With deforestation accounting for around 12%<\/a><\/span> of global greenhouse emissions, protecting forests is fundamental to success in achieving the 1.5\u00b0C objective of the Paris Agreement. Yet deforestation <\/u><\/a><\/span>continues to increase and events such as the 12-year record <\/u>high<\/a><\/span> of deforestation in the Amazon in 2020 remind us of that. Soya production is among the main drivers of this deforestation – together with cattle breeding, palm oil growth and paper industry. <\/b><\/span><\/span>An increasing number of actors, from governments to private companies, including financial institutions, have made zero-net deforestation commitments, use carbon offsetting or rely on certification schemes for agricultural products. These efforts may sound positive, however in practice their effectiveness to prevent deforestation is very limited and may even have worse impacts that the problems they are intended to solve.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n Zero<\/b>–<\/b>net<\/i><\/b> deforestation vs zero<\/b>–<\/b>deforestation: one small word, huge implications<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n Z<\/span>ero<\/span>–<\/span>deforestation <\/span>means<\/u><\/span><\/a> that<\/span> forest areas <\/span>cannot be<\/span> cleared or converted, wh<\/span>ereas<\/span> zero<\/span>–<\/span>net deforestation <\/span>accepts<\/span> the clearance or conversion of forests in one <\/span>area<\/span> if<\/span> an equal area is replanted elsewhere<\/span>. <\/span>While the main critic<\/span>ism of <\/span>the zero-deforestation approach<\/span> is its lack of flexibility, zero<\/span>–<\/span>net deforestation faces multiple <\/span>critic<\/span>ism<\/span>s<\/span> relat<\/span>ing<\/span> mainly <\/span>to<\/span> its implementation and impacts. Some even claim that practices related to zero net deforestation commitments are fraudulent. Companies commit<\/u><\/a> to protect forests that were not originally threatened or fail to provide enough guarantees that they can protect those that are threated.<\/span><\/p>\n However, the underlying problem with zero-net deforestation comes from the lack of definition or even the impossibility of agreeing on a common language and understanding of the stakes: how to define<\/u><\/a> forest, forest loss, deforestation and even trees. <\/span>A<\/span>s <\/span>zero<\/span>–<\/span>net deforestation allows for new forest \u2013 natural or planted \u2013 to <\/span>theoretically <\/span>compensate for lost forest<\/span>,<\/span> it necessitates defining and <\/span>measuring what<\/span> would be an<\/span> \u201c<\/span>equivalent<\/span> area<\/span>\u201d<\/span> of a forest<\/span> to offset<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n It must be<\/span> consider<\/span>ed<\/span> that native forest and natural ecosystems store large amounts of \u201c<\/span>irrecoverable carbon<\/u><\/span><\/a>\u201d, carbon <\/span>which,<\/span> once released by forest destruction<\/span>,<\/span> cannot be restored rapidly enough to prevent the worst impact of climate change. <\/span>Moreover,<\/span> these ecosystems <\/span>play a fundamental role as habitat<\/span>s<\/span> for numerous species<\/span>, <\/span>provide elementary ecosystems services<\/span> –<\/span> like water and weather <\/span>regulation<\/span> –<\/span> and <\/span>have <\/span>essential<\/span> cultural value<\/span>. All these<\/span> functions cannot be substituted by plantations. <\/span><\/p>\n As<\/span> explained by researchers <\/span>Brown and Zarin<\/u><\/span><\/a> \u201cnet deforestation targets, inherently and erroneously, equate the value of protecting native forest with that of planting new ones.\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/b> <\/i><\/b>This does not mean that reforestation and forest rest<\/span><\/b>or<\/span><\/b>ation are not positive and should not be <\/span><\/b>encouraged<\/span><\/b> when <\/span><\/b>relevant<\/span><\/b>,<\/span><\/b> but<\/span><\/b> rather<\/span><\/b> that they <\/span><\/b>should not be done <\/span><\/b>to offset the destruction of natural <\/span><\/b>forests.<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n Certifications<\/b> <\/b>are not an easy way out of deforestation<\/b> <\/b>either<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n C<\/span>ertifications<\/span> of agricultural products<\/span> have gained popularity a<\/span>s <\/span>a <\/span>means of<\/span> validat<\/span>ing<\/span> and homogeniz<\/span>ing<\/span> efforts <\/span>towards better practices in terms of environment and social justice. These efforts are appreciated, but they do not constitute a panacea since they face numerous drawbacks. <\/span><\/p>\n For<\/span> soya, two main certification systems <\/span>exist<\/span>: RTRS and Proterra.<\/span> T<\/span>he RTRS is <\/span>considered<\/u><\/span><\/a> <\/u>to have c<\/span>ontributed to make the practices of some soya producers more responsible. However, RTRS soya remains a very small minority of global production since all certified soya, through different mechanisms, account for only 1.5-3% of total production. Moreover, while the eligibility criteria of these certifications may be considered ambitious,<\/span> they still <\/span>have<\/span> major <\/span>weaknesses<\/span><\/u><\/a>: <\/span>RTRS and Proterra <\/span>allow for large<\/span>–<\/span>scale monocultures that use <\/span>hu<\/span>ge quantities of pesticides and water resources, while creating limited employment opportunities. RTRS allows also GMOs.<\/span><\/p>\n