Cultivating and producing soybeans require large plots of land and threaten the ecosystem by reducing wildlife and biodiversity. Soybean production was one of the largest contributors to deforestation in Mato Grosso until 2006, when a moratorium was introduced on farmers who cleared rainforests to produce the crop.[14] In fact, between 2001 and 2006, over 1 million hectares of land in the state, most of which was natural forest, was cleared to make way for soybean plantations.[15]
  • Illegal logging. Despite strict regulation, illegal logging causes deforestation in Mato Grosso. Unscrupulous logging companies continue to extract and export timber from restricted areas.[16] Loggers falsify the authenticity of illegal timber; one method they gain authorization to log in an area and then log elsewhere; they overstate the volume and density of valuable trees in an area and supplement that supply with illegally logged timber; and they buy credits from legal logging companies to be sold as legally logged timber.[17] A study by Instituto Centro de Vida, a local civil society organization, found that nearly 48% of all forest cleared in the Amazon region (which includes Mato Grosso) between 2009 and 2013 occurred without authorization.[18] Most of this illegal logging occurred because of unclear land tenure.[19] In 2012, several amendments to Brazil’s forest code, which waived fines and eased requirements for the restitution of illegally deforested areas, renewed concerns that logging would become rampant again.[20]

Degradation. Forest degradation is a reduction of tree biomass density due to human or natural causes, such as logging and fire. Degraded land is more prone to ignition and fire damage because of its significantly lower level of moisture and higher amount of combustible materials.[21] Land degradation remains a pressing issue in Mato Grosso. In fact, in 2010 alone, over 1.4 million hectares of land was degraded, which was 16 times the area deforested in the same year.[22] Ranching and the development of logistics infrastructure for the agriculture and livestock sector have largely driven land degradation.

Potential benefits of a sustainable development approach

A sustainable development approach could deliver significant benefits to global supply chains, as well as economic, environmental and social outcomes in Mato Grosso (Figure 2): Figure 2. Mato Grosso 2

Global supply chain benefits

Sustainable approaches would significantly improve inputs for cattle and soy production in Mato Grosso by 2030: Soy. According to estimates, a sustainable approach to soy production, which includes intensive agricultural practices and efficient use of water, could nearly double output to 53 million tons per year by 2030. This 20% increase in production from a business-as-usual (BAU) approach[23] (Figure 3) could further boost Mato Grosso’s share of global soy supply from today’s 9% to approximately 16% by 2030.[24] Aside from increasing yields, sustainable soy production would help rehabilitate 3 million hectares of degraded pastures. Figure 3. Mato Grosso 3 Cattle. As human diets globally become more protein-heavy, demand for cattle production will grow. By properly applying cattle intensification and other green technologies, Mato Grosso could increase its cattle population to approximately 43 million heads in 2030 while producing 67% more meat. Cattle intensification would also prevent the further deforestation of 3 million hectares of degraded pastures. Figure 4. Mato Grosso 4

Environmental benefits

Mato Grosso’s PCI strategy aims to reduce net carbon emissions by 6 GTCO2e in 2030. Some of the major sustainable environmental benefits identified in Mato Grosso include:

  • Reducing deforestation. A sustainable approach to soy cultivation, cattle ranching and logging has reduced the state’s rate of deforestation by 86% since 2004.[25] The PCI strategy seeks to build on this and further reduce deforestation by 90% in the Amazon region and 95% in the cerrado. Based on 2004 deforestations levels, this would present an annual abatement opportunity of 447 MTCO2e in 2030, or 6.6 GTCO2e from 2016 to 2030.[26]
  • Restoring degraded land. Cattle intensification and cultivating soy on degraded land would spur the restoration of approximately 2.5 million hectares of degraded pastures. A recent study of cattle intensification in Brazil concluded that restoring degraded Brazilian pastures represents the biggest opportunity for the national carbon mitigation plans (apart from preventing deforestation).[27] It estimates that pasture restoration in Brazil could potentially mitigate 5-7 tons of CO2e per hectare by 2030, or a total of approximately 17 MTCO2e in Mato Grosso.[28]

Economic benefits

Sustainable approaches and economic growth are intertwined in Mato Grosso. The soy moratorium established in 2006 prevents the proliferation of unsustainably sourced soy.[29] Aside from access to markets, sustainable practices can provide the state’s farmers and ranchers with access to finance. Several funds are being created for this purpose: Brazil’s ABC Program (Low-Carbon Agriculture), led by the State Agriculture Secretariat, and the Amazon Fund provide credit for farmers to recover degraded pastures and improve productivity.[30] Similarly, the IDH and NICFI are working to structure a de-risking fund that combines commercial capital with financing from donors and investors. The fund will support the development of cattle intensification and reforestation practices, which a farmer may deem too financially risky to undertake.[31] Moreover, plans exist to develop a federal-level CAR, which would aggregate the registries of all Brazilian states. Such a system at the federal level would reduce information asymmetry over land size and ownership; this would improve lender confidence as well as opportunities for farmers to get subsidized rural credit from banks.[32]

Social benefits

Sustainable production could increase smallholder access to markets and income. For example, IDH’s soy programme provides technical assistance to support the certification of smallholders according to the Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS) principles.[33] RTRS certification allows farmers to sell their products to international markets and reap a higher profit from their harvest. This is in line with the state’s PCI strategy that aims to improve productivity for 104,000 smallholders.[34]

Key achievements and challenges to Mato Grosso’s sustainable development plan

The state has made significant strides to develop a sustainable jurisdiction. However, several areas require additional support  including municipalities in its sustainable municipalities programme, funding for reforestation and conservation, among others –. This support would need to consist of:

Aligned incentives

  • Local leadership engagement. Pedro Taques, Governor of Mato Grosso, has been pivotal in driving the state’s sustainability efforts. Since assuming his position in October 2014, he has made international commitments to improve the economy, fight deforestation and alleviate poverty. This vision is encapsulated in the state’s PCI strategy.[35] Mato Grosso is also a founding member of the Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force (GCF), a subnational collaboration of jurisdictions dedicated to advancing low-emissions development strategies and REDD+. The GCF seeks to advance subnational policy innovation and leadership, sustain engagement and collaboration with public- and private-sector stakeholders at multiple levels, and promote pathways to effective national and international approaches to REDD+ and low-emissions development.
  • Community engagement. Social inclusion lies at the heart of the PCI strategy. Part of this effort involves plans to expand technical assistance to rural communities and increase smallholder participation in the domestic market to 70%.[36] Participation of smallholder producers and buyers is particularly important to advance conservation and sustainable efforts; in fact, a recent study has found that being part of a sustainable cattle supply chain increases socialization and the use of sustainable practices for cattle ranchers.[37] Experts interviewed noted that additional resources are needed to educate and support farmers not participating in these global and domestic supply chains. Most of these farmers have limited access to credit and technology, and struggle to keep pace with more established farms. A combination of these factors tends to lead them to apply unsustainable agricultural practices and neglect conservation objectives legislated by the forest code.
  • National alignment. Mato Grosso’s PCI strategy to reduce deforestation in its forest and cerrado is aligned with the national forest code and Brazil’s commitments made at the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to reduce deforestation by 80%. It is also aligned with the Rio Branco Declaration, which aims to reduce deforestation by 80% and form partnerships with supply chain actors.[38] The strategy’s goal to reduce carbon emissions by 6 GTCO2e is also aligned with national commitments to reduce carbon emissions to 1.3 GTCO2e by 2030.[39]
  • Other relevant stakeholders. Mato Grosso joined Brazil’s system for the ecological value-added tax (ICMS-Ecológico, or ICMS-E) in 2000. An ecologically based fiscal transfer system, the ICMS-E gives municipalities a larger proportion of value-added tax revenue, based on their efforts to protect forests and other ecological indicators (e.g. land degradation, emissions).[40] Municipal and state governments are further motivated to practice sustainable production methods based on private-sector commitments to source soy and cattle only from sustainable farms,[41] as demonstrated by the Soy Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Mato Grosso’s Soy Producer Association, the Brazilian Vegetable Oils Industry Association and the China Soybean Industry Association. Signed in April 2016, the MoU commits parties to eliminate deforestation from Brazilian soy production.[42] Similarly, Brazil’s largest meatpackers (JBS, Marfrig and Minerva) signed an agreement in 2009 to buy cattle only from suppliers not engaging in deforestation.[43] Despite these achievements, Mato Grosso requires additional support to design programmes that provide incentives to smallholders and small slaughterhouses to participate, but who are not part of national or global supply chains.

Strong design

Strategic planning. Mato Grosso’s PCI strategy has a well-represented committee to realize the strategy’s goals. The committee includes the PCI secretariat’s executive director and representatives from relevant government agencies for each of the strategy’s parts: Produce – the Economic Development Secretariat (Sedec); Conserve – the Environment Secretariat (Sema); and Include – the Secretariat for Family Agriculture and Land Affairs (Seaf) as well as the Secretariat for Labour and Social Assistance (Setas).[44] These stakeholders, along with those from the private sector and civil society, are involved in developing a PCI secretariat that will monitor and coordinate the state’s activities. Similarly, and to support the programme, the state’s PMS has a management committee, an executive committee and five working groups (land tenure, financial resource, productive sustainable chain, target plan, and training and learning).[45] Measuring, reporting and verification systems. The state is working with several organizations to improve forest control systems, which include the Integrated System for Environmental Licensing and Monitoring, the System for Commercialization and Transportation of Forest Products, and the System for Monitoring Timber Harvesting.[46] Imazon, a non-profit research institution that promotes sustainable development in the Amazon region through studies, public-policy formulation and capacity building, has been helping the state with spatial planning since 2008.[47] The Governors’ Climate and Forests Fund (GCFF) also works with the state’s Secretary of Environment to develop a forest monitoring and carbon measurement platform at the state level.[48] Together with the EII and the state government, the GCF is in the early stages of creating a set of metrics to measure jurisdictional performance on sustainable production for certain commodities; plans are to apply this metric to all GCF member jurisdictions globally. Focus and prioritization. The state’s PCI strategy recently concluded a 2017 action plan, in which the government will work with McKinsey & Company to design a robust monitoring system for the strategy, develop an institution with public and private capital to attract financial resources, structure the strategy’s governance system and create business models to support investment in supply chains. While progress on the PCI strategy remains on track, experts interviewed noted that the state’s PMS had yet to develop clearly defined roadmaps and activities. Alternative livelihood plans. The PCI strategy focuses on engaging, recognizing and rewarding smallholders as they transition from deforestation activities to sustainable agricultural and livestock practices.[49] To this end, the strategy includes projects to increase access to finance and technical assistance for marginalized groups. However, the planning for the strategy is in an early stage, and any alternative livelihood strategies will not show effects until much later.

Robust implementation

  • Technical capacity. Mato Grosso receives significant technical support from national agencies and civil society. For example, the TNC provides farmers with technical assistance for cattle intensification and reforestation.[50] With the support from the GCFF, the state’s Secretary of Environment has worked with Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM) to refine a statewide forest monitoring and measurement platform. Imazon is also working with the state’s municipalities to strengthen environmental management in the Amazon region by training municipal technicians in geospatial tools to improve environment management.[51] However, the national government’s recent decision to freeze federal spending for two decades creates uncertainty over government funding to maintain these activities.[52]
  • Financial resources. According to its estimates, Mato Grosso would need about $10 billion to promote sustainable practices via the PCI strategy from 2015 to 2030 across the jurisdiction (Figure 5).[53] Although the Brazilian government has reduced federal spending, alternative sources of funding remain. The Norwegian government has funded several PCI projects, which are being conducted by the Amazon Fund, the IDH, the EII and the Earth Defense Fund.[54] Mato Grosso (as a member of the GCF Task Force) and its civil society partners are also eligible for funding from the GCFF to advance public-private partnerships and improve capacity to reduce deforestation.Aside from securing finance, the state is working to stretch its dollar. The PCI strategy’s 2017 action plan includes a donors’ coordination exercise, which aims to map the flow of funds based on the strategy’s objectives and targets, and to increase visibility for low-funded areas. For example, while significant funding has been designated for de-risking and supporting sustainable agriculture, a funding deficit exists for reforestation and incentivizing conservation efforts to reduce logging.

Figure 5. Mato Grosso 5

  • Land use change. Brazil’s new Forest Code, enhanced in 2012, introduced the rural environmental registry (CAR) that promotes environmental regulation of rural land. A public registry system, CAR requires owners of rural land to certify their intent to comply with environmental regulations related to their property. If rural landowners or possessors fail to comply with such regulations, they could be charged according to administrative, civil or criminal laws. Mato Grosso’s CAR is one of the country’s most advanced; moreover, the state has ambitious plans to increase the area registered by CAR to 90%.[55] Having registered over 77% of all rural properties in 2016, Mato Grosso is on track to meet this goal.[56]
  • Governance. Mato Grosso has substantial resources to ensure enforcement of sustainable approaches. The government’s ability to muster manpower for enforcing the soybean and beef moratorium (for farmers and ranchers involved in deforesting) is a primary reason why the state managed to achieve its deforestation goals in such a quick period.[57] The Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources conducts more enforcement operations in the state than in other parts of the country.[58] However, governance faces two potential challenges. On a state level, enforcing regulations on deforestation in the state’s frontier municipalities remains difficult. Nationally, increased leniency regarding the Forest Code, as well as strong opposition from the agricultural lobby, could dampen efforts to reduce deforestation.[59] The Brazilian government’s budget cuts in December 2016 compound this.
Back to Case Studies
Jurisdictional Study Parà, Brazil
Photo by Kate Evans for Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

Size: 124.8 million hectares

Forest area: 88 million hectares

Population: 8.2 million

Economy: Dependent on the service industry and manufacturing – accounting for 56% and 36% of GDP, respectively; agriculture, particularly cattle ranching, accounts for 8% of GDP

Jurisdictional boundary: A state (1 administrative level below the national level – Brazil has 26 states); it covers 25% of Brazil’s Amazon region

What makes Pará a distinctive jurisdiction?

Pará has developed a sustainable jurisdictional approach, without specific legislation for climate change or mechanisms (e.g. REDD+) to reduce emissions.[1] The state relies on its voluntary Green Municipalities Programme (PMV), which is rooted in specific legislation, and the State Plan of Prevention, Control and Alternatives to Deforestation to promote sustainable practices, particularly cattle intensification, zero-deforestation production and restoration of degraded land. Many other jurisdictional programmes begin from an environmental agenda and struggle to transition into the government’s mainstream agenda. Pará can provide insights on how conservation and environmental goals can be compatible and incorporated with an economic plan – in this case, Pará 2030. The plan seeks to spur economic growth and social development by developing the state’s agriculture and cattle sector, and improving transport and technology infrastructure while achieving net zero deforestation.[2]

While district-level programmes have been running in Pará since 2004, a state-wide jurisdictional approach (Pará 2030), which includes all municipalities, has only recently been implemented.

Examples of programmes running alongside include:

  • Green Municipalities Programme and Parágominas. In 2008, Parágominas was the municipality with the second-highest rate of deforestation in the Amazon region. By 2010, Parágominas had deforestation and degradation rates of over 90%.[3] With the support of The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the government developed the PMV,[4] which is committed to ending illegal logging, ensuring zero net deforestation by 2014 and planting 100 million new trees in rural areas.[5] Parágominas became the template for the PMV across Brazil. Pará aims to reduce the state’s deforestation and land degradation by 80% (from 1996-2005 levels), strengthen sustainable rural production by enhancing land title management, and improve land planning. The PMV supports, monitors and enforces sustainable forest practices through agreements with the state’s municipal governments (two administrative levels below the national level).[6]
  • São Félix do Xingu. The TNC signed a Memorandum of Understanding with local stakeholders in July 2009 to establish the rural environmental registry (CAR) for private lands in São Félix do Xingu. Signatories included municipal and state government representatives, the leader of the local cattle ranchers union and representatives from one of Brazil’s largest meat processing companies. To date, the TNC has helped the municipal government register almost 90% of its land with CAR, paving the way to implement actions that further reduce deforestation in the municipality.
  • Portel. Begun in 2008, the Brazilian Rosewood Amazon Conservation REDD+ project protects 177,899 hectares of forest in the municipality of Pará. The project focuses on patrolling and monitoring forests to prevent illegal logging. In addition, it supports alternative livelihoods by engaging local villages as paid staff to protect forest from illegal logging and to monitor biodiversity. The project also funds local sustainability initiatives through its revenues from carbon sales.

Drivers of deforestation and degradation

Deforestation. Deforestation remains a pressing issue in Pará. Together with Mato Grosso, the two states accounted for almost half the loss of global tropical forest from 2000 to 2005.[7] More recently, deforestation increased by 60% between 2014 and 2016, according to the Brazilian Institute for Space Research. The two main drivers of deforestation in Pará are:

  • Cattle. Cattle production has been the single biggest driver of deforestation and land degradation in the state.[8] Between 1993 and 2013, the total herd size in the Brazilian Amazon region (which includes Pará) expanded by over 200%. The ensuing conversion of forest to pasture resulted in over 12 million hectares of forest, equivalent to the size of Malawi, being cleared in Pará.[9] Nearly 85% of all deforested areas remain as cattle pasture. Similar to Mato Grosso, land speculation is rife in the state, and leads to further deforestation and land degradation.
  • Illegal logging. Despite strict regulation, unscrupulous logging companies continue to extract and export timber from restricted areas. Loggers falsify the authenticity of illegal timber; among other methods, they gain authorization to log in an area and then log elsewhere; they overstate the volume and density of valuable trees in an area and supplement its supply with illegally logged timber; and they buy credits from legal logging companies to be sold as legally logged timber.[10]

Degradation. Forest degradation is a reduction of tree biomass density due to human or natural causes, such as logging, fire, windthrows (i.e. trees uprooted or broken by wind) and other events. Degraded land is more prone to ignition and fire damage because of its significantly higher levels of combustible material in the soil.[11] Forest degradation is rampant in Pará, but has been insufficiently examined. A recent study by the Woods Hole Research Center and the Carnegie Institute found that forest degradation in Pará is on the same scale as deforestation.[12] Recent estimates suggest that Pará’s degraded land has resulted in a loss of biodiversity equivalent to clearing 9.2 million-11.4 million hectares of primary forest.[13] A range of factors causes degradation in the state, including unsustainable livestock practices, illegal mining, non-sustainable logging techniques and road construction.

Potential benefits of a sustainable development approach

A sustainable development approach could deliver significant benefits to global supply chains, as well as economic, environmental and social outcomes in Pará (Figure 1): Figure 1. Para 1

Global supply chain benefits

Sustainable practices in Pará could increase cattle production and allow the state to further participate in global cattle supply chains. Pará 2030 includes plans to improve cattle production by practising cattle intensification for 50-70% of cattle lands.[14] It is estimated that Pará could exceed its 2030 goal of 26 million heads of cattle (Figure 2) through proper application of cattle intensification and other technologies (improving feed and smart supplements). Aside from increasing cattle stocks, sustainable cattle production could prevent the deforestation of 1.1 million hectares.[15] Figure 2. Para 2

Environmental benefits

Sustainable approaches in cattle management could reduce carbon emissions by approximately 1 GTCO2e between 2016 and 2028, accounting for nearly 30% of Brazil’s total annual abatement opportunity by 2030.[16] Some of the major sustainable development opportunities identified in Pará include:

  • Reducing deforestation. The state has promoted several initiatives to reduce deforestation, most notably the PMV. More than two-thirds of Pará’s municipalities have committed to it; since its introduction, the annual deforestation rate for participating municipalities has declined to 188,700 hectares.[17] In some municipalities, such as São Félix do Xingu, the rate has dropped to 25,000 hectares per year, an 80% reduction from the average in 1999-2008.[18]
  • Restoring degraded land. Cattle intensification would not only spare 1.1 million hectares from deforestation, but also spur the restoration of degraded pastures. A recent study on cattle intensification in Brazil concluded that restoring degraded pastures in the country is the biggest opportunity for carbon mitigation plans (except for preventing deforestation altogether).[19] The study estimated that restoration of degraded pasture in Brazil could mitigate 5-7 tons of CO2e per hectare by 2030, or a total of approximately 10-13 MTCO2e in Pará alone.[20]

Economic benefits

Like Mato Grosso, sustainable approaches and economic growth are intertwined in Pará. Since 2009, major retail chains such as Walmart, Carrefour and Pão de Açúcar have committed to not buying products obtained through illegal deforestation. Additionally, three of Brazil’s largest meatpackers (JBS, Marfrig and Minerva) have a moratorium that commits them to buy cattle only from environmentally compliant suppliers (with different levels of compliance for direct versus indirect suppliers).[21] Aside from access to markets and profit margins, sustainable practices unlock access to finance for the state’s farmers and ranchers. The PMV supports green-financing systems, such as Brazil’s ABC Program (Low-Carbon Agriculture) led by the State Agriculture Secretariat, and the Amazon Fund. The latter is the first risk capital fund in the Amazon region (worth BRL 20 million [Brazilian real], or $6 million) to develop action for a green economy in Pará.[22] The programme provides loans to recover degraded pastures and improve productivity. A sustainable approach has already proven to be financially lucrative for some municipalities. For example, estimates for São Félix do Xingu show that investing in intensification could more than triple productivity, with real returns on investment of 10-15% over 12 years. It could also increase profit per hectare six fold, from the business-as-usual practice of $39 per hectare to $252 per hectare.[23]

Social benefits

A sustainable development approach would also create significant broad-based benefits for Pará’s population. The state’s smallholder cattle ranchers account for about 7% of its total cattle land.[24] As such, they would not be the main beneficiaries of cattle intensification. However, Pará 2030 includes a plan to expand soy production by up to 3 million hectares by 2030. According to estimates, soy production could increase by 19% annually from 2013 to 2017, and the industry could create more than 18,000 jobs.[25]

Key Achievements and challenges to Pará’s sustainable development plan

Pará has overcome several challenges common to jurisdictional approaches. However, gaps in alternative livelihood plans, financial resourcing and land tenure require additional examination and support, which consist of:

Aligned incentives

  • Local leadership engagement. Pará is a founding member of the Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force (GCF) and signatory to the Rio Branco Declaration. As a platform, the GCF advances subnational policy innovation and leadership, ongoing engagement and collaboration with public- and private-sector stakeholders at multiple levels, and pathways to effective national and international approaches to REDD+ and low-emissions development. The state’s PMV has successfully reduced deforestation and degradation by building on broader national plans, such as the Sustainable Amazon Plan and the Plan for Preventing and Controlling Deforestation in the Legal Amazon. However, 25% of Pará’s municipalities (36 of 143) do not participate. Moreover, some municipalities that registered for the programme do not actively participate in it. Experts interviewed note that these municipalities fail to respond to deforestation alerts and provide only infrequent reports on deforestation. This prevents consistent monitoring and evaluation of the municipalities’ progress.
  • Community engagement. Participation in national and international cattle supply chains has increased the socialization of sustainable practices among cattle ranchers. A study in Pará found that properties supplying cattle to slaughterhouses and making sustainable sourcing commitments were much quicker to comply with the state’s CAR and the new forest code than those that did not.[26] However, interviewees suggested that only 50% of the state’s operating slaughterhouses had made zero-deforestation sourcing commitments. To encourage smallholder ranchers and slaughterhouses not involved in global and national supply chains to comply with these commitments, additional support is required to socialize and design schemes that provide incentives.
  • National alignment. The Pará PMV and Pará 2030 (the latter committing to zero net deforestation by 2020) are aligned with Brazil’s national forest code, the country’s commitments made at the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15), and the Rio Branco Declaration to reduce deforestation by 80%.[27]
  • Other relevant stakeholders. Pará’s Green Value Added Tax formula, established in 2013, includes “sustainability-promoting” variables (e.g. total forest area, the percentage of CAR registration) as criteria for allocating tax revenues to municipalities. This provides incentives for municipal governments to reduce deforestation to receive more tax revenue.[28]

Strong design

  • Strategic planning. The government seeks to promote the sustainability agenda in all districts. The PMV has an extraordinary state secretary directly linked to the government’s chief of staff office. Additionally, it has a steering committee comprising 21 members from the public sector and civil society, and an executive committee to coordinate implementation.[29] Similarly, extensive consultations with state production secretariats and organizations from the private and public sector helped to develop Pará 2030.[30] The plan will also create a “delivery unit” as a focal point between state departments and the private sector. This unit will monitor progress and resolve any challenges encountered by initiatives.[31]
  • Measuring, reporting and verification system. Imazon, a non-profit research institution, monitors the PMV’s municipalities on a regular and frequent basis. The organization’s Deforestation Alert System uses satellite imagery to provide monthly updates on deforestation in the Amazon region.[32]
  • Focus and prioritization. The state’s PMV has developed several clearly defined goals that are monitored using annual targets and benchmarks. The goals include maintaining the annual deforestation rate below 40 km2, having more than 80% of all municipalities registered, and creating a municipal working group for fighting illegal deforestation.[33] Similarly, and together with McKinsey & Company, Pará 2030 has developed a list of 70 initiatives and 280 actions to help achieve its goals. These actions are being tracked through 1,400 implementation milestones over 15 years to 2030.[34]
  • Alternative livelihood plans. Although alternative livelihood strategies exist for district-level projects (e.g. Portel, São Félix do Xingu), plans to develop a state-wide alternative livelihoods strategy remain unclear. Pará 2030 intends to increase soy production, providing an alternative livelihood for cattle ranchers. However, the implementation of Pará 2030 is still early, and the effects of any alternative livelihood strategies will only become apparent much later.

Robust implementation

  • Technical capacity. Pará enjoys significant support from the national government and civil society. For example, Imazon has trained technicians from municipal environmental secretariats on geotechnology applied to environmental management and verification of deforestation.[35] Although technical capacity training has been extended to officials and soy producers, interviews with researchers in the field note that technical capacity for the state’s cattle ranchers is particularly lacking. Additional stakeholder support from all parts of the supply chain is required to provide training and technology for cattle intensification and other sustainable practices. Moreover, like Mato Grosso, local sources note that government-hired technicians have been laid off because of Brazil’s recent budget cuts.
  • Financial resources. Based on estimates developed through international case studies and past academic literature, Pará would require over $1.4 billion in annual investments to meet the goals laid out in Pará 2030 (Figure 3).[36] Cattle intensification for pastures would take up more than half of these investments. According to interviews with local experts, more than 90% of the expected cost (an undisclosed amount) to implement Pará 2030 programmes has been approved. However, the government’s decision to freeze federal spending for two decades creates uncertainty about whether the state will be able to secure the funds previously promised to it.[37]

Figure 3. Para 3

  • Land use change. The government has embarked on land reforms to improve environmental governance while enabling agricultural and rural development. The country’s Forest Act aims to halt the expansion of the agricultural frontier over forestlands to contain deforestation and maintain environmental services.[38] The country’s CAR will improve recognition of land tenure rights for indigenous people and management of conservation areas. However, implemented legislation has not fully resolved disputes in the state, and local communities continue to contest land use claims. Limited legal security and lowered investor appetite have resulted in illegally occupied land, deforestation and speculation.[39] Nearly 39% of state land has unresolved cases of land tenure regularization, which arise from dubious settlement histories and various commercial and political interests.[40] Additional support would be needed to strengthen intergovernmental coordination and improve the currency and transparency of data.[41]
  • Governance. State agencies in Pará regularly carry out joint enforcement, with the environment ministry typically participating with several other state agencies and the municipal government (e.g. the treasury, the state security apparatus, agriculture, ranching).[42] However, recent cuts in government fiscal spending might create difficulties to provide manpower for supporting implementation. Sources closely linked to the state note that many municipalities are planning to suspend their environmental departments. Brazil’s environmental agency and the federal institute responsible for managing conservation units have already significantly reduced personnel (by 30-40%) in the Amazon region.
Back to Case Studies
Jurisdictional Study Liberia
Photo by Flore de Preneuf/PROFOR

Size: 9.9 million hectares

Forest area: 6.3 million hectares

Population: 3.5 million

Economy: Dependent on the service industry and agriculture sector – accounting for 47% and 40% of GDP, respectively; rubber and palm oil production are primary drivers of agriculture GDP

Jurisdictional boundary: National level

What makes Liberia a distinctive jurisdiction?

Liberia provides insights on developing and implementing a sustainable jurisdiction-wide approach at the national level. It promotes sustainable palm oil production, a rigorous Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) approach and alternative livelihoods for forest communities. Despite having experienced a 14-year civil war, Liberia’s drive to conserve the environment has made significant progress since it began in 2008. However, the outbreak of Ebola, coupled with weak government capacity, slowed down implementation. The country conducted its first democratic elections in 2005; the young government requires external assistance in the form of human capital, resources and infrastructure to support its implementation plans. A significant proportion of the country’s emissions reduction and sustainable supply chain programmes are funded by Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI). In addition, Liberia is a Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 (TFA 2020) member and part of TFA 2020’s Africa Palm Oil Initiative (APOI). The country’s “lighthouse” approach could be replicated in other APOI member countries.

Examples of programmes being implementing include:

  • Liberia Forest Sector Project. This programme was implemented by the World Bank in April 2016. It aims to support the government’s efforts to manage and improve the forest sector and protect nearly 1.5 million hectares of the country’s remaining natural forest.[1] Initiatives from the programme include:
    • Forest investment project. The project aims to strengthen regulatory and institutional systems to improve the management of forest landscapes and complete the process of legal reform and enforcement. It will also enhance the landscape management of protected areas and community managed forests. Other components of the project include the operationalization of a measurement and reporting system for forests and emissions reductions, reference level development, and an information system for safeguards.
    • Rubber production through private-sector partnership. This project provides financing to smallholder farmers to replant and renovate ageing rubber plantations and adopt sustainable agronomic practices (see the “Environmental Benefits” section of this chapter).
    • Payments for verified emissions. This project provides financial payments for successful implementation of activities that lead to measured, reported and verified emissions reductions.
  • Africa Palm Oil Initiative in Liberia. The APOI brings together TFA 2020 partners and collaborators within governments, companies, civil society, and indigenous and local communities to prioritize sustainable palm oil development in Africa. The goal of APOI is to develop and support the implementation of a set of regional principles for responsible palm oil development that accounts for the ambitious development plans of countries in Africa. This approach aims to balance forest conservation, community development and commercial interests while supporting the protection of high forest cover landscapes. Ten palm oil producing countries (including Liberia) are currently engaged in the APOI. Specific to Liberia, APOI has conducted national workshops on Liberia’s to develop actions plan for sustainable palm oil production and is working on an implementation framework to guide the expansion of sustainable palm oil cultivation in the country.
  • Smallholder productivity and forest protection programme. NICFI and the Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH) are supporting a programme to achieve forest conservation in commercially productive landscapes in Liberia. The programme aims to reduce deforestation and forest degradation, increase prosperity and create verified deforestation-free commodity producing landscapes. Partners in the programme include the Government of Liberia, ArcelorMittal (mining), Sime Darby (oil palm and rubber), GVL (oil palm), local communities and civil society. The initiative, which began in March 2016, also endeavours to pioneer an investment model where investments in agricultural intensification are tied to forest conservation goals. Core activities of the programme include developing land use plans consistent with commercial and conservation goals; signing protection agreements that commit participants to sustainably produced commodities; enabling investments in outgrowers (which are financially risky); and enforcing forest conservation policies.[2]

Drivers of deforestation

The rate of deforestation remained low during the civil war but has since increased at an alarming rate; the deforestation rate in Liberia jumped by 121% between 2001-2009 and 2010-2014 from X ha/yr to Y ha/yr (if you have it).[3] Between 2000 and 2014, over 500,000 hectares (20% of the country’s tree cover) was lost to deforestation activities.[4]

Two key activities contribute to deforestation:

  • Logging. Illegal and unregulated logging, coupled with weak oversight by government agencies, have resulted in the loss of approximately 600,000 hectares of the country’s forest from 1990 to 2010.[5] In 2012, a series of investigations found that 40% of Liberia’s forests had been illegally sold to logging companies through Private Use Permits (PUPs).[6] These secretive and illegal contracts circumvented the laws meant to protect the forests and enabled companies to use unsustainable logging practices. Even though the officials involved in selling the PUPs were indicted, nearly 24% of the total forest area remains earmarked for commercial logging.[7]
  • Agriculture. Commercial farmers’ and smallholders’ agricultural activities, particularly rubber and palm oil cultivation, have contributed to the conversion of carbon rich forests into plantations
    • Rubber. Rubber has been a major agricultural commodity in Liberia since 1926 when the first Firestone plantation (a subsidiary of the Bridgestone tyre company) established its operations in the country. Since then, 413,000 hectares of land, including dense and mosaic forests, have been converted into rubber plantations.[8]
    • Oil palm. The emergence of palm oil as a biofuel has contributed to a rise in global demand for the commodity, leading to the clearing of land to construct oil palm estates.[9] In the late 2000s, the government signed a series of concession agreements to significantly expand the industry. Over 930,000 hectares of land have been earmarked for development by Sime Darby, Golden Veroleum Liberia (GVL), the Equatorial Palm Oil (EPO) company and Maryland Oil Palm Plantation (MOPP).[10]

Potential benefits of a sustainable development approach

A sustainable development approach could deliver significant benefits to global supply chains, as well as economic, environmental and social outcomes in Liberia (Figure 1): Figure 1. Liberia

Global supply chain benefits

While oil palm is indigenous to West Africa, Liberia is one of several pioneer countries on the continent to cultivate it on a large scale using concessions. The production of sustainable palm oil could significantly contribute to the global demand for palm oil, which has been increasing 6% per year on average since 2000.[11] Current yields in Liberia are exceptionally low by global standards. Yields average 2-3 tons of oil palm fruit per hectare (versus a potential of 6-8 tons of oil palm fruit per hectare).[12] The EPO, Sime Darby and GVL have experience cultivating and producing palm oil and are also members of the RSPO. Cultivating sustainable palm oil, according to these principles, while employing improved agricultural techniques (e.g. nurseries, high-yielding seeds, fertilizer) could significantly increase palm oil production while preventing deforestation.[13]

Environmental benefits

In 2014, the Liberian and Norwegian governments signed a bilateral agreement aimed at protecting the forests by developing zero-deforestation agriculture and agreeing to place 30% of forest estates under protected area status by 2020.[14] Adopting sustainable approaches to palm oil and rubber production and logging would support this endeavour (e.g. committing to zero-deforestation and not cultivating near sensitive areas and water sources).

  • Palm oil. As part of its agreements with IDH, Sime Darby and GVL will conserve approximately 120,000 hectares of forests through “production-protection agreements”.[15] These agreements ensure that deforestation and degradation activities cannot be carried out in the area.[16] Further, adherence to international standards (i.e. RSPO) will prevent the clearance of HCS and HCV forests – 40% of which are in palm oil concessions.[17]
  • Rubber. As part of the Liberia Forest Program, the government is working to pass legislation to limit rubber tree plantations to non-wooded areas.[18] The International Finance Corporation is also working with Firestone Liberia to provide long-term financing to smallholder rubber farmers to replant and renovate ageing rubber plantations.[19] This would prevent the expansion of rubber plantations into dense and mosaic forests.
  • Logging. Liberia has signed agreements with the European Union to fight illegal logging. The country is also working to develop systems to verify that exports are from legally felled wood. Liberia introduced a chainsaw regulation in 2013 to control chainsaw milling in the country. Estimates suggest that maintaining logging and other extractive forest activities at a sustainable level could reduce carbon emissions by 1.6 MTCO2e annually.[20]

Economic benefits

The development of a sustainable palm oil industry could significantly benefit the economy. In terms of investment, the EPO, Sime Darby and GVL will contribute $6 billion in foreign direct investment to cultivate estates and establish operations.[21] Improvements to palm oil cultivation and production would boost the country’s export of palm oil – potentially making it one of the country’s largest export commodities.[22] This will also help Liberia to diversify away from iron and rubber production at a crucial time, as both commodities have experienced sharp price declines (59% and 38%, respectively) since 2013.[23]

Social benefits

Promoting sustainable palm oil and rubber could confer direct benefits to Liberians. Plans by Sime Darby and GVL include developing over 84,000 hectares of oil palm in collaboration with smallholders as part of an outgrower scheme.[24] Outgrowers will have access to extension services and inputs that could increase their productivity. The production of palm oil also contributes to significant job creation; between 2008 and 2010, approximately 80,000 new jobs were created by the industry.[25] Further expansion could create additional employment opportunities for Liberians. Employment by concessionaires would support poverty alleviation, as salaries in plantations are higher than those for other agricultural activities. For example, the plantation operated by Sime Darby pays its workers $5.57 daily.[26] The salary accrued in a year would be nearly three times higher than Liberia’s GDP per capita between 2013 and 2015.[27]

Key Achievement and challenges to Liberia’s sustainable development plan

Liberia has made significant progress since its civil war and the Ebola crisis. However, legislative and governance issues remain potential challenges to implementing a sustainable jurisdiction-wide approach in the country.

Aligned incentives

  • Leadership engagement. At the national level, the government is a member of TFA 2020. It has made significant commitments to adopt a sustainable approach; Liberia ratified the Paris Agreement in 2015 and is in the process of developing a National Climate Change Policy. It also has an energy plan that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10% by 2030, and a long-term strategy to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.[28]
  • Community engagement. To produce palm oil in a sustainable manner, companies like GVL and Sime Darby have committed to zero deforestation, and are also actively engaged in FPIC activities, which ensure that communities are provided with time and information to make informed decisions. These decisions are later formalized through Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) witnessed by the community, private sector and civil society. However, the lack of clear land management has led to some local communities claiming that oil palm plantations have acquired their lands without consent.[29] Additional effort is needed to better explain to local communities about land rights and the impact of palm oil production on their way of life. For example, establishing plantations might cause traditional water sources to be blocked, diverted or drained in the process of clearing the land and building roads.[30] Moreover, despite palm oil companies expanding in a deforestation-free manner, their presence might lead to deforestation outside their immediate control (e.g. road openings, the clearing of waterways, etc.). Recognition that communities and smallholders need to be further involved in the development process is increasing. For example, they can be encouraged to participate in the conservation and management of high conservation value (HCV) and high carbon stock (HCS).
  • National alignment. The country has embarked on several legislative reforms to align regulations and legislation with green growth and emissions reduction objectives (e.g. a national climate change policy, a national wildlife law, a mining act and land rights laws). According to interviews, Liberia recently aligned on a common definition of forest cover and is currently working to increase private-sector and public awareness of this definition.
  • Aligned interest. Although governments may have committed to national pledges, resilience to stay the course can be challenging, especially when financial incentives are eroded. To this end, the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) has provided a $5 million discretionary spending fund to support the government’s transition away from deforestation activities.

Strong design

  • Strategic planning. The Government of Liberia established the oil palm sector working group, which includes government members, smallholders and commercial farmers (i.e. Sime Darby, GVL, MOPP and the EPO). The working group acts as a platform for stakeholders to discuss challenges and develop an accepted national palm oil strategy. The government has also created a REDD+ steering committee, a technical working group and an implementation unit.[31] Key decision-makers from the forestry, climate change and environment agencies are involved in these groups.[32]
  • Measuring, reporting and verification system. The country has not established a monitoring system to verify forest change and land degradation. In 2016, NORAD and the World Bank committed financial support to develop this monitoring system. However, the country lacks support staff to develop the measuring, reporting and verification framework, collect data, conduct “ground truthing” and test the system.[33]
  • Focus and prioritization. As part of the APOI, Liberia has established a set of guiding principles to develop sustainable palm oil.[34] Similarly, the IDH’s smallholder productivity and forest protection programme has established a clear goal of leveraging private-sector finance to support national efforts to demarcate 30% of the country’s forests as protected areas (currently approximately 5% of the forest is under protection). However, a robust operating framework to implement these principles and programmes is still being discussed.[35] The country’s REDD+ programme has also developed a roadmap with annual benchmarks and specific metrics to measure progress.
  • Alternative livelihood plans. The Government of Liberia has made significant strides to support community engagement. For example, the country’s community forestry department at the Forestry Development Authority has assisted local and forest-dependent communities through the Children and Youth In Africa Organizations (CHYAO) project. The project helps to develop income-generating enterprises and manage the forest in a sustainable manner.[36] Oil palm plantations also support forest communities by employing individuals from MOU-signing communities to work in estates as field workers. Income generated from employment is a key driver for communities to invite concessionaires to plant on their land and might provide an opportunity to deliver economic and environmental benefits.

Robust implementation

  • Technical capacity. The Ebola outbreak has led to a skills deficit due to the mass exodus of technicians and professionals.[37] The country lacks the technical capacity to develop sustainable management strategies for its forest and natural resource sector – particularly for environmental (biodiversity and ecosystem services) baseline data, data collection systems and land use management.[38] Interviews with experts in the field note the absence of organized agricultural and forestry business institutions to provide capital and technical knowledge to farmers and pit-sawyers.
  • Land use change. The lack of formal land deeds and obscurity over land ownership are the root causes of many issues facing the production of palm oil in the country. This has led to various definitions of “privately-held land” by the government and local communities. The resulting confusion has caused instances where local communities claim their lands were acquired by concessionaires without their consultation.[39] As an illustration, the government provided a concession to Sime Darby, land that it regarded as “free from any competing land claims”.[40] However, the local communities viewed the land as customary land that belonged to them.[41] A subsequent inquiry found that the Liberian government had overstretched its authority and that it had not been in a legal position to negotiate the land deal in the first place.[42] On the environmental front, companies that comply with Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) certification requirements have committed to cultivating oil palms based on HCV and/or HCS assessments. Non-governmental organizations are also supporting this process. Conservation International is working with producers and communities to demarcate “go” and “no-go” areas for palm oil production. No-go zones are areas that have a high level of biodiversity or provide people with non-timber forests products, income and flood regulation. Although this has been developed at the landscape level, to date Liberia has not established a national-level policy or laws governing carbon rights. Also, no national carbon accounting system, forest inventory or national forest monitoring systems exist.

Governance issue. Inter-sectoral coordination and policy implementation, especially at the subnational level, remain challenging. In a World Bank workshop in 2013, key state government officials identified the need to improve coordination at the senior level (e.g. ministers, directors) to ensure that policies are consistent, and at the technical level to share information and ideas between teams working on similar issues. Moreover, officials from the justice and environmental departments require additional training in enforcing sanctions for forest offenses, raising awareness of what constitutes forest crimes and developing clear land boundaries.

Back to Case Studies
Jurisdictional Study Sabah, Malaysia
Photo by M. Edliadi for the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

Size: 7.4 million hectares

Forest area: 4.4 million hectares

Population: 3.8 million

Economy: Dependent on the service industry (particularly tourism) and agriculture – accounting for 40% and 30% of GDP, respectively; the state produces 10% of the world’s crude palm oil

Jurisdictional boundary: A state (1 administrative level below the national level – Malaysia has 13 states)

What makes Sabah a distinctive jurisdiction?

Sabah’s jurisdiction-wide certification of palm oil represents a pre-emptive step to meet global demand for sustainable palm oil. By committing to a sustainable approach to developing its palm oil and forestry sector, Sabah intends to develop clean waterways, limit deforestation, reduce land degradation and support alternative livelihoods for forest communities. Sabah has the potential to become a beacon for sustainable development for other parts of Borneo and other tropical areas undergoing similar development processes.

Sabah’s sustainable jurisdictional approach is already being implemented. Since the late-1990s, the state has made substantial commitments to fight deforestation and develop sustainable supply chains.

Examples of programmes implementing under this strategy include:

  • Deramakot Forest Stewardship Council Certification. In 1989, the Sabah Forestry Department recognized that illegal and irresponsible logging practices were a threat to the state’s long-term economic viability. In response, the department began discussing a responsible forest management plan for its concessions. Working with the Global Forest & Trade Network, the department developed the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification in 1997. The Deramakot forest is the first and longest continuously certified rainforest under the FSC scheme. To date, 868,374 hectares of Sabah’s forests are partially or fully certified by the FSC (maybe out % of forests this represents in Sabah?).[1] The Deramakot model has since been expanded to other forests in Sabah with financial support from the private sector.[2]
  • EU-REDD+ pilot. The European Union’s two-year plan to implement REDD+ demonstration activities for Malaysia was conducted in Sabah from December 2013 to December 2015.[3] The aim of the project was to improve REDD+ readiness and implementation, enhance engagement in forest protection and support forest communities. Key activities included monitoring biodiversity, establishing a centralized repository of information, developing a framework for monitoring and evaluation, and establishing community conserved areas.[4]
  • Jurisdiction-wide palm oil certification. In December 2015, the Sabah government committed to ensuring that all palm oil produced in Sabah would be certified as sustainable according to the standards set by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) by 2025. The RSPO provides sustainable palm oil certification based on global best practices on sustainable palm oil cultivation. It also monitors and evaluates the economic, environmental and social impacts of sustainable palm oil on the market. In Sabah, the RSPO is working with the state government to ensure that smallholders receive assistance and are included in the certification process. Forever Sabah, an organization that aims to catalyse institutional change through a series of ground-up projects that build capacity to sustainably manage natural resources, protect and restore forests, and enhance social and ecological resilience, is working alongside the RSPO as technical advisers for this programme.

Drivers of deforestation and degradation

Deforestation. Between 2001 and 2013, over 980,000 hectares of Sabah’s territory was affected by land use change brought about by deforestation, logging in reserves and the rotation of palm oil crops in commercial plantations.[5]

Drivers of forest loss in Sabah over the past decades include:

  • Palm oil. Palm oil production is a key driver of Sabah’s economy. Exports and production of palm oil contribute around 20% of the state’s total GDP.[6] Reliance on the industry has led to the expansion of oil palm estates to over 1.5 million hectares (20% of Sabah’s total area). Although not as extensive as in East Kalimantan, the clearing of peatland for oil palm cultivation has also occurred in Sabah (see the East Kalimantan case study).[7]
  • Logging. Logging is another main driver of deforestation in Sabah – especially in the early 1970s and 1980s.[8] A study found that over 80% of the rainforests in Malaysian Borneo (where Sabah is located) have been heavily impacted by logging.[9] The impact of logging has been far more drastic on the island than in other parts of the world because its forests have a relatively higher density of commercially exploitable trees. As such, loggers extract a much higher volume of trees per hectare, causing considerable damage to the forests.[10] Moreover, prior to the introduction of Reduced Impact Logging (RIL), logging activities in Sabah resulted in damage to 50-70% of the surrounding trees during the harvesting period.[11] RIL is a collection of harvesting techniques used to minimize damage to the trees and soil to maintain the forest’s long-term production capacity.[12]

Degradation. Forest degradation is a reduction in tree biomass density from human or natural causes such as logging, fires, windthrows and other events. Degraded land is more prone to ignition and fire damage as it has significantly lower levels of moisture content and a higher amount of combustible materials.[13] An academic study found that nearly 2.3 million hectares of land have been degraded in Sabah.[14] Land degradation is caused (in part) by companies that clear forests for palm oil cultivation but subsequently fail to grow oil palms there. This leads to land that is vulnerable to soil erosion during heavy rains.[15]

Potential benefits of a sustainable development approach

A sustainable development approach could deliver significant benefits to global supply chains, as well as economic, environmental and social outcomes in Sabah (Figure1):

Figure 1.


Global supply chain benefits Sustainable approaches could deliver significant benefits for palm oil production in Sabah by 2030:

  • Palm oil. Nearly 20% of the state’s land has been cultivated for palm oil. It is estimated that by 2030, a sustainable approach to palm oil production could more than double production from 2015 levels. A sustainable approach would also increase production to around 14 million tons – 30% more than the business-as-usual approach (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Environmental benefits

The major sustainable environmental benefits identified in Sabah include:

  • Reducing deforestation. Sabah has committed to increasing its TPAs to 30% of total land. Developing an integrated HCV and HCS map will further support reducing deforestation in the state. Moreover, sustainable approaches to logging and palm oil production could further reduce the rate of deforestation in Sabah and even increase the carbon sequestrian potential. A study on palm oil and greenhouse gas emissions found that the mean carbon sequestration of oil palms in Malaysia with a 25-year life was 2.09 tons carbon/hectare/year (equalling 7.66 tons of CO2e).[16] In the context of Sabah, this translates to a carbon sequestration potential of 17 MTCO2e across a 25-year period.
  • Restoring degraded land. Malaysia will seek to only cultivate oil palms on previously cleared and/or degraded land on mineral soil.[17] The optimized use of land in Sabah will ensure that land allocated for oil palms will be cultivated, rather than used as a source of timber. The state also has plans to restore 500,000 hectares of degraded land from 2015 to 2035.[18]

Economic benefits

Sustainable approaches and economic growth are intertwined in the state of Sabah. The Sabah Development Corridor is intended to boost ecotourism as well as agriculture. Sabah’s green environment is a major tourism asset, attracting more ecotourists than any other part of South-East Asia.[19] The tourism sector contributed MYR 5.42 billion to the Sabah economy in 2013, equalling 10-15% of the state’s GDP. Tourism is expected to double by 2020 from 2010 levels.[20] The Sabah State Government has also decided to prioritize sustainable forest management practices. An economic impact analysis was conducted based on four scenarios arising from these practices: a 24% reduction in harvested area; a 49% increase in the external cost of timber harvesting; a 47% increase in the cost of internalizing the externalities; and a 20% gain in market access. The results showed that while the equilibrium quantity of timber had decreased, this welfare loss on the timber industry was offset by price gains and improved market access.[21]

Social benefits

The jurisdiction-wide certification plan calls for working with other commercial farmers to improve certification for smallholders. At present, the government is piloting a project to certify and improve alternative livelihoods for smallholders. The pilot is being carried out in Telupid, Tongod, Beluran and Kinabatangan districts and will provide access to good planting material and fertilizers. It is expected to be completed by 2017 and plans are already being made to scale it to the entire state. The RSPO estimates that sustainable practices will increase smallholder productivity by up to 85%.[22] Certification could also provide broad-based benefits, such as increased access to international markets.

Key achievements and challenges to Sabah’s sustainable development plan

Sabah’s jurisdictional approach appears well placed to meet most of the challenges commonly encountered by other jurisdictions:

Aligned incentives

  • Local leadership engagement. Local government involvement and consensus are important to ensure that political decisions taken at the national level develop into concrete plans. Sabah’s chief minister, Datuk Seri Musa Aman, is committed to protecting forests and promoting sustainable supply chains. Since taking office in 2003, he has doubled totally protected areas (TPAs) in Sabah, which include state parks, wildlife sanctuaries and forest reserve classes 1, 6 and 7, to 1.7 million hectares (24% of total land in the state).[23] The government has plans to further increase TPAs to 30% of the state’s land. It has also made international commitments to ensure that its forest products (pulp and paper) are 100% certified by 2018 and its oil palm products are 100% RSPO-certified by 2025.[24]
  • Community engagement. It is essential that local communities understand the process of sustainable palm oil certification as well as the potential effects of new laws and regulations related to it. Interviews with experts on the ground revealed that the government has robust plans to conduct community engagement activities, issue manuals to deal with land conflicts and instigate a grievance mechanism to settle any outstanding land disputes. Despite these institutional frameworks, expanding the outreach and tailoring programmes to meet the needs of smallholders remains challenging and requires additional support.[25]
  • National alignment. Since 2008, Malaysia’s new forestry laws prevent the clearing of forest for new oil palm plantations.[26] The country has also pledged to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 40% by 2020 (based on 2005 baselines).[27] Commitments to zero-deforestation and forest restoration through Sabah’s jurisdiction-wide palm oil certification initiative would support the country’s effort to realize these goals. However, experts on the ground note that the state’s RSPO certification process does not fully align with Malaysia’s RSPO standards, particularly regarding land eligible for certification post-1994.
  • Other stakeholders. Under the 9th and 10th Malaysia Plans, the Sabah State Government received $100 million (MYR 450 million) from the federal government to develop green technologies and sustainable practices, providing the financial resources and incentives to support the development of a green economy.[28] While there is general support to adopt sustainable practices in palm oil production, a divide remains on which standards should be applied in the state. Interviews with experts show that while some groups advocate adopting the RSPO standards, which are internationally recognized, others argue for using Malaysia’s sustainable palm oil standards. The stakeholders thus still need to reach an agreement on this issue. Experts also note that Sabah’s jurisdictional approach includes plans to restructure entrenched government institutions. These plans might also encounter resistance from those who are comfortable with the status quo.

Strong design

  • Strategic planning. The steering committee for Sabah’s jurisdiction-wide palm oil certification includes representatives from prominent government bodies (e.g. the Land and Survey Department, the Environment Protection Department), civil society (Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia, Sabah Environmental Protection Association) and the private sector (e.g. Sawit Kinabalu, HSBC). The inclusion of these organizations creates a platform for clear communication and strong coordination between the various groups. Forever Sabah and the RSPO are technical advisers to the committee. Moreover, the committee is supported by six working groups: HCV-HCS-Compensation; Labour; Governance and Legal; Free, Prior, Informed Consent; Monitoring and Evaluation; and Smallholder Issues. These working groups consist of various stakeholders from the government (the Department of Agriculture, the Natural Resources Office, the Sabah Forestry Department), civil society (the World Wide Fund for Nature WWF-Malaysia, the non-profit organization LEAP [Land Empowerment Animals People], the United Nations Children’s Fund) and the private sector (Wilmar, Sime Darby, TSH Resources).[29]
  • Measuring, reporting and verification system. Sabah recently collaborated with the Carnegie Institute of Science’s Department of Global Ecology to bring the department’s mapping aircraft, the Carnegie Airborne Observatory, to the state. The Observatory is the most scientifically advanced aircraft-based mapping and data analytics system in civil operation. It is supporting the state to identify and map forests with high conservation value (HCV) and high carbon stock (HCS).[30] As a next step, the state aims to finalize an integrated HCV and HCS map by 2017. Jurisdiction-wide monitoring of sustainable palm oil practices and verification have yet to be fully implemented in Sabah, due to the early stage of jurisdiction-wide certification.
  • Focus and prioritization. Sabah’s jurisdiction-wide palm oil certification involves four work areas, each with clearly defined outcomes. The state’s jurisdictional committee recently approved its work plan for 2017, which consists of several projects to support the jurisdiction in the realization of its long-term goals. The projects for 2017 include producing an integrated HCV and HCS map, preparing a state-specific estate guide and an operational mechanism adapted from the RSPO principles, piloting smallholder programmes in four districts in Sabah, and improving governance and institutional frameworks in the state.
  • Alternative livelihood plans. The development of a platform that empowers sustainable alternative livelihoods for indigenous communities is a central theme in Sabah’s plans. The jurisdiction is working to provide alternative livelihoods for unlicensed palm oil farmers. For example, the WWF is working in the district of Kinabatangan to train and equip farmers to become native tree seedling suppliers necessary for forest restoration work.[31] Other areas to support alternative livelihoods include plans to diversify agricultural production to ensure food security and food sovereignty in the state. Sabah’s Community-Based Ecotourism Training School (CBETS) aims to develop alternative livelihood options that are underpinned by resource conservation and the management of all forms of waste. The programme is being trialled in Telupid district where CBETS is collaborating with local communities to help them understand the potential social and economic impacts of ecotourism and delivering training in the skills necessary to run a successful ecotourism venture.[32] Although past research shows that ecotourism initiatives failed to reach sufficient scale to significantly impact local employment and growth, the rise of tourism, driven by the growth of ASEAN’s consuming class and the advent of low-cost carriers, could boost ecotourism in the state.[33]

Robust implementation

  • Technical capacity. Forever Sabah is supporting the state government by providing evaluations and advice on innovative policy as well as legal and institutional frameworks. The overarching goal is to align the legal ecosystem and train a wide range of stakeholders, including local communities, to effectively engage in legal issues related to conservation and sustainability goals.[34] Similarly, the RSPO is helping the state government to engage with smallholder farmers while training them on sustainable palm oil cultivation. While the technical knowledge in these areas appears to be significant, the state will need additional capacity to scale up the projects state-wide.
  • Financial resources. The establishment and certification of sustainable palm oil is expected to cost a total of $4.3 million between 2015 and 2025. Interviews with experts close to the project estimate that Sabah requires approximately $1.5 million in 2017 to fund projects that will further these plans. The state is exploring ways to provide financing for its conservation practices. In April 2016, the government convened a consultation workshop to leverage Payment for Ecosystem Services as a source of financing. [35] This method is an innovative financing mechanism developed to supplement funding by generating alternative revenue to protect areas and manage sustainable resources. An example is levying tourist fees to maintain natural wonders. The state is also seeking funding from the government and other multilaterals.
  • Land use change. Sabah has developed several pieces of legislation that regulate land use and recognize the rights of native lands. A case in point is the state’s Land Ordinance (1930), which recognizes native customary rights to land and provides the native landholder a permanent right of use.[36] More recently, the Governance and Legal working group conducted reviews and analyses of state and national laws to improve legislation.[37] The working group is also supporting forest communities to understand and engage with legislation that is affecting them.
  • Governance issue. The members of the state’s jurisdiction-wide certification programme include organizations and experts with a wealth of experience in RSPO principles and the certification process, helping to implement coherent and consistent policy action in the state. The state government has also added officers in every district to enhance the protection and management of forest reserves. However, various challenges around land titling, planning and enforcing contract agreements remain unresolved. While the state’s technical advisers and working groups are working to resolve several of these issues, additional financial support and capacity are needed to implement these mechanisms.
Back to Case Studies
Jurisdictional Study East Kalimantan, Indonesia
TFA 2020. March 14, 2016

Size: 13 million hectares

Forest area: 8.5 million hectares

Population: 3.4 million

Economy: Dependent on the coal mining and the oil and gas industry; agriculture and logging account for 6% of GDP

Jurisdictional boundary: A province located on the island of Borneo between Central and North Kalimantan (1 administrative level below the national level – Indonesia has 34 provinces)

What makes East Kalimantan a distinctive jurisdiction?

East Kalimantan provides insights on how a jurisdiction can operate at multiple scales in parallel – simultaneously driving district-level programmes with an overall province-wide stratagem. East Kalimantan’s jurisdictional approach also demonstrates the effectiveness of sustainable methods, which include “land swaps” (i.e. reallocating production to already degraded or deforested land as opposed to forests),[1] sustainable palm oil certification and community engagement; only approximately 20% of all allocated land has been operationalized for oil palm plantations.

East Kalimantan is in the process of finalizing its jurisdictional plans. Its government passed legislation to reduce carbon emissions from forest loss and land degradation by 15.6% from 2012 to 2020.[2] In June 2016, East Kalimantan’s Emission Reduction Project Idea Note to reduce emissions was accepted by the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Carbon Fund.

Examples of programmes implementing under a sustainable development approach

  • Vision 2030 East Kalimantan strategy. The provincial government recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Global Green Growth Institute to support green growth development. The programme aims to diversify economic activity and provide equitable distribution of benefits. The Memorandum of Understanding also included a medium-term development plan (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Daerah [RPJMD]) for the 2014 to 2018 period. RPJMD creates a binding framework of action for governments at the province and district levels, increasing coordination and cooperation between agencies.[3]
  • Berau Forest Carbon Program. Berau is the first REDD+ programme in Indonesia to span an entire political jurisdiction and it is being used to inform East Kalimantan’s REDD+ strategy.[4] It aims to reduce carbon emissions in the district through the community management of forests, impact logging control and land use control of oil palm plantations, among others. Stakeholders in this programme include The Nature Conservancy, the Forests and Climate Change Programme (FORCLIME) and other natural resource companies.
  • Community Carbon Measurement Project and Green Development Action Plan in Kutai Barat and Mahakam Ulu. The programme initially involved testing the feasibility of community involvement in measuring and monitoring forest carbon levels in Kutai Barat. But is has progressed to developing a REDD+ strategic action plan for the two districts. The plan identifies specific policy objectives and supports the implementation of initiatives to be carried out by district governments to address its objectives.
  • Green Growth Compact (GGC) development. Led by the Provincial Climate Change Council with support from The Nature Conservancy, the GGC will include the development of a roadmap, a finance plan, a multistakeholder platform, cross-sectoral commitments and agreements to promote sustainable practices in the province. The GGC is designed to revitalize and scale up East Kalimantan’s efforts to conserve its valuable natural capital through coordinated sustainable development actions. It involves convening key stakeholders within the jurisdiction to create a shared low-emissions development plan that lays out an interrelated set of policy, finance and implementation commitments. The compact aims to help actors translate existing goals, commitments and interests into fully implementable and operational solutions through improving cooperation. The GGC’s implementation will help East Kalimantan to achieve its mission to “increase economic growth by 8% and reduce emissions by 1,000 tons CO2 equivalent per $1 million GDP” by 2030.

Drivers of deforestation and degradation

Data from the Ministry of Forestry and Environment show that from 1990 to 2014, the province lost 1.6 million hectares, or 20%, of its total forested area. Several factors can be attributed to this forest loss, including legal and illegal natural forest logging, planned industrial-scale palm and forestry plantation expansion, mining development, small-scale community-driven forest conversion, and widespread fires linked to El Niño events.

  • Palm oil. Significant deforestation in East Kalimantan arose from the development of palm oil in forested areas – especially in the peatland. Peat is partially decayed vegetation or organic matter that in its natural state is usually found in marshy areas or bogs. Peatlands have very high carbon content (more than 10 times that of normal soil). Academic research indicates that the degradation of moderate to deep peatlands generates up to 20 times the emissions as the same acreage of forest converted to other uses.[5] Dried peat is also very susceptible to fire and difficult to extinguish, increasing the risk of forest fires. Of the 3 million hectares gazetted for oil palm production in East Kalimantan, an estimated 332,000 reside in peatland.[6] The development of peatlands into oil palm plantations could significantly increase provincial greenhouse gas emissions and decrease the province’s carbon stocks by around 135 MTCO2e in the long run.[7]
  • Pulp and paper. The pulp and paper sector has grown substantially in East Kalimantan over the past 30 years. The expansion of plantations has been driven by demand for fibre in Indonesian mills and for export abroad. Deforestation has been compounded by licensing systems that are exploited by several forestry companies and errant officials. This has resulted in vast areas being licensed, cleared for timber and then abandoned without being replanted. New mills have continually been licensed at capacity levels that far exceed plantation fibre production to meet international demand from markets like China. The result is that most fibre for Indonesian pulp mills has come from clearing natural forests.

Potential benefits of a sustainable development approach

A sustainable development approach could deliver significant benefits to global supply chains, as well as economic, environmental and social outcomes in East Kalimantan (Figure 1): Figure 1.

Global supply chain benefits

A sustainable development approach in East Kalimantan could deliver substantial benefits to global supply chains; by 2030, oil palm production could increase by 24% from a “business-as-usual” (BAU) approach (Figure 2). This could be achieved by smallholders’ yield improvements (by up to 59% above BAU) and by yield improvements of large-scale farmers (by up to 20% above BAU), based on international evidence.[8] The potential in Indonesia (and East Kalimantan) could be even higher. For example, McKinsey Global Institute estimates that smallholder yields in Indonesia could potentially increase by more than 90% by 2030, or at a rate of about 3% per year.[9] The development of sustainable palm oil could also be coupled with reduced deforestation by shifting pre-allocated oil palm concessions to existing degraded land. Academic evidence suggests that this shift to degraded land could have short-term productivity costs, but that over the longer term (5-10 years), yields are likely to increase and could come close to or reach conventional tillage yields (before further productivity gains are achieved through such mechanisms as farmer training programmes).[10] In total, oil palm production could increase from eight million metric tons in 2013 to over 119 million metric tons by 2030.[11] The increase from using sustainable practices, coupled with the expansion of palm oil concessions, could help develop East Kalimantan into one of Indonesia’s leading palm oil producing provinces.

Figure 2.


Environmental benefits

The potential to demonstrate tangible environmental benefits is high (as highlighted above). By 2030, the province could reduce its emissions by an estimated 197 MTCO2e.[12] Yield improvements in isolation are unlikely to cause a decrease in plantation expansion; in fact, they could encourage expansion as palm oil becomes even more profitable. Therefore, yield improvements must be made in conjunction with strictly planned land use for palm oil, set targets on production and unplanted lands, strengthened protection efforts in conservation and protected forests and, potentially, REDD payments to protect forests that would otherwise be needed for palm oil expansion. The major sustainable development opportunities identified in East Kalimantan include:

  • Reducing deforestation. A key driver of deforestation in the province is the lack of proper spatial planning and the frequent occurrence of overlapping land claims.[13] The province’s One Map Policy will combine the various maps used by the levels of government and agencies. Reliance on a single map will improve data quality and collection, and the assignment of land concessions. These initiatives will support better spatial planning and resolve overlapping land claims.
  • Restoring degraded land. The government is relocating agricultural development activities (e.g. palm oil estates, food estates) from forested land into existing deforested and degraded land. Establishing palm oil estates will further increase the carbon sequestration of the province; a report by Dewan Daerah Perubahan Iklim found that in areas where oil palm had been planted on degraded land, the net increase of carbon sequestration was approximately 30-40 tons of carbon per hectare.[14]

Economic benefits

On the economic front, the province’s Vision 2030 East Kalimantan strategy intends to reduce its reliance on mining and oil and gas to 17% of GDP (from 48% today), while increasing the agricultural contribution to GDP to 10% (from 4% today), and industrial processing and manufacturing to 42% (from 23% currently).[15] This is borne out of economic necessity given the low current oil prices. Developing the agricultural sector would further benefit farmers and farm workers, who form the bulk of the workforce in the province. Results-based financing will provide an additional incentive to shift away from BAU practices. The potential for economic development could be significant, for both the province’s GDP and employment. For example, a sustainable development pathway was estimated to be able to increase average (real per capita) incomes in neighbouring Central Kalimantan in 2030 by around 13-17% above a BAU approach.[16]

Social benefits

A sustainable development approach could also create significant broad-based benefits for the people of East Kalimantan. For example, enhancing land tenure and improving smallholder productivity could improve the overall yield of smallholders by around 59% by 2030. Developing the agricultural sector would also reduce rural poverty. An academic study shows that agricultural GDP growth in Indonesia is correlated to reduced overall rural poverty rates.[17] In the case of East Kalimantan, adopting sustainable approaches can support the reduction of rural poverty rates by approximately 28% by 2030 – if the province realizes its goal of increasing agricultural contribution to GDP from 4% to 10% growth.[18]

Key achievements and challenges to East Kalimantan’s sustainable development plan

East Kalimantan has set out an ambitious goal to reduce carbon emissions. Although the jurisdiction has made significant strides to develop and implement initiatives to support this endeavour, several technical and capacity gaps require additional public, private and civil society support:

Aligned incentives

  • Local leadership engagement. Local government involvement and consensus are important to ensure that political decisions taken at the national level develop into concrete plans. In the case of East Kalimantan, the provincial government has been a strong advocate of sustainable approaches. The government is a founding member of the Governor’s Climate and Forest Task Force and a signatory to the Rio Branco Declaration to reduce tropical deforestation. It has also instituted a low-carbon growth strategy; issued a moratorium on new licences for mining, forestry and palm oil; and developed the Action Plan for Reducing Greenhouse Gases and the REDD+ Provincial Strategy and Action Plan. However, issues at the district level persist, as not all government stakeholders are engaged in the process.
  • Community engagement. Engagement on sustainable resource management remains limited. One positive example is SIGAP REDD+ (Communities Inspiring Action for Change in REDD+/Aksi Inspiratif warga untuk perubahan dalam REDD+). This approach engages local communities from the start to ensure their commitment to forest and natural resource management, while simultaneously improving their livelihoods. SIGAP’s action points are: (i) communicating a long-term vision of village land protection and village development; (ii) formulating a socially, environmentally and economically integrated “green” village development plan; (iii) establishing collaborative forest arrangements with companies; (iv) securing forest management rights; and (v) accessing financial support.[19] Many new regulations to support a sustainable approach in the province have come into effect only recently and might encounter enforcement challenges at the district/landscape level.[20]
  • National alignment. East Kalimantan’s province-wide emissions reduction programme is in line with Indonesia’s national effort to reduce emissions. The province has also been designated as a pilot site for Indonesia’s national Green Growth Program.[21] However, many national policies and processes are still being developed. More time is needed for these policies to be implemented in the province.
  • Other stakeholders. The province’s district governments provide land permits and earn royalties from mining and palm oil concessions.[22] This could potentially lead to cases where national and provincial policies are not fully adhered to due to the financial incentives accrued from royalties.

Strong design

  • Strategic planning. As experienced in the Berau Forest Carbon Program, coordination between various initiatives across several sites and levels of government in East Kalimantan can be difficult.[23]  This is caused by weak communication between various stakeholders on the scope of their different projects. Mechanisms to improve coordination between agencies and other relevant stakeholders on the ground are still being developed.
  • Measuring, reporting and verification systems. Consistently keeping track of green growth goals and actions is critical to building transparency and confidence in the international climate regime. Measuring, reporting and verification (MRV) systems have been developed for district-level programmes, but a province-wide approach is still in development.
  • Focus and prioritization. East Kalimantan’s “green economy” development is one of seven policy directions designed to increase investments and diversify the province’s economy.[24] Although a roadmap has been defined to highlight the broad, short-term (2014-2015), medium-term (2016-2019) and long-term (2020-2025), outcomes needed to realize this goal, an investment roadmap has yet to be outlined to indicate specific actions and metrics to consistently measure progress.[25]
  • Alternative livelihood plans. Alternative livelihood strategies exist in the province – but only for district-level projects (e.g. the Berau Forest Carbon Program). Plans to develop a province-wide alternative livelihood approach remain undefined. The East Kalimantan Investment Roadmap for 2014-2025 identifies certain key enablers, such as small and medium-sized enterprise development, but places limited focus on alternative sectors that could be developed.

Robust implementation

  • Technical capacity. In East Kalimantan, the capacity of staff in Forest Management Units (KPH[26]), government officials and forest communities requires additional support to increase the scope and strength of forest protection.[27]
  • Financial resources. Inclusion into the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Carbon Fund alongside grants from the Berau Forest Carbon Program and Green Development Action Plan will provide financial support for East Kalimantan’s emissions reduction programme. The FCPF estimates, however, that the province requires an additional $157 million over the next eight years to fully fund the project (Figure 3).[28] Based on international case studies and existing literature, AlphaBeta estimates that the province could require up to $336 million in annual investments to fully transform the entire state’s land for sustainable use.[29] A large bulk of this investment would be focused on improving commercial yields for palm oil and restoring degraded land. Although these units form part of an ambitious reform programme to build appropriate institutional capacity to manage forest estates, the financing to implement the KPHs is insufficient.

Figure 3.

  • Land use change. East Kalimantan’s One Map Policy aims to assimilate various maps used by the levels of government and agencies in the province. The use of a single map will improve data quality and collection, and the assignment of land concessions. However, plotting a single map is onerous, technically challenging and slow. The Geospatial Information Agency announced in July 2016 that it had finished the first stage of the project, which involved the compilation of maps from all government agencies. The process of verifying and integrating the data across the provinces is expected to take until 2019. It will prove challenging as it involves convening government agencies, companies and communities to work through conflicting land claims and resolve the boundary overlaps.[30]
  • Governance issues. East Kalimantan’s KPHs were created to improve the oversight of production, protection and social objectives. The province plans to establish 20 KPHs. They will be responsible for overseeing licence holders, monitoring land use activities and helping to facilitate law enforcement. Only two KPHs were active in 2015.[31]
Back to Case Studies
Section 5

An emerging agenda for achieving the 2020 goal

The assessment of progress on Goal 2 of the New York Declaration of Forests points towards the urgent need to sustain and accelerate momentum if the 2020 goal is to be met.

This is why TFA 2020 begun a process of stakeholder consultations to identify a set of priority strategies and actions to pursue over the next three years. While this list is still emerging, it forms the basis of the discussion at our upcoming General Assembly.

Go to Section 1

Palm oil sector priorities

Scale and improve certification efforts.

With more than 20% of palm oil being certified, certification has reached a certain momentum, which should not be discouraged. Full certification is a goal that is easy to communicate and allows relevant stakeholders to rally behind. It is essential however that the push for certification goes along with efforts to improve the credibility of the standard and provide incentives to smallholders and other producers that fail to see the benefits of engagement. Jurisdictional or landscape certification can help to include smallholders where certification requirements are backed with financial support and sustainable intensification.

Intensify palm oil production on existing agricultural land.

Smallholders make up 40% of global palm oil production land but only produce approximately 30% of global crude palm oil. There are both economic and conservation benefits to closing the productivity gap for smallholders and underperforming plantations. The prospect of increasing yields can motivate farmers to participate in sustainability schemes. Intensification also helps to align climate and development goals by reducing the demand for forested lands while increasing smallholder farmer incomes.

Connect palm oil production to climate finance.

Intensification and other sustainability programs (including payments for ecosystem services (PES) for conservation) could become beneficiaries of climate finance where governments include such programs into their climate strategies. They can become a tool to achieve targets set out in Nationally Determined Contributions[2]. Backed by transactions negotiated in the context of Article 6 Paris Agreement, palm oil programs could benefit from cooperative approaches and partnerships between forest and donor countries.

Beef sector priorities

Support multi-commodity jurisdictional programs in Brazil.

Brazilian States have developed a number of very promising jurisdictional initiatives that are among the most advanced internationally. Counting on comparatively strong legal frameworks, integrated supply chains, an active civil society, and successfully piloted sustainable production methods, supporting Brazilian States in their efforts has the potential to effectively reduce deforestation while showcasing to the world how different governance and implementation elements could complement each other in the context of jurisdictional programs.

Promote sustainable beef production in Latin America.

Moderate intensification based on improved pasture and herd management, holds significant potential to reduce the land footprint of cattle while increasing productivity. Pilots have successfully been tested in Brazil and are ready to be scaled up. Interventions that include conservation, restoration, and alternative economic use as part of intensification programs have been successfully piloted over the last years and hold great potential for more efficient use of land.

Public-private collaboration to agree, establish, and enforce traceability systems and sustainable production standards.

Public-private collaborative efforts, such as the G4 Cattle Agreement have helped to increase transparency in the beef supply chain, but do not go far enough. They would have to be expanded to allow full traceability of animals throughout their lifetime. While the Brazilian reporting and verification efforts need to be deepened, the approach based on company agreements could provide a model for other countries.

Soy sector priorities

Accelerate implementation and compliance with the Brazilian Forest Code and work towards full Rural Environmental Registry (CAR, the acronym in Portuguese) registration and validation process.

The implementation of the Forest Code and limitation to legally produced commodities is an essential first step towards elimination of deforestation from agricultural production. Additional measures such as certification, moratoria and private standards can build on legal compliance and ensure that deforestation is effectively eliminated from agricultural production by 2020.

Promote the development of a green development plan for the Cerrado and potentially other key ecosystems such as the Chaco.

In combination with an accelerated completion and validation of the information registered in the CAR, a number of other measures could be facilitated and/or implemented to create incentives for further participation of the private sector, including (i) making use climate finance in the context of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and results-based payments for REDD+ in the Cerrado; (ii) further engaging with jurisdictional approaches as a laboratory for federal action and to stimulate the emergence of public-private platforms for multi-level stakeholder participation; (iii) further assess the potential and assist in the development of a balanced and well regulated market for environmental reserve quotas (“CRAs”) in the Cerrado; and (iv) when possible, adjust and gradually extend the Soy Moratorium to the Cerrado biome.

Cross-commodities priorities

Make law enforcement priorities across all commodity systems.

To effectively address deforestation, existing legal frameworks need to be implemented and enforced. National and local governments have to play a central role in the reduction of commodity-driven deforestation. Lack of law enforcement and corruption indirectly drive deforestation. Whether the Forest Code in Brazil or anti-fire regulations and policies in Indonesia, the implementation of existing laws should take priority across commodities.

Enhance disclosure to promote transparent supply chains.

Problems related to the traceability of deforestation through complex supply chains have been identified as a major challenge in the palm oil, soy, and beef supply chains. In all three cases it has proven difficult to trace the provenance of a commodity to the producer level. Whether information ends at the mill (palm oil), intermediaries and traders (soy), or the last direct supplier (beef), more needs to be done to increase the transparency within supply chains. Supply chain information informs companies at the processing and retail level to understand where and through which actions their supply chains are linked to deforestation.

Promote public-private cooperation in the context of jurisdictional approaches.

Initiatives at jurisdictional scale provide a tool across supply chains to consolidate various sustainability efforts, create a platform for public-private partnerships, and allow monitoring and supply chain management at scale. Cooperation at the jurisdictional level enables embedding of private sector commodity commitments within government programs at the jurisdictional scale that strengthen governance and land planning activities. Such programs can be linked with results-based payments for REDD+ and jurisdictional approaches to certification.[3] Jurisdictional approaches also present opportunities to address displacement of activities (leakage) and replacement of commodities as deforestation drivers.

Link monitoring to response measures at the local level.

It is important that essential information on forest loss is communicated quickly to decision makers. Based on this information, public and private stakeholders should collectively decide on measures to be taken to address local deforestation. They should develop annual action plans that would allocate these measures to actors most able to undertake them. The result would be a cooperative partnership at the local level that is able to react quickly to changes in deforestation patterns.

Hold importers accountable.

Demand-side measures from importing country governments support sustainable supply chains. Policy and legal action from importing countries include the elimination of illegality from imports, adoption of procurement standards, promotion of transparency and disclosure requirement, leveraging and mainstreaming existing commitments and actions by leading industry players.

Mobilize finance for sustainable land use.

Redirecting finance to sustainable production presents one of the greatest opportunities to facilitate the transformational change required to eliminate deforestation from agricultural supply chains. This includes both the divestment from companies producing unsustainably, as well as the more proactive investment in sustainable land use businesses. Presently, progress in mainstreaming sustainable production is significantly hindered by the risk and inferiority of returns compared to conventional production.


The Dutch Ministry for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation

The Dutch Ministry for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation

This report and the work of Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 is funded with The Dutch Ministry for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation.

Norwegian Ministry of the Environment

Norwegian Ministry of the Environment

This report and the work of Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 is funded by Norwegian Ministry of the Environment from the Norwegian government.

UK Department for International Development

UK Department for International Development

This report and the work of Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 is funded with UK aid from the UK government (DFID).

World Economic Forum

The World Economic Forum

The World Economic Forum supports the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 by leveraging its networks, platforms, and expertise an international organisation for public-private cooperation. The TFA 2020 secretariat is also hosted at the Forum’s headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland.

Thank you for reading our report
Download the report Return to the top


To view all the footnotes attributed to the TFA 2020 Annual Report, please click the link below.

Section 2

  1. TFA 2020, WWF and Proforest, Legal compliance and elimination of deforestation from commodity production in Brazil: useful tools and initiatives for value chain companies, 2016.
  2. World Economic Forum and TFA 2020, The Role of the Financial Sector in Deforestation-free Supply Chains, Research Report, 2017.
  3. Ibid.
  4. McKinsey Global Institute; Forest Investment Review; literature review; AlphaBeta interviews.
  5. World Economic Forum and TFA 2020, The Role of the Financial Sector in Deforestation-free Supply Chains, Research Report, 2017.

Section 3

  1. Progress of TFA 2020 members was compared against all companies assessed by the respective datasets. Of the 21 TFA 2020 members with exposure to agricultural commodities and deforestation risks, the 2016 Supply Change data covers 19 and the 2016 CDP data covers 14 companies.
  2. Manufacturers and retailers included in the analysis of this data point are those that responded their % of total production/consumption traceable.

Section 4

  1. This definition links closely to that used by other academics in this space. See for example, Denier, L., Scherr, S., Shames, S., Chatterton, P., Hovani, L., Stam, N. 2015. The Little Sustainable Landscapes Book. Global Canopy Programme: Oxford.
  2. AlphaBeta and TFA 2020, Better growth with forests – economic analysis, 2016.
  3. McMahon P., SLM Partners, The investment case for ecological farming, White Paper, 2016.
  4. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Agricultural investment funds for developing countries, 2010.
  5. See for example, Greg Fishbein and Donna Lee, Early Lessons from Jurisdictional REDD+ and Low Emissions Development Programs, TNC / Forest Carbon Partnership Facility / World Bank, January 2015; and Jurisdictional Sustainability: Guidance document for multiple stakeholders, 3Fi, 2016.
  6. Instruction to Deliver: Fighting to Transform Britain’s Public Services, Michael Barber, 2007; Delivery 2.0: The New Challenge for Governments, McKinsey & Company, 2012.
  7. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, “Forests and Agricultural Markets Initiative”,

Section 4 — Mato Grosso

  1. United Nations, Partnerships for SDGs, “Sustainable Municipalities Program (PMS)”,
  2. Governo de Mato Grosso, “Adesão de prefeituras ao PMS em 2015 duplicou”,
  3. IDH, 2015, op. cit.
  4. Ibid.
  5. Earth Innovation Institute, Territorial performance system, 2015.
  6. Cargill, “Soy supply chains”,
  7. Carrefour Group, “Carrefour launches its sustainable farming platform”,
  8. REDD+ are efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and foster conservation, the sustainable management of forests and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
  9. Projeto PRODES: Monitoramento da floresta amazônica brasileira por satélite,
  10. IPAM Amazônia, Instituto Centro de Vida, Deforestation in Mato Grosso’s Amazon forest (PRODES/2015), 2015.
  11. Greenpeace Brazil, Amazon Cattle Footprint, Mato Grosso: State of Destruction, 2009.
  12. Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH), Green growth: Achieving forest conservation in commercially productive landscapes in Indonesia, Liberia and Brazil, 2015.
  13. Fearnside P. M., A.M.R. Figueiredo, China’s Influence on Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: A Growing Force in the State of Mato Grosso, Global Economic Governance Initiative, 2015.
  14. Tyrrell K.A., “Study shows Brazil’s Soy Moratorium still needed to preserve Amazon”, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2015,
  15. Ibid.
  16. Branford S., “How illegal logging in Brazil’s Amazon turns ‘legal’”, BBC News, 29 November 2012,
  17. Greenpeace, The Amazon’s Silent Crisis: Licence to Launder, 2015.
  18. Nogueron R., E. Kaldjian, “Mapping Illegal Forest Clearings in the Brazilian Amazon”, World Resources Institute, Forest Legality Initiative, 2015,
  19. Ibid.
  20. Watts J., “Brazilian leader Rousseff’s pardon for illegal deforesters condemned”, The Guardian, 1 June 2012,
  21. Kyereh B., R. Ninnoni, V.K. Agyeman, “Degraded forests are more susceptible to forest fires: Some possible ecological explanations”, Journal of Science and Technology (26), 2006.
  22. Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Detection of forest degradation caused by fires in Amazonia from time series of MODIS fraction images, 2015.
  23. The business-as-usual approach is based on the assumption that soy productivity increases by an average annual rate of 2% (based on FAO estimates), and that land area devoted to soy production increases to 12.5 million hectares (from the current 9.5 million hectares). This is the goal of the PCI strategy.
  24. The FAO estimates that soybean oil production would amount to 58 million tons by 2030. From: FAO, World agriculture: Towards 2015/2030, 2003.
  25. IPAM Amazônia, 2015, op. cit.
  26. A McKinsey report on the carbon economy in Brazil estimates that 1.9 million hectares of land cleared through deforestation activities generated 800 MTCO2e annually. The abatement opportunity for Mato Grosso by 2030 was calculated using the national average CO2e/hectare and the PCI strategy’s goal of reducing deforestation by 90% from 2004 levels (about 1 million hectares), while assuming that deforestation will remain at 2004 BAU levels. From: McKinsey & Company, Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy for Brazil, 2009.
  27. Mozzer G.B., “Agriculture and Cattle Raising in the Context of a Low Carbon Economy”, Chapter 6 of Seroa da Motta R. et al. (eds), Climate Change in Brazil: economic, social and regulatory aspects, Institute for Applied Economic Research, 2011, as cited in de Oliveira Silva R. et al., Increasing beef production could lower greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil if decoupled from deforestation, Nature Climate Change (6), 2016.
  28. This does not include emissions from additional cattle per hectare. Seroa da Motta R. et al. (eds), Climate change in Brazil: economic, social and regulatory aspects, Institute for Applied Economic Research, 2011,; and de Carvalho C. et al., Deforested and degraded land available for the expansion of palm oil for biodiesel in the state of Pará in the Brazilian Amazon, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, April 2015.
  29. Sustainably produced soy refers to soy produced in non-deforested areas.
  30. Ibid.
  31. IDH, 2015, op. cit.
  32. Garrett R., L. Rausch, “Green for gold: social and ecological tradeoffs influencing the sustainability of the Brazilian soy industry”, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 2015.
  33. IDH, 2015, op. cit.
  34. Government of Mato Grosso, 2015, op. cit.
  35. Nepstad D., “Mato Grosso leading the fight against climate change and deforestation (commentary)”, Mongabay, 2016,
  36. Ibid.
  37. Gibbs H.K. et al., “Did Ranchers and Slaughterhouses Respond to Zero-Deforestation Agreements in the Brazilian Amazon?”, Conservation Letters, 2015.
  38. Whately M., M. Campanili (Orgs), Green municipalities program: Lessons learned and challenges for 2013/2014, 2013.
  39. The Guardian, “Brazil pledges to cut carbon emissions 37% by 2025”, 28 September 2015,
  40. May P. et al., The “Ecological” Value Added Tax (ICMS-Ecológico) in Brazil and its effectiveness in State biodiversity conservation: a comparative analysis, as presented at the 12th biennial conference of the International Society for Ecological Economics, 2012.
  41. DeFries R. et al., “Export-oriented deforestation in Mato Grosso: harbinger or exception for other tropical forests?”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 368, 2013.
  42. Solidaridad, “Solidifying China and Brazil’s Strategic Soy Trade Partnership”, 2016,
  43. TFA 2020, Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 Annual Report 2015-2016, 2016.
  44. IDH, “Mato Grosso government sets up committee to monitor progress on climate goals”, 2016,
  45. United Nations, Partnerships for SDGs, op. cit.
  46. Imazon, “Forest Management Transparency Report – State of Mato Grosso (2010-2011)”,
  47. Deininger K. et al. (eds), Innovations in Land Rights Recognition, Administration, and Governance, World Bank Publications, 2010.
  48. IPAM Amazonia, “CCAL – Monitoring Carbon Stocks of the Amazon States”,
  49. Government of Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso Brazil COP21, 2015.
  50. IDH, 2015, op. cit.
  51. Fundo Amazonia, “Strengthening environmental management in the Amazon”,
  52. Vox, “Brazil just enacted the harshest austerity program in the world”,
  53. Government of Mato Grosso, 2015, op. cit.
  54. Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), “Providing incentives for zero-deforestation”, 2016,
  55. Deininger K. et al. (eds), 2010, op. cit.
  56. IPAM Amazônia, 2015, op. cit.
  57. Foss M., “In Brazil, governance key to resisting Mato Grosso deforestation – study”, Center for International Forestry Research, 2014,
  58. IPAM Amazônia, 2015, op. cit.
  59. Watts J., 2012, op. cit.

Section 3 — Pará Brazil

  1. Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force, GCF Brochure: Para, 2012. REDD+ are efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and foster conservation, the sustainable management of forests and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
  2. Pará 2030, Um estado preparado e equilibrado,
  3. Ecosystem Marketplace, “The Difficult Birth Of Brazil’s First ‘Green Municipality’”, 9 February 2016,
  4. Ibid.
  5. Ibid
  6. Whately M., M. Campanili (Orgs), Green municipalities program: Lessons learned and challenges for 2013/2014, 2013.
  7. Apollo Mapping Office, “Our Changing Landscape – Deforestation in Pará, Brazil, Part II”,
  8. Wilkinson, A., “In Brazil, cattle industry begins to help fight deforestation”, Science, 15 May 2015,
  9. Ibid.
  10. Greenpeace, The Amazon’s Silent Crisis: License to Launder, 2015.
  11. Kyereh B., R. Ninnoni, V.K. Agyeman, “Degraded forests are more susceptible to forest fires: Some possible ecological explanations”, Journal of Science and Technology (26), 2006.
  12. Apollo Mapping Office, op. cit.
  13. Barlow J. et al., “Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation”, Nature (535), 2016.
  14. Ibid.
  15. The Nature Conservancy, Green growth and sustainable cattle intensification in Para, 2015.
  16. The Nature Conservancy, 2015, op. cit.; McKinsey & Company, Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy for Brazil, 2009.
  17. Government of Pará, Municìpios Verdes,
  18. Global Harvest Initiative, 2016, op. cit.
  19. Mozzer G.B., “Agriculture and Cattle Raising in the Context of a Low Carbon Economy”, Chapter 6 of Seroa da Motta R. et al. (eds), Climate Change in Brazil: economic, social and regulatory aspects, Institute for Applied Economic Research, 2011, as cited in de Oliveira Silva R. et al., Increasing beef production could lower greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil if decoupled from deforestation, Nature Climate Change (6), 2016.
  20. This does not include emissions from additional cattle per hectare. Seroa da Motta R. et al. (eds), Climate change in Brazil: economic, social and regulatory aspects, Institute for Applied Economic Research, 2011,; and de Carvalho C. et al., Deforested and degraded land available for the expansion of palm oil for biodiesel in the state of Pará in the Brazilian Amazon, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, April 2015.
  21. TFA 2020, Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 Annual Report 2015-2016, 2016.
  22. Ibid.
  23. The Nature Conservancy, 2015, op. cit.
  24. Pereira R., C.S. Simmons, R. Walker, “Smallholders, Agrarian Reform, and Globalization in the Brazilian Amazon: Cattle versus the Environment”, Land (5), 2016.
  25. Agrimoney, “Brazil’s northern frontier to see soy output boom”, 4 December 2014,–7764.html. According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), a soy worker in Brazil tends to 167 hectares: Bickel U., J.M. Dros, The Impacts of Soybean Cultivation on Brazilian Ecosystems, WWF, 2003.
  26. Gibbs H.K. et al., “Did Ranchers and Slaughterhouses Respond to Zero-Deforestation Agreements in the Brazilian Amazon?”, Conservation Letters, 2015.
  27. Whately M., M. Campanili (Orgs), 2013, op. cit.
  28. Global Harvest Initiative, A blueprint for climate action in agriculture, 2016.
  29. Ibid.
  30. Pará 2030, Strategic Plan for the Sustainable Development of the State of Pará, 2016.
  31. Ibid.
  32. Whately M., M. Campanili (Orgs), 2013, op. cit.
  33. Ibid.
  34. Pará 2030, Strategic Plan, 2016, op. cit.
  35. Whately M., M. Campanili (Orgs), 2013, op. cit.
  36. See Appendix A for the methodology.
  37. Vox, “Brazil just enacted the harshest austerity program in the world”,
  38. Pacheco P., J.H. Benatti, “Tenure Security and Land Appropriation under Changing Environmental Governance in Lowland Bolivia and Pará”, Forests (6), 2015.
  39. Pará 2030, Strategic Plan, 2016, op. cit.
  40. Brito B., S. Baima, J. Salles, “Unresolved land tenure issues in Pará”, State of the Amazon (Imazon), No. 23, 2013.
  41. Ibid.
  42. Whately M., M. Campanili (Orgs), 2013, op. cit.

Section 3 — Liberia

  1. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), “The Liberia Forest Program”, 2015.
  2. IDH, The Sustainable Trade Initiative, Green Growth: Achieving forest conservation in commercially productive landscapes in Indonesia, Liberia and Brazil, 2015.
  3. org, Eliminating Deforestation from the Production of Agricultural Commodities: Goal 2 Assessment Report, 2016.
  4. LTS International and NIRAS, Consulting Services Contract for the Development of A National REDD+ Strategy for Liberia Final Report, 2016.
  5. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), FCPF Readiness Assessment: Mid-Term Report for Liberia, 2014.
  6. Thomson Reuters, “Liberia’s timber: From curse to blessing?”,
  7. LTS International and NIRAS, 2016, op. cit.
  8. Calculated by adding Socfin and Firestone concessions – two of the largest rubber concessionaires. See and
  9. Government of the Republic of Liberia, Support to NEPAD-CAADP implementation, 2006.
  10. Schoneveld, G. C., The geographic and sectoral patterns of large-scale farmland investments in sub-Saharan Africa, Food Policy (48), 2014.
  11. Ibid.
  12. USAID, Incentivizing no-deforestation palm oil production in Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, 2015.
  13. ; USAID expects that financial extension and support services by experienced palm oil producing companies could increase yields from 2-3 tons to 6-8 tons of fresh palm fruit per hectare.
  14. BBC News, “Liberia signs ‘transformational’ deal to stem deforestation”, 2014,
  15. IDH, The Sustainable Trade Initiative, Green Growth, 2015, op. cit.
  16. Ibid.
  17. LTS International and NIRAS, 2016, op. cit.
  18. Greenpeace, “Africa’s forests under threat: Socfin’s plantations in Cameroon and Liberia”, 2016.
  19. Oxford Economics, 2014, op. cit.
  20. FCPF, August 2015-August 2016, op. cit.
  21. Ibid.
  22. African Business, “Liberia: palm oil to become key export”, 2016,
  23. IndexMundi, Rubber Price,, and Iron Ore Price,
  24. USAID, 2015, op. cit.
  25. ; The USAID report notes that projections indicate approximately 80,000 jobs were created by the palm oil subsector. However, most are informal and thus not subject to labour regulation or monitoring.
  26. Oxford Economics, 2014, op. cit.
  27. This assumes the employees work year-round, five days a week, see
  28. USAID, Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Liberia, 2015.
  29. Kenrick J., T. Lomax, “Summary case study on the situation of Golden Veroleum Liberia’s oil palm concession”, Conflict or consent? The oil palm sector at a crossroads, Chapter 13, 2013.
  30. Lomax T., J. Kendrick, A. Brownell, “Sime Darby oil palm and rubber plantation in Grand Cape Mount County, Liberia”, Conflict or consent? The oil palm sector at a crossroads, Chapter 12, 2013.
  31. REDD+ are efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and foster conservation, the sustainable management of forests and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
  32. FCPF, FCPF Readiness Assessment, 2014, op. cit.
  33. Ibid.
  34. TFA 2020, “TFA 2020 Action Plan on Oil Palm Development in Africa”, 2016.
  35. Forestry Development Authority (FDA), “REDD+ Biodiversity offsets – The Liberian Scenario”, 2014.
  36. FCPF, REDD+ program annual country progress report: Liberia (August 2015-August 2016), 2016.
  37. Ibid.
  38. Ibid and Government of Norway, “Liberia”,
  39. Ibid.
  40. Oxford Economics, Making FDI work for sub-Saharan Africa: Lessons from Liberia, 2014.
  41. Ibid.
  42. Ibid.

Section 3 — Sabah

  1. Global Forest & Trade Network, 2010, op. cit., and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), “Forest certification in Sabah”, 2013.
  2. Datuk Sam Mannan, “Forest Governance and Conservation in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo: The Tasks Ahead and Challenges for Full Redemption”, 2015.
  3. REDD+ are efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and foster conservation, the sustainable management of forests and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
  4. Martin R., S. Kumaran, R. Tuzan, “Tackling Climate Change through Sustainable Forest Management and Community Development”, 2014.
  5. Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management (CEEM) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Progress report on environmental conditions and impacts of oil palm plantations in Sabah working towards the effectiveness evaluation of RSPO and ISCC in reducing threats to local biodiversity, 2015.
  6. Oxford Business Group, “A key contributor: Boosting efficiency is a major objective for the sector” Agriculture & Plantations chapter, The Report: Malaysia 2014, 2014.
  7. Ibid.
  8. Global Forest & Trade Network, “Overcoming the Past, Looking to the Future: A Case Study on Responsible Forest Management in Malaysia”, 2010.
  9. Mongabay, “80% of rainforests in Malaysian Borneo logged”, 2013,
  10. Ibid.
  11. Pinard M., F. Putz, J. Tay, “Lessons learned from the implementation of reduced-impact logging in hilly terrain in Sabah, Malaysia”, International Forestry Review (2), 2000.
  12. Sabah Forestry Department, “Sustainable Management: Reduced Impact Logging”,
  13. Kyereh B., R. Ninnoni, V.K. Agyeman, “Degraded forests are more susceptible to forest fires: Some possible ecological explanations”, Journal of Science and Technology (26), 2006.
  14. Bryan J. et al., Extreme Differences in Forest Degradation in Borneo: Comparing Practices in Sarawak, Sabah, and Brunei, 2013.
  15. Suhaila B.A.M., The Palm Oil Industry From The Perspective of Sustainable Development: A Case Study of Malaysian Palm Oil Industry, 2012.
  16. Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Palm Oil Production, Literature review and proposals from the RSPO Working Group on Greenhouse Gases, Final report, 2009.
  17. Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), National Interpretation of RSPO Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Palm Oil Production, Malaysian National Interpretation Task Force, 2015.
  18. Sabah Forestry Department, “The Forest Resources of Sabah: Their Management and The Way Forward”, Keynote address by Datuk Sam Mannan at the 17th Malaysian Forestry Conference,” 2014.
  19. Sabah Forestry Department, Strategic Plan of Action (Sabah): The Heart of Borneo Initiative, 2013.
  20. Ibid.
  21. Rahim AS Abdul et al., “Market and welfare economic impacts of sustainable forestry management practices – An empirical analysis of timber market in Sabah, Malaysia, Journal of Tropical Forest Science (24), 2012.
  22. Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), Impact Report 2014, 2015.
  23. BorneoPost Online, “Totally protected areas doubled in Sabah”, 2015,
  24. Payne J., “Introduction to the Sabah Jurisdictional Approach for Sustainable Palm Oil Production”, 2016.
  25. Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), “RSPO Outreach Programme Supports Sabah 100% CSPO Commitment”, 2016,
  26. Borneo Orangutan Survival (BOS) Australia, “Malaysia bans clearing of land for new oil palm plantations”, 2012,
  27. com, “Malaysia announces conditional 40% cut in emissions”, 2009, “
  28. Mulok D., K. Mansur, M. Kogid, The Sabah Development Corridor (SDC), 2015.
  29. Payne J., 2016, op. cit.
  30. Forever Sabah, “Forever Sabah: First Wave Project Suite”, 2014.
  31. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Green Heart (4), 2008.
  32. Ibid.
  33. AlphaBeta and TFA 2020, “Better growth with forests – economic analysis”, 2016.
  34. Ibid.
  35. Sabah Forestry Department, Report on Workshop on Developing PES for Sabah: Raising Awareness, Identifying Sabah’s Needs and Preliminary Options, 2016.
  36. Forever Sabah, Environmental Law and Policy in Sabah: From Ridge to Reef. Volume 2: Land, 2015.
  37. Forever Sabah, 2014, op. cit.

Section 4 — East Kalimantan

  1. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Carbon Fund, “Towards a Greener and Developed East Kalimantan: A provincial emission reductions program in Indonesia”, 2016, and Dewan Daerah Perubahan Iklim, “Optimizing Land Use Management in East Kalimantan”, Technical Working Paper, 2011.
  2. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), 2015, op. cit.
  3. Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI), “GGGI and Government of East Kalimantan in Partnership for Regional Green Growth”,
  4. Efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and foster conservation, the sustainable management of forests and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
  5. Dewan Daerah Perubahan Iklim, 2011, op. cit., and Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from oil palm in Indonesia: Lessons from East Kalimantan”, 2015.
  6. Ibid.
  7. Ibid.
  8. Smallholders are defined as having farms less than two hectares in size.
  9. McKinsey Global Institute, The archipelago economy: Unleashing Indonesia’s potential, 2012.
  10. AlphaBeta and TFA 2020, “Better growth with forests – economic analysis”, 2016.
  11. Previous research estimates that commercial farming could increase crop yields by 20% and 60-70% for smallholders from 2011 to 2030 – see McKinsey & Company, Reducing deforestation: The land-use revolution, 2012, and
  12. Dewan Nasional Perubahan Iklim (DNPI) and Government of Central Kalimantan, Creating low carbon prosperity in Central Kalimantan, 2010.
  13. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Carbon Fund, 2016, op. cit.
  14. Dewan Daerah Perubahan Iklim, 2011, op. cit.
  15. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Indonesia Pavilion at COP 21, Pavan Sukhdev, “Gaps in concepts & implementation of green growth in Indonesia”, 2015.
  16. Dewan Nasional Perubahan Iklim (DNPI) and Government of Central Kalimantan, 2010, op. cit.
  17. Suryahadi A., D. Suryadarma, S. Sumarto, “The effects of location and sectoral components of economic growth on poverty: Evidence from Indonesia”, Journal of Development Economics (89), 2009.
  18. East Kalimantan Regional Development Planning Agency, “East Kalimantan’s Green Growth Planning and Actions, and Linkages with National Development Priorities”, 2014.
  19. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), REDD+ on the Ground, Case Report: Indonesia, “TNC’s initiative within the Berau Forest Carbon Program, East Kalimantan, Indonesia,”
  20. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Carbon Fund, 2016, op. cit.
  21. Anderson Z. R. et al., “Growing the Economy: Oil palm and green growth in East Kalimantan, Indonesia”, 2015.
  22. The Asia Foundation, “Indonesia Now World’s Largest Exporter of Coal for Power Stations, But There Are Costs”, 2014.
  23. The Nature Conservancy, Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, World Bank Group, Early Lessons from Jurisdictional REDD+ and Low Emissions Development Programs, 2015.
  24. Bandan Perijinan dan Penanaman Modal Provinsi Kalimantan Timur Samarinda, Rencana umum penanaman modal provnsi Kalimantan timur tahun 2014-2025, 2014.
  25. Ibid.
  26. Indonesia promotes the localized Forest Management Unit (Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan or KPH).
  27. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Carbon Fund, 2016, op. cit.
  28. Ibid.
  29. See Appendix A for the methodology.
  30. Eco-Business, “Healthy forests, zero burning, prosperous economy: Can Indonesia have it all?”, 2016,
  31. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Carbon Fund, 2016, op. cit.

Section 5

  1. Hansen, M. C., P. V. Potapov, R. Moore, M. Hancher, S. A. Turubanova, A. Tyukavina, D. Thau, S. V. Stehman, S. J. Goetz, T. R. Loveland, A. Kommareddy, A. Egorov, L. Chini, Justice,C.O. & Townshend, J.R.G. Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA Tree Cover Loss and Gain Area. University of Maryland, Google, USGS, and NASA. Retrieved from 2013. (updated by Global Forest Watch).
  2. Defining : publicly actions outlined by countries what post-2020 climate actions they intended to take under the new international cliamte agreement. Source World Resource Institute ( )
  3. WWF (2016)