Toward spatial fit in the governance of global commodity flows

. Global commodity flows between distally connected social-ecological systems pose important challenges to sustainability governance. These challenges are partly due to difficulties in designing and implementing governance institutions that fit or match the scale of the environmental and social problems generated in such telecoupled systems. We focus on the spatial dimension of governance fit in relation to global commodity flows and telecoupled systems. Specifically, we draw on examples from land use and global agricultural commodity governance to examine two overarching types of governance mismatches: boundary mismatches and resolution mismatches. We argue that one way to address mismatches is through governance rescaling and illustrate this approach with reference to examples of three broad types of governance approaches: trade agreements, due diligence laws, and landscape approaches to supply chain governance. No single governance approach is likely to address all mismatches, highlighting the need to align multiple governance approaches to govern telecoupled systems effectively.

[1]  P. Verburg,et al.  Large gaps in voluntary sustainability commitments covering the global cocoa trade , 2023, Global Environmental Change.

[2]  D. Loibl,et al.  Enabling spaces for bridging scales: scanning solutions for interdisciplinary human-environment research , 2023, Sustainability Science.

[3]  T. Kuemmerle,et al.  Explaining the stickiness of supply chain relations in the Brazilian soybean trade , 2023, Global environmental change : human and policy dimensions.

[4]  V. Diogo,et al.  Governing spillovers of agricultural land use through voluntary sustainability standards: A coverage analysis of sustainability requirements , 2022, Earth System Governance.

[5]  S. Günter,et al.  Potential impacts of the proposed EU regulation on deforestation-free supply chains on smallholders, indigenous peoples, and local communities in producer countries outside the EU , 2022, Forest Policy and Economics.

[6]  H. Haberl,et al.  Embodied HANPP of feed and animal products: Tracing pressure on ecosystems along trilateral livestock supply chains 1986-2013. , 2022, Science of the Total Environment.

[7]  J. Newig,et al.  Environmental governance in globally telecoupled systems: Mapping the terrain towards an integrated research agenda , 2022, Earth System Governance.

[8]  A. Thomson,et al.  Ten facts about land systems for sustainability , 2022, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  P. Verburg,et al.  Accounting for land use changes beyond the farm-level in sustainability assessments: The impact of cocoa production. , 2022, Science of the Total Environment.

[10]  P. Verburg,et al.  The influence of company sourcing patterns on the adoption and effectiveness of zero-deforestation commitments in Brazil’s soy supply chain , 2022, Environmental Science & Policy.

[11]  T. Kuemmerle,et al.  The geography of international conservation interest in South American deforestation frontiers , 2022, Conservation Letters.

[12]  E. Corbera,et al.  Telecoupling as a framework to support a more nuanced understanding of causality in land system science , 2022, Journal of Land Use Science.

[13]  T. Hertel,et al.  Effects of demand-side restrictions on high-deforestation palm oil in Europe on deforestation and emissions in Indonesia , 2021, Environmental Research Letters.

[14]  U. Jacob,et al.  Biodiversity post‐2020: Closing the gap between global targets and national‐level implementation , 2021, Conservation Letters.

[15]  O. Mertz,et al.  Large Differences in Livelihood Responses and Outcomes to Increased Conservation Enforcement in a Protected Area , 2021, Human Ecology.

[16]  P. Verburg,et al.  Local deforestation spillovers induced by forest moratoria: Evidence from Indonesia , 2021 .

[17]  Burak Güneralp,et al.  Limited effects of tree planting on forest canopy cover and rural livelihoods in Northern India , 2021, Nature Sustainability.

[18]  C. Barrett,et al.  Sustainability standards in global agrifood supply chains , 2021, Nature Food.

[19]  E. Corbera,et al.  The ambiguity of transparency in the artisanal and small-scale mining sector of Tanzania , 2021, The Extractive Industries and Society.

[20]  R. Garrett,et al.  Designing effective and equitable zero-deforestation supply chain policies , 2021, Global Environmental Change.

[21]  Almut Schilling‐Vacaflor.  Integrating Human Rights and the Environment in Supply Chain Regulations , 2021, Sustainability.

[22]  R. Rajão,et al.  Trading deforestation - Why the legality of forest-risk commodities is insufficient , 2021 .

[23]  E. Corbera,et al.  Framing the frontier – Tracing issues related to soybean expansion in transnational public spheres , 2021, Global Environmental Change.

[24]  P. Verburg,et al.  Assessing the contribution of mobility in the European Union to rubber expansion , 2021, Ambio.

[25]  Bartłomiej Kupiec,et al.  Legal status of a renewables self-consumer under Polish law in light of Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources , 2021, Studenckie Prace Prawnicze, Administratywistyczne i Ekonomiczne.

[26]  A. Lenschow,et al.  Hardening foreign corporate accountability through mandatory due diligence in the European Union? New trends and persisting challenges , 2021, Regulation & Governance.

[27]  J. Nielsen,et al.  Mineral exhaustion and its livelihood implications for artisanal and small-scale miners , 2021 .

[28]  Noella J. Gray,et al.  Knowledge production for target-based biodiversity governance , 2021 .

[29]  G. Fonseca,et al.  Jurisdictional sourcing: Leveraging commodity supply chains to reduce tropical deforestation at scale. A generic theory of change for a conservation strategy, v 1.0 , 2021, Conservation Science and Practice.

[30]  X. Rueda,et al.  Have food supply chain policies improved forest conservation and rural livelihoods? A systematic review , 2021 .

[31]  S. Bager,et al.  Eighty-six EU policy options for reducing imported deforestation , 2021, One Earth.

[32]  E. Lambin,et al.  Jurisdictional approaches to sustainable resource use , 2021, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

[33]  Z. Szantoi,et al.  Addressing indirect sourcing in zero deforestation commodity supply chains , 2021, Science advances.

[34]  H. Haberl,et al.  Does agricultural trade reduce pressure on land ecosystems? Decomposing drivers of the embodied human appropriation of net primary production , 2020 .

[35]  J. Newig,et al.  Contextualizing certification and auditing: Soy certification and access of local communities to land and water in Brazil , 2020 .

[36]  J. Newig,et al.  Governing global telecoupling toward environmental sustainability , 2020 .

[37]  H. Haberl,et al.  Inclusion, Transparency, and Enforcement: How the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement Fails the Sustainability Test , 2020, One Earth.

[38]  E. Lambin,et al.  Sustainability strategies by companies in the global coffee sector , 2020 .

[39]  Lena Partzsch.  Alternatives to Multilateralism: New Forms of Social and Environmental Governance , 2020 .

[40]  A. Dewulf,et al.  Five scale challenges in Ecuadorian forest and landscape restoration governance , 2020 .

[41]  M. Lathuillière,et al.  Understanding the Stickiness of Commodity Supply Chains Is Key to Improving Their Sustainability , 2020, One Earth.

[42]  K. Carlson,et al.  Deforestation spillovers from oil palm sustainability certification , 2020, Environmental Research Letters.

[43]  J. Newell,et al.  How to track corporations across space and time , 2020 .

[44]  B. Soares-Filho,et al.  Focus on leakage and spillovers: informing land-use governance in a tele-coupled world , 2020, Environmental Research Letters.

[45]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Anatomy and resilience of the global production ecosystem , 2019, Nature.

[46]  P. Meyfroidt,et al.  Leakage and boosting effects in environmental governance: a framework for analysis , 2019, Environmental Research Letters.

[47]  Jens Newig,et al.  What is governance in global telecoupling? , 2019, Ecology and Society.

[48]  R. K. Larsen,et al.  Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains , 2019, World development.

[49]  Michael Obersteiner,et al.  Expanding the Soy Moratorium to Brazil’s Cerrado , 2019, Science Advances.

[50]  M. Batistella,et al.  Governing flows in telecoupled land systems , 2019, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability.

[51]  Ö. Bodin,et al.  Social-ecological alignment and ecological conditions in coral reefs , 2019, Nature communications.

[52]  T. Kastner,et al.  Deforestation displaced: trade in forest-risk commodities and the prospects for a global forest transition , 2019, Environmental Research Letters.

[53]  P. Messerli,et al.  Co-producing Knowledge for Sustainable Development in Telecoupled Land Systems , 2019, Telecoupling.

[54]  Ö. Bodin,et al.  Are bottom-up approaches good for promoting social–ecological fit in urban landscapes? , 2019, Ambio.

[55]  Carol Richards,et al.  Framing sustainability: Alternative standards schemes for sustainable palm oil and South-South trade , 2019, Journal of Rural Studies.

[56]  Jianguo Liu,et al.  Toward Rigorous Telecoupling Causal Attribution: A Systematic Review and Typology , 2018, Sustainability.

[57]  Erle C. Ellis,et al.  Middle-range theories of land system change , 2018, Global Environmental Change.

[58]  Jianguo Liu,et al.  Spillover effect offsets the conservation effort in the Amazon , 2018, Journal of Geographical Sciences.

[59]  Esther S. Parish,et al.  Spillover systems in a telecoupled Anthropocene: typology, methods, and governance for global sustainability , 2018, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability.

[60]  G. Ericsson,et al.  Mapping social-ecological systems to understand the challenges underlying wildlife management , 2018, Environmental Science & Policy.

[61]  B. Kiteme,et al.  How do large-scale agricultural investments affect land use and the environment on the western slopes of Mount Kenya? Empirical evidence based on small-scale farmers' perceptions and remote sensing. , 2018, Journal of environmental management.

[62]  Mariana Melnykovych,et al.  Social-ecological innovation in remote mountain areas: Adaptive responses of forest-dependent communities to the challenges of a changing world. , 2018, The Science of the total environment.

[63]  Andreas Heinimann,et al.  Polycentric governance in telecoupled resource systems , 2018 .

[64]  X. Rueda,et al.  Transforming Governance In Telecoupled Food Systems , 2017 .

[65]  J. Nielsen,et al.  Land-use change in a telecoupled world: the relevance and applicability of the telecoupling framework in the case of banana plantation expansion in Laos , 2017 .

[66]  Luis Roman Carrasco,et al.  Biodiversity conservation in a telecoupled world , 2017 .

[67]  C. Friis.  Land use change in a globalised world , 2017 .

[68]  Ö. Bodin.  Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems , 2017, Science.

[69]  P. Foley.  The territorialization of transnational sustainability governance: production, power and globalization in Iceland’s fisheries , 2017 .

[70]  B. Crona,et al.  Institutional misfit and environmental change: A systems approach to address ocean acidification. , 2017, The Science of the total environment.

[71]  David Benson,et al.  Transforming European Water Governance? Participation and River Basin Management under the EU Water Framework Directive in 13 Member States , 2016 .

[72]  Patrick Hostert,et al.  From teleconnection to telecoupling: taking stock of an emerging framework in land system science , 2016 .

[73]  Derek R. Armitage,et al.  Institutional fit and the sustainability of social-ecological systems , 2015 .

[74]  P. Chatterton,et al.  The Little Sustainable Landscapes Book: Achieving sustainable development through integrated landscape management , 2015 .

[75]  G. Cumming.  Scale‐Sensitive Governance of the Environment , 2015 .

[76]  H. Haberl,et al.  Global Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production for Biomass Consumption in the European Union, 1986–2007 , 2015, Journal of industrial ecology.

[77]  Örjan Bodin,et al.  Closing the collaborative gap: Aligning social and ecological connectivity for better management of interconnected wetlands , 2015, AMBIO.

[78]  Örjan Bodin,et al.  The problem of spatial fit in social-ecological systems: detecting mismatches between ecological connectivity and land management in an urban region , 2014 .

[79]  B. Crona,et al.  Conservation Success as a Function of Good Alignment of Social and Ecological Structures and Processes , 2014, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[80]  Michael Cox,et al.  Understanding large social-ecological systems: introducing the SESMAD project , 2014 .

[81]  Michael Schoon,et al.  Governing the invisible commons: Ozone regulation and the Montreal Protocol , 2014 .

[82]  Jens Newig,et al.  What role for social–ecological systems research in governing global teleconnections? , 2014 .

[83]  J. Gupta.  ‘Glocal’ Politics of Scale on Environmental Issues: Climate Change, Water and Forests , 2014 .

[84]  Tim Bartley.  Transnational governance and the re‐centered state: Sustainability or legality? , 2014 .

[85]  J. Zeitlin,et al.  Assembling an experimentalist regime: Transnational governance interactions in the forest sector , 2014 .

[86]  J. Newell,et al.  Russia’s forests in a global economy: how consumption drives environmental change , 2014 .

[87]  A. Shkaruba,et al.  Recognising ecological and institutional landscapes in adaptive governance of natural resources , 2013 .

[88]  A. Bebbington,et al.  Global land governance: from territory to flow? , 2013 .

[89]  R. DeFries,et al.  Framing Sustainability in a Telecoupled World , 2013, Ecology and Society.

[90]  Claude A. Garcia,et al.  Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[91]  Jens Newig,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Public Environmental Decision-Making Processes − A Variable-Based Analytical Scheme , 2013 .

[92]  C. Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Institutional Fit and River Basin Governance: a New Approach Using Multiple Composite Measures , 2013 .

[93]  Elinor Ostrom,et al.  Polycentric governance of multifunctional forested landscapes , 2012 .

[94]  T. Moss,et al.  Spatial Fit, from Panacea to Practice: Implementing the EU Water Framework Directive , 2012 .

[95]  Ö. Bodin,et al.  Disentangling intangible social-ecological systems , 2012 .

[96]  Eric F. Lambin,et al.  Forest transitions, trade, and the global displacement of land use , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[97]  Liliana B. Andonova,et al.  The Rescaling of Global Environmental Politics , 2010 .

[98]  Jens Newig,et al.  Multilevel Water Governance and Problems of Scale: Setting the Stage for a Broader Debate , 2010, Environmental management.

[99]  Julia A. Ekstrom,et al.  Evaluating Functional Fit between a Set of Institutions and an Ecosystem , 2009 .

[100]  E. Ostrom,et al.  Going beyond panaceas , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[101]  C. Folke,et al.  The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions , 2007 .

[102]  Louis Lebel,et al.  Guest Editorial, part of a Special Feature on Scale and Cross-scale Dynamics Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World , 2006 .

[103]  Thom Gehring,et al.  Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: The Case of the Cartagena Protocol and the World Trade Organization , 2006, Global Environmental Politics.

[104]  John M. Anderies,et al.  Toward a network perspective of the study of resilience in social-ecological systems , 2006 .

[105]  G. Cumming,et al.  Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: Causes, consequences, and solutions , 2006 .

[106]  L. Lebel,et al.  The Politics of Scale, Position, and Place in the Governance of Water Resources in the Mekong Region , 2005 .

[107]  Elizabeth R. DeSombre,et al.  The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale , 2002 .

[108]  E. Lambin,et al.  Proximate Causes and Underlying Driving Forces of Tropical Deforestation , 2002 .

[109]  J. Newig,et al.  Scale in environmental governance: moving from concepts and cases to consolidation , 2001 .

[110]  G. Brady.  Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action , 1993 .

[111]  E. Corbera,et al.  How are institutions included in Integrated Conservation and Development Projects? Developing and testing a diagnostic approach on the World Bank’s Forest and Community project in Salta, Argentina , 2022, World Development.

[112]  Mairon G. Bastos Lima.  The Politics of Bioeconomy and Sustainability: Lessons from Biofuel Governance, Policies and Production Strategies in the Emerging World , 2021 .

[113]  Francisco J. Rosado-May,et al.  The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation , 2021, Ecology and Society.

[114]  S. Giljum,et al.  Global patterns of ecologically unequal exchange: Implications for sustainability in the 21st century , 2021, Ecological Economics.

[115]  Joanne Scott.  Reducing the European Union’s Environmental Footprint Through ‘Territorial Extension’ , 2020 .

[116]  Axel Berger,et al.  Towards Greening Trade? Environmental Provisions in Emerging Markets’ Preferential Trade Agreements , 2020, Sustainability Standards and Global Governance.

[117]  P. Verburg,et al.  Telecoupling visualizations through a network lens: a systematic review , 2020, Ecology and Society.

[118]  Sustainability and Law: General and Specific Aspects , 2020 .

[119]  S. Carodenuto.  Governance of zero deforestation cocoa in West Africa: New forms of public–private interaction , 2019, Environmental Policy and Governance.

[120]  Nelson B. Villoria,et al.  Criteria for effective zero-deforestation commitments , 2019, Global Environmental Change.

[121]  K. Seto,et al.  Conceptualizing Distal Drivers in Land Use Competition , 2016 .

[122]  H. Gibbs,et al.  Did Ranchers and Slaughterhouses Respond to Zero‐Deforestation Agreements in the Brazilian Amazon? , 2016 .

[123]  Simon Swaffield,et al.  Significance of telecoupling for exploration of land-use change , 2014 .

[124]  S. Kobrin.  Sovereignty@Bay: Globalization, Multinational Enterprise, and the International Political System , 2009 .

[125]  C. Folke,et al.  The problem of fit among biophysical systems, environmental and resource regimes, and broader governance systems : Insights and emerging challenges , 2008 .

[126]  John W. Kingdon.  Agendas, alternatives, and public policies , 1984 .