Search

Non-human great apes – chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, and orangutans – are threatened by agricultural expansion, particularly from rice, cacao, cassava, maize, and oil palm cultivation. Agriculture replaces and fragments great ape habitats, bringing them closer to humans and often resulting in conflict. Though the impact of agriculture on great apes is well-recognized, there is still a need for a more nuanced understanding of specific contexts and associated negative impacts on habitats and populations. Here we review these contexts and their implications for great apes. We estimate that within their African and South-East Asian ranges, there are about 100 people for each great ape. Given that most apes live outside strictly protected areas and the growing human population and increasing demand for resources in these landscapes, it will be challenging to balance the needs of both humans and great apes. Further habitat loss is expected, particularly in Africa, where compromises must be sought to re-direct agricultural expansion driven by subsistence farmers with small fields (generally <0.64 ha) away from remaining great ape habitats. To promote coexistence between humans and great apes, new approaches and financial models need to be implemented at local scales. Overall, optimized land use planning and effective implementation, along with strategic investments in agriculture and wildlife conservation, can improve the synergies between conservation and food production. Effective governance and conservation financing are crucial for optimal outcomes in both conservation and food security. Enforcing forest conservation laws, engaging in trade policy discussions, and integrating policies on trade, food security, improved agricultural techniques, and sustainable food systems are vital to prevent further decline in great ape populations. Saving great apes requires a thorough consideration of specific agricultural contexts.

Different governance mechanisms have emerged to ensure biomass and bioenergy sustainability amidst a myriad of related public and private regulations that have existed for decades. We conducted a global survey with 59 questions which examined 192 stakeholders’ views and experiences related to (1) the multi-leveled governance to which they are subjected, (2) the impacts of that governance on bioenergy production and trade, and (3) the most urgent areas for improvement of certification schemes. The survey revealed significant support along the whole supply chain for new legislation which uses market-based certification schemes to demonstrate compliance (co-regulation). Some respondents did not see a need for new regulation, and meta-standards is a promising approach for bridging divergent views, especially if other proof than certification will be an option. Most respondents had so far experienced positive or neutral changes to their bioenergy production or trade after the introduction of new sustainability governance. Legislative requirements and a green business profile were important motivations for getting certified, while lack of market advantages, administrative complexity and costs all were barriers of varying importance. A need to include, e.g., regular standard revision and dealing with conflicting criteria was identified by respondents associated with bioenergy schemes. Respondents associated with forestry schemes saw less need for revisions, but some were interested in supply chain sustainability criteria. Significant differences among schemes suggest it is crucial in the future to examine the tradeoffs between certification costs, schemes’ inclusiveness, the quality of their substantive and procedural rules, and the subsequent effectiveness on-the-ground.

The increased international trade led to growing concerns over sustainability of biofuels and a variety of governance systems has emerged to regulate the bioenergy sector for maximization of the benefits and minimization of the possible negative impacts. The general concept of governance is used in different ways. But in this chapter it is used in the broad sense of governance processes undertaken by governments, market actors, voluntary organizations or networks. This concept of governance recognizes the interdependence of the public, market-based and voluntary governing processes, and the relationships that may exist between them. A survey was designed with the objective of analyzing stakeholders' views, experiences, and ideas in relation to the governance challenges. The survey revealed a broad support for existing and new co-regulation among stakeholders, but also that low share of certified land is seen as a challenge for both forestry and agriculture.