12.1 Introduction

This chapter identifies and analyses the potential benefits, impacts and contributions of efforts to achieve SDG 12 – Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) – on forests and forest-dependent livelihoods. While SCP has been part of the international policy discourse for more than four decades, its uptake has not been smooth. A bias has tended towards relatively weak measures. Currently, SDG 12 has no specific direct reference to forests or forest-dependent people among its targets or indicators, despite linkages between sustainable forest management and agricultural commodity supply. These linkages have implications for deforestation and forest degradation.

The significant links between SCP and forests have yet to receive sufficient attention among the expert and policy communities. Although SDG 12 is considered a major contributor to the protection and enhancement of natural resources, including forests (FAO 2018), and is seen to be particularly relevant to the supply of forest products (Brack Reference Brack2018), ‘progress towards this goal has so far been very limited’ (Brack Reference Brack2018: 5).

This chapter’s overall findings align with the above assessments by FAO and the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF). Achieving SDG 12 targets can contribute to improving forest conservation and sustainable management by reducing pressures from forest-risk commodities (e.g. palm oil, soy, cacao, beef) and incentivising sustainable supply of forest products (e.g. timber, pulp and paper), leading to slowing or reducing current impacts.

The SDG 12 targets in Table 12.1 do not suggest any direct trade-offs that could emerge between achieving the SDG 12 targets and protecting forest ecosystem functions and services. However, depending on how governments and the private sector address SDG 12 in the forests and forest-risk commodities’ supply and value-chain governance, there can be issues of leakage and indirect social impacts (e.g. exclusion of smallholders and forest-dependent communities), resulting in trade-offs with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

SDG 12 can enable conditions for advancing a more sustainable supply of forest commodities, notably timber and pulp and paper, as well as expanding the adoption of more sustainable practices in the supply of forest-risk commodities. These enabling conditions are primarily linked to the expansion of more responsible sourcing strategies downstream in the value chain, which may translate into improved standards and incentives for making upstream production more sustainable. The targets and indicators per se do not provide assurance that SDG 12 will effectively support forest conservation and sustainable forest management. To achieve the full potential of SCP approaches for forests and forest-dependent people, explicit criteria on land use and forests must be included in SDG 12 targets, accounting for leakage and spatial spillover effects (Lambin and Meyfroidt Reference Lambin and Meyfroidt2011).

SCP is a well-established interdisciplinary research field with a wide variety of practical life-cycle approaches, including life-cycle analysis (LCA), cleaner production, eco-efficiency, changes in consumption patterns, using less resource-intensive products, the 3Rs (reduce, reuse and recycle), moving from material products to immaterial services, energy conservation, sharing the use of products and using higher-quality products with longer lifespans (Lebel and Lorek Reference Lebel and Lorek2008). The academic discourse on SCP differentiates between improvements in technical-managerial resource efficiency and green supply chains (Rajeev et al. Reference Rajeev, Pati, Padhi and Govindan2017). It also comprises systemic approaches considering social and behavioural change and sufficiency approaches (Cohen et al. Reference Cohen, Brown and Vergragt2014). Sufficiency is defined as the consumption of commodities and services in amounts just enough for ideal health (Boulanger Reference Boulanger2010). Sufficiency principles include individual and societal restraint in consumption, precaution and ‘polluter pays’. It considers planetary risks, not just in the short term for immediate beneficiaries, but also in the long term for the under-represented and future generations (Princen Reference Princen2003). In the context of public health and sustainable food systems, sufficiency approaches regarding voluntary reduction and possible policy targets are important to address the overconsumption of meat (Allievi et al. Reference Allievi, Vinnari and Luukkanen2015), one of the main drivers of tropical deforestation.

Efficiency measures can encourage demand and consumption, offsetting gains; sufficiency approaches are necessary to address these rebound effects, also known as Jevons’ Paradox (Jevons Reference Jevons1865). There is evidence of rebound effects in the energy and transport sectors and the manufacturing industries; it has been observed in the agricultural sector, when improvements in water productivity and irrigation efficiency resulted in increases in total water use (Song et al. Reference Song, Guo, Wu and Sun2018). Regarding climate change, relying solely upon energy efficiency to reduce carbon emissions is misguided (Herring and Sorrell Reference Herring and Sorrell2009). Likewise for forests: relying solely on efficiency measures in the plantation, harvest and supply of forest products or forest-risk commodities could result in increases in demand and higher consumption levels. Environmental rebounds could also emerge from conservation policies that decrease the use of tropical hardwood, leading to a consumption shift towards materials using chemicals, toxic components or higher CO₂ emissions (Maestre-Andrés et al. Reference Maestre-Andrés, Calvet Mir, van den Bergh, Ring and Verburge2012).

The need for complementarity between efficiency and sufficiency approaches can be illustrated by the example of pulp and paper. The efficiency approach aims at improving the supply-chain and industrial-production processes of mills by improving material and energy efficiency through new technologies (Griffin et al. Reference Griffin, Hammond and Norman2018) and increasing the use of recycled fibre. A systemic approach to SCP is more comprehensive, focusing on sustainable uses of paper, behavioural changes of institutional and industrial users and private consumers, and finding solutions to address the growing global demand for paper and paper products. While efficiency aspects are included under SDG 12 and are linked to SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), the more systemic ones are largely missing – with the exception of Target 12.8, aiming to provide more consumer information for sustainable lifestyles.

An analysis of SDG 12’s overall effectiveness for achieving SCP patterns (Bengtsson et al. Reference Bengtsson, Alfredsson, Cohen, Lorek and Schroeder2018) concludes that the current conception of targets mainly relies on efficiency approaches rather than a systemic approach considering sufficiency and inequality in consumption patterns. SDG 12 represents a partial and inadequate conceptualisation of SCP, hampering effective implementation and progress towards sustainability. The paper provides some suggestions on how governments and other actors involved in operationalisation of SDGs could more effectively pursue SCP from a systemic standpoint. While not specifically discussing the impact on forest resources and livelihoods, the findings are directly relevant for forests.

An efficiency-based approach, while potentially positive, does not automatically guarantee significant positive outcomes for forest conservation and sustainable management, nor for forest livelihoods. One of the main issues for forests is how SDG 12 can contribute to SCP for forest products, as well as reduce the negative impacts from forest conversion to meet growing demand for forest-risk commodities (e.g. soy, palm oil, beef and cocoa). Most SCP approaches implement voluntary sustainability standards in corporate sourcing or public procurement, aiming to increase efficiency and reduce environmental impacts in the production phase. While this approach is an important element for forest conservation efforts and reducing deforestation from large-scale agri-food production, what is less clear is how the efficiency-based approach will impact forest-based livelihoods. Small-scale producers may be excluded from value chains, if they are unable to comply with more stringent criteria, mainly due to uptake costs and market access.

Our analysis focuses in particular on the 10-Year Framework Plan (10YFP) on SCP (Target 12.1), food waste reduction (Target 12.3), the role of the private sector in adopting sustainable corporate practices (Target 12.6), sustainable public procurement (Target 12.7), sustainable tourism (Target 12.B) and rationalising inefficient fossil fuel subsidies (Target 12.C). The analysis features selected country-specific case studies on how adopting SCP principles and practices can provide a positive contribution to forests and forest livelihoods by achieving specific SDG 12 targets, along with associated issues arising from the process.

12.2 The 10YFP on SCP

Target 12.1 concerns in particular the 10-Year Framework Plan (10YFP) on SCP, an outcome of the Rio+20 conference, coordinated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Various commentators have criticised the 10YFP for defaulting to ‘weak’ forms of sustainable consumption intervention, focusing on efficiency and technological innovation (Hobson et al. Reference Hobson2013). We review projects and initiatives implemented under the 10YFP that relate to forest protection and conservation. The 10YFP has 6 programmatic areas: consumer information, sustainable tourism, sustainable lifestyles and education, sustainable buildings and construction, sustainable food systems and sustainable public procurement (SPP). In 2018 the 10YFP was renamed and rebranded as the One Planet Network.

The 10YFP involves more than 500 stakeholders, including governments and implementing partners (UN bodies, civil society and private sector organisations). The 10YFP programmes are closely related to several SDG 12 targets; while links to forest and forest actors are not explicit, a number of international and national forest actors are involved (Table 12.2), the most active and visible of which is the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).The FSC is devoted to the certification of forests and forest product value chains. For the 10YFP to become more relevant to forests, it has to connect to other important initiatives such as the New York Declaration on Forests, a partnership of governments, multinational companies, civil society and Indigenous peoples that strives to halve deforestation by 2020 and end it by 2030.

The 10YFP has developed a complex institutional structure involving numerous stakeholders. For example, the 10YFP Sustainable Tourism Programme has established a multi-stakeholder advisory committee of committed institutions from different geographic regions and categories (governmental agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), private sector businesses, intergovernmental organisations as well as academia and UN agencies) and acts as a forum for consultation, advice and support to the Lead, Co-Leads and Coordination Desk for its implementation. Similarly, the SPP programme set up a multi-stakeholder advisory committee that includes some forest actors, such as the FSC and Germany’s Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety.

The 10YFP has established a global database on SCP initiatives (SCP Clearinghouse). Of the 1000+ initiatives and programmes registered, less than 10 focus explicitly on forests, indicating the weak link between the 10YFP and forests; however, there are many other forest initiatives that have not linked up or reported to the SCP Clearinghouse. Additionally, some of the 10YFP initiatives working on sustainable food systems, lifestyles and healthy diets have positive indirect effects on forests.

Target 8.4 also refers to the 10YFP, establishing a link between the 10YFP and the SDG 8 on economic growth and decent work. The wording about resource efficiency and decoupling of growth indicates that the 10YFP is largely situated within the neoliberal growth paradigm. Nevertheless, it provides a starting point for an alternative development model that aims for absolute reductions in resource use while also addressing inequality of existing consumption and production patterns.

12.3 Reducing Food Waste

The total global food wastage in 2017 involved almost 1.4 billion ha of land – about 28 per cent of agricultural land worldwide (FAO 2018). The food waste related to meat and dairy production is a major contributor to land conversion – here there are direct links to Targets 12.3 and 12.8 concerning sustainable lifestyles and healthy nutrition. Meat and dairy occupies about 78 per cent of the total land area in agricultural production, whereas their contribution to total food wastage makes up 11 per cent of all food (FAO 2013). This ratio indicates a high ‘land intensity’ of this commodity group’s food waste compared with other commodity groups, even if wastage volumes in all regions are comparatively low. For ruminants, the share of concentrated feed (e.g. grains, soymeal), its constituents (such as maize or soy) and the yields in the originating regions of these crops influences the arable-land occupation intensity (FAO 2013). By region, the major areas where food losses occur are North Africa, Western Asia and Central Asia, accounting for 27 per cent of food-loss areas globally (FAO 2013).

Target 12.3 – ‘by 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses’ – is positively related to forest protection and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger). By preventing food waste and food losses, the conversion of forest areas to agricultural land for food production, which remains the main driver of deforestation, can be reduced or avoided. Target 12.3 can support forest conservation and avoid the potential trade-off between SDG 2 and SDG 15 (Life on Land), one of the major trade-offs identified in the SDG framework (ICSU 2016).

Forests are fundamental to food security and improved livelihoods. Agricultural development, governance of land-use changes and active policy interventions are key factors affecting forest conversion (FAO 2016). Globally, one-third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted each year (FAO 2013). This indicates an opportunity to improve global food security and food-chain resource use, which would significantly lower environmental impacts from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and land conversion, thereby reducing threats to forest resources. Preventing food waste and food losses reduces demand for agriculture, forestry and other land-use products, thereby decreasing not only inputs (fertiliser, energy, machinery), but also demand for land (Smith et al. Reference Smith, Bustamante and Ahammad2014) and generating benefits for other SDGs, such as 13 (Climate Action).

12.4 Tackling Waste through the 3Rs

Target 12.5 aims to ‘by 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse’. The reduce–reuse–recycle, or 3Rs, as part of the circular economy is a SCP approach that combines both the technical-managerial efficiency aspect of recycling and the systemic approach to reduce overall consumption and waste generation. Since the circular economy is increasingly recognised as an alternative to the conventional economic model of ‘take–make–throw away’, Target 12.5 has direct links with SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure).

In the forest context, Target 12.5 is relevant for three stages in the value chains of paper and wood products: (1) reducing process waste in the production phase of paper and wood products; (2) reducing the amounts of paper and wood products used during the consumption phase; and (3) reducing waste generation at the end-of-life stage through reuse of wood products and recycling of wood and fibre. The world consumes about 300 million tons of paper annually. Globally, paper production accounts for about 35 per cent of industrial roundwood (Martin Reference Martin2011). Although much progress has been made in recovering and recycling paper – 230 million tonnes were recovered in 2016, a 354 per cent increase since 1980 (FAOSTAT 2016) – most paper today is still made from virgin pulp, while recycled paper accounts for only 38 per cent of the global fibre supply. There is much potential to increase recycling rates; however, 100 per cent recovery rates are impossible to achieve and the recycled fibre needs to be complemented with virgin fibre for technical reasons. Its maximum level depends on the product mix of the paper industry, which limits the potentials of paper recycling.

The third largest producer and consumer of paper and cardboard, Japan (RISI 2017), provides an example of paper recycling trends: increasing ratios in paper recycling and used paper collection, and continually growing recycled paper use since 2000 (Figure 12.1).

Figure 12.1 Trends of used paper collection ratio and paper recycling ratio in Japan.

Source: Paper Recycling Promotion Center, Japan.

It is necessary to enhance the efficiency of 3R approaches on paper in large economies to contribute to global sustainable management of forests. Notably, impacts of 3R approaches on paper vary depending on the origin, type and status of trees used for material and the processes used in production and recycling (Čabalová et al. Reference Čabalová, Kačík, Geffert and Kačíková2011). In the case of Japan, efforts of industrial sectors related to paper production and facilitation of collective collection of used paper supported by municipalities contributed to the continuous enhancement in efficiency of paper recycling since the 1980s (synergies with SDG 9). Policies and institutions exist to facilitate recycling of resources, including the Act on Promoting Green Procurement, in force since 2001, that regulates the ratios of used paper content in paper-production materials (see also Box 12.3).

12.5 The Role of Business as an Actor in Forest Resource Management

Business is a main actor in global forest-commodity and agricultural value chains that place pressure on forest resources. Its active participation and contribution will be crucial to achieving SDG 12 and the wider goals of sustainability of forest resources and livelihoods. Target 12.6 specifically addresses the private sector: ‘encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle’. A widespread practice of businesses in the forest industry is to prepare sustainability reports, which often rely on forest certification schemes, among others, in accounting for their sustainability performance.

In addition to reporting, there are several approaches companies of all sizes can use to help achieve SCP targets, including multinationals, local small and medium-sized enterprises and smallholders and communities controlling forest resources. In relation to global forest commodity chains, in the following section we focus on forest certification schemes, and zero-deforestation initiatives, especially those linked to palm oil. Regarding forest livelihoods, we discuss analogue forestry models and Indigenous practices.

12.6 Sustainable Public Procurement Policies

Target 12.7 – ‘promote public procurement practices that are sustainable, in accordance with national policies and priorities’ – is closely related to forest certification schemes. Public procurement represents 5–20 per cent of total forest product consumption; the indirect impact on the sector is much larger. Certification schemes often serve procurement policies as a tool to verify and demonstrate that products come from sustainably managed forests. There is a large number of countries that have specific public procurement policies for forest products. This section looks at sustainable public procurement (SPP) schemes and their links to certification schemes such as the FGP for the international market, the BES 6001 Responsible Sourcing of Construction Products and other standards. SPP schemes are expected to enable regime shifts towards sustainable societies with socio-economically and environmentally harmonised production and consumption cycles (Trindade et al. Reference Trindade, Antunes and Partidário2018). In 2017, the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) issued a new standard, ISO 2040, to guide sustainable procurement. This new standard can be used to facilitate the introduction of SPP in public sectors. The development of information technology is another factor that can support SPP. In the academic discourses on SPP, the contribution of E-procurement and communication with suppliers to facilitate SPP is discussed (Walker and Brammer Reference Walker and Brammer2012). SPP practices are implemented in different regions of the world; however, the concept of SPP varies significantly among sectors and regions (Walker and Brammer Reference Walker and Brammer2009, Reference Brammer and Walker2011). For example, while local authorities tend to focus on buying from local and small-sized suppliers to facilitate production and consumption cycles in the given region, education sectors emphasise environmental aspects (Walker and Brammer Reference Walker and Brammer2009). These kinds of variations may cause conflicts among stakeholders, hindering national and international collaborations on SPP.

Appropriate timing is required when introducing SPP, considering the specific markets of the countries involved (Crespin-Mazet and Dontenwill Reference Crespin-Mazet and Dontenwill2012). Individual regions, with different market characteristics, need to develop their own concepts and schemes of SPP. Finding similarities among SPP regions, as well as individual uniqueness, and sharing knowledge and experience regarding SPP can contribute to global collaboration for facilitating such schemes. Furthermore, considering the cultural background of regions and implementing educational activities can facilitate the implementation of SPP (Aragão and Jabbour Reference Aragão and Jabbour2017, Delmonico et al. Reference Delmonico, Chiappetta Jabbour and Pereira2018).

In recent academic discourses, SPP has been discussed in the framework of green public procurement (Lundberg and Marklund Reference Lundberg and Marklund2018). The need for scientific evidence on effects of SPP to support decision-making on SPP schemes in relation to forest sectors has been emphasised (Cerutti et al. Reference Cerutti, Ardente, Contu, Donno and Beccaro2018). One of the major challenges is to link global forest certification systems such as the PEFC and FSC with SPP initiatives. An example of standards for building and construction within SPP policies is the BES 6001 Responsible Sourcing of Construction Products (UNECE / FAO 2016). It requires a range of life-cycle criteria to be met as part of the procurement process for construction materials. If mainstreamed across public procurement systems, it has the potential to influence the entire life-cycle of materials. However, as it stands, it is likely to mainly impact the production and consumption phases. At the end of 2014, the total number of valid BES 6001 certificates stood at 89, covering 76 companies. Recently, the FGP was approved by IFOAM-Organics International. FGP is the first set of organic standards developed in countries of the Global South and emphasises the place-based and sustainable production activities to produce forest products. Choosing the products with appropriate certificates to circulate them through SPP can enhance the effects of SPP on the aspects of environment, economy and society in individual countries and regions. Several national PEFC standards have been established in developing countries, such as the Philippine Sustainable Forest Certification System or the Pan-African Forest Certification (covering Cameroon, Congo and Gabon).

12.7 Sustainable Tourism Plans and Monitoring

Target 12.B – ‘develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products’ – has relevance to forest conservation and sustainable forest management, and has potentially positive impacts on livelihoods. Although Target 12.B only asks for tools to monitor impacts, there is a link with the programmatic area of Sustainable Tourism of the 10YFP under Target 12.1. Some limited evidence indicates that establishing closer links between sustainable tourism and forest management would potentially benefit and support forest conservation.

We have explored the potential benefits and possible trade-offs between sustainable tourism (e.g. ecotourism, community-based tourism) and forests in different country contexts. However, the empirical evidence base is not solid as there is only limited research on the impact of nature-based tourism on forests. IUFRO recognises the potential of sustainable tourism and nature-based tourism for forest conservation efforts, while at the same time acknowledging the need for more research to examine how land-management agencies can use innovative techniques to incorporate local community residents into tourism decision-making (IUFRO 2017). IUFRO also emphasises that forest managers and policymakers have yet to recognise the potential benefits that quality nature-based tourism planning and management can bring to local communities and forest conservation.

Forest landscape management is extremely complex, involving a wide range of factors and institutions; integrating nature-based tourism considerations into the management plans increases both complexity and the number of stakeholders, posing challenges to implementation. According to Rizio and Gios (Reference Rizio and Gios2014), the difficulties involved in the coordination of such a complex system stem from the multiple interests, stakeholders and utility flows. The whole set of forest and tourism management tools and mechanisms needs to be integrated into a collaborative management approach in order to achieve long-term sustainability through nature-based tourism. There are opportunities to align nature-based tourism and sustainable forest management in a collaborative approach.

The focus on operating an economically viable tourism destination that also conserves forests could be a successful approach to forest conservation for local governments, financing the conservation of the forest area and funding forest reserves through tourism. In addition, designation of land and forests as sustainable tourism destinations can be a way to protect them from invasions and illegal deforestation activities. A prominent example is Costa Rica, which has successfully pursued this approach (Bien Reference Bien2010); the integration of farming communities and Indigenous communities into ecotourism has had positive livelihood impacts through improving marginal sources of incomes. At the same time, this approach can support official acknowledgement of the ecological importance of the forest region by locals, government and tourists (which links to Target 12.8).

The variety of forest landscapes, in terms of wildlife and the ecosystems more generally, offer numerous opportunities for tourism. Forest peoples often play a role in making a place tourist-friendly, both in terms of interesting cultural features and in terms of their role in managing services. Forest landscapes often serve at least two functions within the local tourism context: they are both a good in their own right and a background for the pursuit of sustainable recreational activities. Furthermore, these tourism uses provide potential income sources for the local population. To conclude, key issues for Target 12.B are to monitor (and control) overuse of protected areas for tourism and promote benefit sharing with local populations.

12.8 Fossil Fuel Subsidy Phase-Out and National Bioenergy Policies and Strategies

Target 12.C is to

It relates directly to SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 13 (Climate Action).

According to the International Monetary Fund, fossil fuel subsidies amounted globally to USD 233 billion in 2015 – more than four times the subsidies promoting renewable energy. Fossil fuel subsidies have a negative impact on the development of renewable energy (Bridle and Kitson Reference Bridle and Kitson2014). The elimination of fossil fuel subsidies would not only be beneficial from a climate change perspective (creating synergies with SDG 7 and 13), since these subsidies work in practice as a negative carbon price, but would also help eliminate a significant market distortion that encourages inefficient consumption of fossil fuels (Sampedro et al. Reference Sampedro, Arto and González-Eguino2018). The overall environmental benefit of phasing out fossil fuel subsidies will be positive, especially for the global climate in terms of reducing CO₂ emissions from sectors dependent on fossil fuels.

It is unclear how the phase-out of subsidies would affect forests. The concern is that it could increase the use of forest resources for energy generation (e.g. traditional biomass, fuelwood, pellets). Although the issue of subsidies for the production and use of biomass, bioenergy and biofuels is not included in Target 12.C, we consider these interlinked issues of fossil fuel phase-out important in relation to national strategies for bioenergy and biofuels. Production, processing and use of forest-based biomass for energy is not necessarily harmful to forests, but it does require careful policy design to avoid trade-offs and unintended consequences.

EU member states have committed to phase out environmentally harmful studies – including fossil fuels – by 2020. European governments have made parallel pledges to end inefficient fossil fuel subsidies under the G7 and the G20. Despite the commitments, 11 European countries and the EU provided at least EUR 112 billion annually during the period 2014–2016 in subsidies towards fossil fuel production and consumption, with EUR 4 billion from the EU itself (Whitley et al. Reference Whitley, van der Burg, Worrall and Patel2017). Fiscal support and other measures for subsidies included, as in the case of Italy, a reduction on tax applied to diesel used in the agricultural sub-sectors of farming, horticulture, forestry and aquaculture, as well as VAT concessions to petroleum products for use in agriculture, forestry and inland fisheries (Whitley et al. Reference Whitley, van der Burg, Worrall and Patel2017). According to research by Chatham House (Brack Reference Brack2017), many policies intended to boost biomass use are ‘not fit for purpose’ because they inadvertently increase pollution by ignoring emissions from burning wood in power stations and failing to account for changes in forest carbon stocks. The UK rules for bioenergy and those recently revised by the EU are inadequate for managing and monitoring emissions from burning biomass. Global electricity generation from biomass, including wood pellets, more than doubled from 2005 to 2015, and the EU has emerged as the world’s biggest user of biomass for electricity generation: bioenergy is expected to contribute 57 per cent of the EU’s total renewable energy by 2020 (Brack Reference Brack2017). The implications of these growth trends for forests, forest-based products and the climate have yet to be systematically analysed.

Optimisation of biomass-flow cascades increase resource-use efficiency and may reduce competition; however, there may be trade-offs, again between SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 15 (Life on Land). For example, using crop residues for bioenergy or roughage supply may leave less carbon and nutrients on cropland, reduce soil quality and carbon storage in soils and increase the risk of losses of carbon through soil erosion. Residues are also often used as forage, particularly in the tropics (Smith et al. Reference Smith, Bustamante and Ahammad2014). In conclusion, Target 12.C’s impacts on forests can be positive, but due to complex interlinkages between sectoral fuel and biomass subsidies, safeguarding measures are needed for mitigating and avoiding possible negative outcomes.

12.9 Conclusions

Although SDG 12 targets do not explicitly mention forests and forest-based livelihoods, and even though they mainly take a so-called efficiency approach to SCP, our assessment shows that the targets are important for forest conservation and forest livelihoods. Absolute limits to consumption of resources such as forest products or meat are not part of SDG 12, and the targets do not address systemic issues of deforestation and overconsumption of forest resources and agricultural products that drive deforestation. Therefore, the overall benefits of SDG 12 to long-term sustainability of forests and forest livelihoods are limited to slowing down impacts, rather than reversing unsustainable trends. Unless mainstreamed throughout the economy, it is unlikely that the important Target 12.2 (by 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources) will be met through the approaches presented under this SDG, such as consumer education, SPP, voluntary sustainability initiatives and reporting by the private sector, food waste reduction, eco-labelling and sustainable tourism. Therefore, measures to be taken under other SDGs, notably SDG 15, are necessary. Regarding SDG 12 target implementation, the main programme covering various issues is UNEP’s 10YFP on SCP. Our analysis shows that the 10YFP does not specifically focus on forests or forest livelihoods; however, some of the initiatives, such as SPP, consumer information and eco-labelling, are consistent with and linked to ongoing efforts to further SCP of forest commodities. There are potentials for the 10YFP to initiate more specific activities and programmes to directly address forest protection and livelihoods.

Linking national and sub-national deforestation analyses with national SCP plans could be a promising strategy, especially SPP schemes or national sustainable tourism development plans and policies. SPPs are useful tools to promote the uptake of forest certification schemes to achieve SDG 12 with potentially positive impact on forests.

National governments and large companies involved in global value chains of forest products and agricultural commodities will be the main players for achieving SDG 12 targets. How SDG 12 can be leveraged to advance conservation efforts for forests is, however, not straightforward. We have attempted to provide a number of examples of how synergies between SDG 12 and forest protection and livelihoods can be created. SDG 12 can possibly also address and lessen trade-offs between other SDGs such as SDG 2 and SDG 15 (food production versus biodiversity and forest conservation) and SDG 9 and SDG 15 (industrialisation versus biodiversity and forest conservation) (See Table 12.3). To enhance forest conservation through SCP, a more integrative approach addressing systemic issues needs to be adopted. This would include efforts to address industrial drivers, poverty, food security and other underlying causes of deforestation, such as increasing levels of consumption driven by consumerism.