Commitments to control the zero slaughter of cattle throughout the supply chain contribute to forest preservation and ensure valuable ecosystem services and the benefits they provide. “With only one year to go until the 2020 deadline, it is clearer than ever that even companies with strong obligations cannot claim that their supply chains are not being deformed by that date,” he says. Zero deforestation bonds are a kind of voluntary sustainable development initiative that companies take to indicate their intention to reduce or eliminate deforestation related to the raw materials they produce, act and/or sell. Because each company defines its own goals and implementation mechanisms, the content of the commitment varies considerably. This creates challenges for evaluating the implementation of commitments or effectiveness. In this regard, we are developing criteria to assess the potential effectiveness of zero deforestation commitments in reducing deforestation in a regional and global corporate supply chain. We apply these criteria to assess 52 zero forest commitments made by companies classified by Forest 500 as high risk of deforestation. While our evaluation shows that existing commitments meet several efficiency criteria, they have been overlooked in some major opportunities. First, they cover only a small portion of the global commodity market at risk of deforestation, which means that their global impact is likely to be small. Secondly, biomedicious implementation is only carried out in the Brazilian Amazon. Outside this region, implementation is mainly through certification programs that are not accepted by all manufacturers and lack monitoring of deforestation near real time by third parties. In addition, about half of all commitments include zero net deforestation targets and future implementation timelines, both of which are design elements that can reduce efficiency.
Zero net targets allow for a commitment to reforestation in the future to compensate for the current loss of forests, while future implementation deadlines will allow for preventive grubbing up. In order to increase the likelihood that commitments will lead to a reduction in deforestation at all levels, more companies need to adopt zero-crude deforestation targets, with immediate implementation times and implementation mechanisms clearly based on sanctions of high-risk biomes for converting forests into raw materials. The report indicates that 50 of the companies assessed reported certain activities aimed at implementing zero debenstation obligations for all the raw materials to which they are exposed. “Other companies need to follow the example of these leaders,” he says. What is at stake if these companies fail to erase deforestation from their operations is not only their reputation, Rogerson said, but also the future of the planet. (1) MPF-TAC agreement: MPF sued ranchers who illegally cleared forests and the slaughterhouses they bought and used threats of litigation to convince Brazilian retailers to boycott slaughterhouses linked to illegal deforestation. In response, some meat packaging companies began signing legally binding TAC agreements with the MPF (Terms of ajustment of Conduct) in July 2009. Such agreements prevent prosecutions in exchange for commitments made by meat packers from avoiding purchases of real estate in situations of illegal deforestation; and are now likely to invade legitimate markets for two-thirds of state-controlled slaughterhouses (SIF) in the legal Amazon (Gibbs et al.
2015) 45, due to the relative lack of controls on skin and leather production, both domestically and in leather-producing countries such as Italy and China.