Back in January, #1 on the list of 2015 New Year’s Conservation Resolutions brought to you by the Smithsonian’s National Zoo was to “Purchase products made with sustainable palm oil.” Apparently the President’s Global Development Council (GDC) has taken this advice to heart.
The GDC was established in 2012 to advise the president and other senior officials on global development policy and practice. The Council’s second report, released last week, calls for ramping up US efforts to help developing countries expand agricultural production without clearing forested areas. As we’ve documented elsewhere, maintaining tropical forests is critical for both climate stability and development outcomes.
Toward this objective, the GDC report recommends a domestic policy action that the United States can take as a consumer of the products such as palm oil that cause tropical deforestation:
We also recommend the president issue an Executive Order directing U.S. government agencies to adopt deforestation-free procurement procedures by 2020.
Such an initiative would be a welcome complement to USG efforts already underway in support of private sector commitments to get deforestation out of commodity supply chains.
What the Private Sector Is Doing
Commercial agriculture is the most important driver of deforestation in the tropics. In fact, analysis commissioned by CGD showed that clearing land to produce just four globally-traded commodities – beef, soy, palm oil, and pulp and paper – in only eight countries accounted for fully one-third of tropical deforestation in 2009 and no doubt even more today.
Over the past two years, a growing number of companies that produce, trade, or purchase such “forest risk” commodities have committed to “deforestation-free” supply chains. In September 2014, 34 companies, including US corporate giants such as Cargill, McDonalds, and Walmart, joined the United States and 26 other governments in signing on to the New York Declaration on Forests, committing themselves to halving deforestation by 2020 and ending natural forest loss by 2030.
As I described in a blog last year, these companies now constitute an important new constituency for forest conservation. In June 2014, the board of the Consumer Goods Forum – representing some 400 consumer-facing manufacturers and retailers – called on governments to make REDD+[1] a priority, “supporting it with local and national policies that can protect forests and support livelihoods.”
The companies know that implementing their commitments will not be easy. In a CGD Essay published last week, I compared the challenge to Theodore Roosevelt’s expedition down a tributary of the Amazon River just over 100 years ago. So it’s reasonable to ask what our government can do to help them succeed.
The Third Leg of the Stool
Through global and bilateral initiatives, the US government has already signaled its support for commitments by corporations and producer countries to get deforestation out of supply chains. In 2012, the United States launched the Tropical Forest Alliance, a public-private partnership involving other governments, companies, and NGOs dedicated to reducing tropical deforestation associated with production of beef, soy, palm oil, and pulp and paper. And last year, the US Embassy in Jakarta helped to broker an “Indonesian Palm Oil Pledge” among key players in the Indonesia’s palm oil industry, demonstrating the potential pay-off to investment of diplomatic resources.
But so far, these internationally-focused initiatives have not been matched by actions at home. The Europeans are ahead of us in this regard. In 2013, the European Commission released a study calculating the “deforestation footprint” of commodities consumed in the European Union. According to a 2013 Chatham House report, thirteen countries have public procurement policies in place to ensure that timber and wood products are legally and sustainably produced, and the Government of the United Kingdom has adopted a target of sourcing 100% certified sustainable palm oil by the end of this year.
Even though the United States imports a smaller share of forest-risk commodities compared to the European Union (because we produce so much of our own beef, soy, vegetable oil, and wood products), a presidential directive to get deforestation out of federal procurement would be significant. First, it would send a much-needed signal to progressive companies and reform-minded producer country governments that markets will reward their efforts to stop deforestation. And second, it would show that consumer countries are willing take on difficult challenges themselves, and not just cheerlead the efforts of others.
The Challenges Ahead
The GDC report notes that a the proposed Executive Order on “deforestation-free” procurement
…would require a clear definition of ‘deforestation-free’ be established that was practicable across different commodities, and would have to be implemented in a World Trade Organization consistent and non-discriminatory manner.
Neither of these tasks would be easy — indeed, participants in a workshop that I chaired last year thought it would be so difficult that federal policy should instead focus on requirements for corporate reporting and transparency related to commodity-driven deforestation. My own view is that greening procurement is worth a try.
Fortunately, on the issue of definitions, there’s a small industry of companies and NGOs working together to define terms such as “High Carbon Stock” forest. The “no deforestation, no peat, no exploitation” commitment made in late 2013 by Wilmar International – the world’s largest trader in palm oil – is widely seen as a benchmark for the issues to be addressed.
Implementation would pose a number of thorny challenges, including the expense of certifying individual products as “deforestation-free”. One alternative would be to pursue certification at the level of entire jurisdictions – say, a district in Indonesia or a municipality in Brazil – to minimize the costs to individual farmers and larger commercial enterprises of obtaining certification for specific products.
In any case, any deforestation-free procurement initiative should include a focus on renewable fuels. We need to ensure that attempts to be climate-friendly in our transportation sector don’t inadvertently increase emissions from deforestation caused by expanding production of biofuel feedstocks. Those feedstocks are currently being planted at the expense of some of the most carbon-rich forests in the world, including the habitats of orangutans and other friends at the zoo.
The Global Development Council is right to join the Smithsonian in urging that we purchase what we preach.
[1] REDD+ stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, a mechanism negotiated under the U.N. convention on climate change in which rich countries pay developing countries for performance in reducing forest-based emissions.
Disclaimer
CGD blog posts reflect the views of the authors, drawing on prior research and experience in their areas of expertise. CGD is a nonpartisan, independent organization and does not take institutional positions.
