Search

Tropical forests are rapidly disappearing due to the expansion of cash crops to meet demands from distant markets. Pressing concerns on deforestation impacts resulting from the global trade of tropical commodities have led some high-income countries' governments to consider diverse regulatory and trade levers to tackle the problem. These include proposals for new supply chain due diligence legislation concerning imports of forest-risk products and the inclusion of environmental measures in trade deals. To contribute to this debate, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of existing data on global trade and consumption patterns of tropical commodities, attribution of commodity production to deforestation, trade agreements, and progress in the implementation of crop sustainability standards. We used global data on key tropical commodities of oil palm, cocoa, and coffee. Our study shows that high-income countries have the highest per capita consumption for the three commodities evaluated and that consumption rates have dramatically increased in the last two decades. We discuss a range of measures that can potentially be required to tackle deforestation in global supply chains, which are currently being considered by policymakers, before discussing the kinds of post-growth, convivial approaches that are often excluded by the framing. Given the inherent expansionary nature of global market dynamics, we show that market-based initiatives are inadequate to tackle continuing deforestation and socio-ecological degradation. More transformative solutions amplify commoning and post-growth approaches are required to lead to some uncoupling of trade and territorialising of economic activity to fit within planetary boundaries and allow for plural values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sustainable Agricultural Intensification (SAI) was initially defined as increasing agricultural production without adverse environmental impacts and without increasing the area under agriculture. Over time the concept has been broadened to integrate social, economic, and environmental components of sustainability, each of which covers multiple facets or indicators of performance. It is recognized however that it may not be possible to optimize all these aspects of sustainability simultaneously and that trade-offs between them are likely to occur, although synergies are also possible. There has been disagreement over how to achieve SAI, with some proposing that only an 'agroecological' intensification pathway delivers sustainability. Others take a broader perspective arguing that all aspects of ecological, genetic, and socio-economic intensification need to be considered, but then assessed in terms of the sustainability of the outcomes. A major concern is that intensification that focuses on agricultural technology can lead to inequitable outcomes for women and poorer households, while agroecological intensification building upon local capitals is generally considered more equitable. Understanding the potential outcomes and inherent trade-offs of different approaches requires interdisciplinary research, evidence and decision-making tools, some examples of which are presented in this Special Issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper analyses the changing nature of sustainability initiatives and their capacity to tackle sustainability challenges, focusing on cocoa in West Africa, and distilling lessons pertinent across agro‐export industries and regions. Using data from empirical studies, literature review and consultations with key cocoa actors, we find ‘sustainable’ cocoa at a critical juncture. Applying an existing theoretical framework that distinguishes between resilience, transition and transformation of systems, we explore and analyse previous, current and future sustainability responses. We conclude that there are important innovations and upscaling of investment occurring in the cocoa sector on sustainability, but also that current approaches risk achieving only incremental change, helping to sustain the industry under deteriorating conditions (resilience), without enabling smallholders to claim rights and greater representation (transition) or tackling more fundamental root causes of the vulnerability of smallholders (transformation). Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Private standards initiatives ( PSIs) in agri-food value chains raise questions of democratic governance and accountability relating to the voice and agency of those whom the standards are designed to benefit or whom they most affect. We employ the concept of 'spaces for participation' to analyse participation in a particular PSI, GlobalGAP, and assess how, and to what extent, it opens up a space for debate about what constitutes good practice in agri-food chains and for whom. We draw on focus groups with smallholders, together with semi-structured interviews and workshops held with actors at the national and international scales to examine PSIs operating in Kenyan export horticulture to examine good agricultural practice ( GAP) standards. Our analysis suggests that despite public announcements that these initiatives promote the voice of the farmer, the direct participation of farmers is largely absent from these policy spaces at present. This is related to the way in which invitations to the spaces for participation are constructed, what is deemed to be appropriate subjects for discussion in PSIs as well as the practical challenges associated with the organisation of farmers across spatial scales. The spaces for participation are located largely at the international and national scales with few connections to the local scale. This paper contributes to an extension of value chain analysis that re-asserts the importance of institutional context and how value chains are embedded in particular socio-economic and political systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rise of private standards, including those involving multi-stakeholder processes, raises questions about whose interests are served and the kind of power that is exerted to maintain these interests. This paper critically examines the battle for ideas-the way competing factions assert their own narratives about value chain relations, the role of standards and related multi-stakeholder processes. Drawing on empirical research on the horticulture and floriculture value chains linking Kenya and the United Kingdom, the analysis explores the framing of sustainability issues, especially around labor issues and good agricultural practice, and the choice of response with respect to private standards and multi-stakeholder initiatives since the late 1990s. We identify four competing narratives currently in play: a dominant global sourcing narrative, a pragmatic development narrative, a broader development narrative and a narrative we term potentially transformative. This last narrative is currently emerging through the unpacking of narratives in relation to the framing of sustainability problems and solutions, and in terms of legislative, executive and judicial governance. The paper contributes to emerging understanding of power in value chains, moving beyond material power to a consideration of how ideational power is exerted and resisted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]