Is the EU shirking responsibility for its deforestation footprint in tropical countries? Power, material, and epistemic inequalities in the EU's global environmental governance.

This paper critically examines the European Union's (EU) role in tropical deforestation and the bloc's actions to mitigate it. We focus on two EU policy communications aimed at the challenge: stepping up EU action to protect and restore the world's forests and the EU updated bioeconomy strategy. In addition, we refer to the European Green Deal, which articulates the bloc's overarching vision for sustainability and transformations. We find that by casting deforestation as a production problem and a governance challenge on the supply side, these policies deflect attention from some of the key drivers of tropical deforestation-the EU's overconsumption of deforestation-related commodities and asymmetric market and trade power relations. The diversion allows the EU unfettered access to agro-commodities and biofuels, which are important inputs to the EU's green transition and bio-based economy. Upholding a 'sustainability image' within the EU, an overly business-as-usual approach has taken precedence over transformative policies, enabling multinational corporations to run an ecocide treadmill, rapidly obliterating tropical forests. Whereas the EU's plan to nurture a bioeconomy and promote responsible agro-commodities production in the global South are relevant, the bloc is evasive in setting firm targets and policy measures to overcome the inequalities that spring from and enable its overconsumption of deforestation-related commodities. Drawing on degrowth and decolonial theories, we problematise the EU's anti-deforestation policies and highlight alternative ideas that could lead to more just, equitable and effective measures for confronting the tropical deforestation conundrum.

Envisioning just transformations in and beyond the EU bioeconomy: inspirations from decolonial environmental justice and degrowth.

The European Union (EU) is adhering to decarbonization of its economy to tackle what is narrowly framed as 'environmental issues' of our socioecological and civilizational crises-including, but not limited to, climate change and biodiversity loss. A shift to bio-based economy (bioeconomy) is an important component of this effort. This paper applies theoretical ideas from decolonial environmental justice and degrowth, placed in the wider context of transformations, to analyse the EU bioeconomy policy within the global context, and to draw lessons and recommendations for just transformations in the EU bioeconomy policy. I identify five dominant logics and approaches in the EU bioeconomy that act as barriers for just transformations and propose alternative ones that can support such transformations. Barriers and alternatives include (1) framing 'nature' as a resource and service provider for humans, who are seen as separate from nature, and the need to abandon human-nature duality; (2) dominance of economic green growth and technoscientific policy solutions, and the need to place planetary justice at the centre of tackling socioecological crises; (3) a limited approach to justice, and the need to act upon climate and epistemic justice, including self-determination and self-governing authority; (4) the EU's ambition for global leadership and competitiveness in global bioeconomic markets and governance, and the need to redefine global governance towards partnerships based on the principles of solidarity, mutual respect, reconciliation and redistribution of power and wealth; (5) hegemonic politico-economic structures and actor coalitions in charge of the EU bioeconomy, and the need for decentralized bottom-up leadership coalitions that promote direct democracy, local autonomy and sovereignty beyond state. I conclude with reflections on the politics of change and risks of co-optation, with a hope to inspire decolonial and just socioecological transformations in and beyond bioeconomy.

Effects of EU illegal logging policy on timber-supplying countries: A systematic review.

The EU's Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Action Plan (FLEGT) adopted in 2003 includes bilateral trade agreements known as Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) signed between the EU and timber-supplying countries. The EU has invested more than 1.5 billion euros in VPAs; however, only one of the seven concerned countries has managed to complete all the necessary requirements to expire FLEGT licences. Since there is no research that comprehensively integrates the scientific evidence regarding the effects of this policy, this study systematically reviews all empirical scientific studies on the effects of VPAs. We found that almost all relevant studies are case reports that use qualitative data and focus on only one country at a time, mainly Ghana, Cameroon, or Indonesia. The evidence suggests that while VPAs have contributed to the establishment of governance structures, tools, and procedures they have not been able to solve social problems (i.e., inequality and injustice) and have potentially harmed the economies of EU timber suppliers. Evidence on the effects of VPAs on illegal logging and trade and the environment remains limited. Thus, future research should focus on more countries; use a greater range of methods, including comparative experimental designs; explore possible intended effects on under-researched categories; and systematically investigate unintended effects on other categories within and outside the forestry sector.

Environmental justice and REDD+ safeguards in Laos: Lessons from an authoritarian political regime.

Balancing agendas for climate mitigation and environmental justice continues to be one of the key challenges in climate change governance mechanisms, such as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+). In this paper we apply the three-dimensional environmental justice framework as a lens to examine the REDD+ process in the Lao People's Democratic Republic (Laos) and the REDD+ social safeguards. We focus particularly on challenges to justice faced by marginalized communities living in forest frontier areas under an authoritarian regime. Drawing on policy analysis and open-ended interviews across different policy levels, we explore procedural, distributional, and recognitional justice across the REDD+ policy levels in Laos. We find that REDD+ social safeguards have been applied by both donors and state actors in ways that facilitate external control. We underscore how authoritarian regime control over civil society and ethnic minority groups thwarts justice. We also highlight how this political culture and lack of inclusiveness are used by donors and project managers to implement their projects with little political debate. Further obstacles to justice relate to limitations inherent in the REDD+ instrument, including tight schedules for dealing with highly sensitive socio-political issues under social safeguards. These findings echo other research but go further in questioning the adequacy of safeguards to promote justice under a nationally driven REDD+. We highlight the importance of recognition and political context, including aspects such as power relations, self-determination and self-governance of traditional or customary structures, in shaping justice outcomes.