1 Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture (FAO). 2020. Évaluation des ressources forestières mondiales 2020 – Rapport principal. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825fr
2 FAO. 2018. Termes et définitions – FRA 2020. Évaluation des ressources forestières mondiales. Document de travail 188. Rome. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.fao.org/3/I8661fr/i8661fr.pdf).
3 FAO. 2018. Termes et définitions – FRA 2020. Évaluation des ressources forestières mondiales. Document de travail 188. Rome. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.fao.org/3/I8661fr/i8661fr.pdf).
4 FAO. 2020. Évaluation des ressources forestières mondiales 2020 – Rapport principal. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825fr
5 FAO. En préparation. Global Forest Resources Assessment – Remote sensing survey.
6 FAO. 2020. Évaluation des ressources forestières mondiales 2020 – Rapport principal. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825fr
7 BGCI. 2021. State of the World’s Trees. Richmond (Royaume-Uni), Agenda international pour la conservation dans les jardins botaniques (BGCI).
8 Vié, J.-C., Hilton-Taylor, C. et Stuart, S.N. 2009. Wildlife in a changing world – An analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Union internationale pour la conservation de la nature (UICN). 184 p.
9 Burley, J. 2002. Forest biological diversity: an overview. Unasylva, 209: 3-9.
10 FAO. 2014. The State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources. Rome, Commission des ressources génétiques pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture et FAO. 276 p.
11 De Vos, J.M., Joppa, L.N., Gittleman, J.L., Stephens, P.R. et Pimm, S.L. 2015. Estimating the normal background rate of species extinction: background rate of extinction. Conservation Biology, 29(2): 452-462. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12380
12 FAO. 2021. L’État des ressources en terres et en eau pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture dans le monde – Des systèmes au bord de la rupture. Rome, FAO. 93 p. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7654fr
13 FAO. 2021. L’État des ressources en terres et en eau pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture dans le monde – Des systèmes au bord de la rupture. Rome, FAO. 93 p. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7654fr
14 Pye, J.M., Holmes, T.P., Prestemon, J.P. et Wear, D.N. 2011. Economic impacts of the southern pine beetle. Dans: R.N. Coulson et K.D. Klepzig (sous la dir. de). Southern pine beetle II, p. 213-222. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-140. Asheville (États-Unis), US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/39071).
15 Hlásny, T., König, L., Krokene, P., Lindner, M., Montagné-Huck, C., Müller, J., Qin, H., et al. 2021. Bark beetle outbreaks in Europe: state of knowledge and ways forward for management. Current Forestry Reports, 7(3): 138-165. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-021-00142-x).
16 FAO. 2020. Évaluation des ressources forestières mondiales 2020 – Rapport principal. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825fr
17 van Wees, D., van der Werf, G.R., Randerson, J.T., Andela, N., Chen, Y. et Morton, D.C. 2021. The role of fire in global forest loss dynamics. Global Change Biology, 27(11): 2377-2391. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15591).
18 Davey, S.M. et Sarre, A. 2020. Editorial: the 2019/20 Black Summer bushfires. Australian Forestry, 83(2): 47-51. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://doi.org/10.1080/00049158.2020.1769899).
19 FAO. 2020. Évaluation des ressources forestières mondiales 2020 – Rapport principal. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825fr
20 FAO. 2020. Évaluation des ressources forestières mondiales 2020 – Rapport principal. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825fr
21 FAO. 2020. Évaluation des ressources forestières mondiales 2020 – Rapport principal. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825fr
22 Friedlingstein, P., Jones, M.W., O’Sullivan, M., Andrew, R.M., Bakker, D.C.E., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C. et al. 2021. Global carbon budget 2021. Anthroposphere – energy and emissions. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-386).
23 Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat (GIEC) et Edenhofer, O. (sous la direction de). 2014. Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change – Working Group III contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York, NY, Cambridge University Press. 1435 p.
24 Friedlingstein, P., Jones, M.W., O’Sullivan, M., Andrew, R.M., Bakker, D.C.E., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C. et al. 2021. Global carbon budget 2021. Anthroposphere – energy and emissions. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-386).
25 Harris, N.L., Gibbs, D.A., Baccini, A., Birdsey, R.A., de Bruin, S., Farina, M., Fatoyinbo, L. et al. 2021. Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nature Climate Change, 11(3): 234-240. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00976-6).
26 Leite-Filho, A.T., Soares-Filho, B.S., Davis, J.L., Abrahão, G.M. et Börner, J. 2021. Deforestation reduces rainfall and agricultural revenues in the Brazilian Amazon. Nature Communications, 12(1): 2591. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22840-7).
27 Duku, C. et Hein, L. 2021. The impact of deforestation on rainfall in Africa: a data-driven assessment. Environmental Research Letters, 16(6): 064044. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abfcfb).
28 Schwaab, J., Meier, R., Mussetti, G., Seneviratne, S., Bürgi, C. et Davin, E.L. 2021. The role of urban trees in reducing land surface temperatures in European cities. Nature Communications, 12(1): 6763. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26768-w).
29 Jones, K.E., Patel, N.G., Levy, M.A., Storeygard, A., Balk, D., Gittleman, J.L. et Daszak, P. 2008. Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature, 451(7181): 990-993. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06536).
30 Plateforme intergouvernementale scientifique et politique sur la biodiversité et les services écosystémiques (IPBES). 2020. Workshop report on biodiversity and pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4147317
31 Riesco, I.L. 2006. Forest loss and human health: focus on EU policies and practices. FERN.
32 Venkatesh, S. 2020. Coming out of the jungle, infectious diseases. Dans: Down to Earth [en ligne]. Consulté le 8 novembre 2021]. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/forests/coming-out-of-the-jungle-infectious-diseases-70969).
33 Wilcox, B.A. et Ellis, B.R. 2006. Les forêts et les maladies infectieuses émergentes chez l’homme. Unasylva, 224: 11-18. https://www.fao.org/3/a0789f/a0789f03.htm
34 Olivero, J., Fa, J.E., Real, R., Márquez, A.L., Farfán, M.A., Vargas, J.M., Gaveau, D. et al. 2017. Recent loss of closed forests is associated with Ebola virus disease outbreaks. Scientific Reports, 7(1): 14291. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14727-9).
35 Rulli, M.C., Santini, M., Hayman, D.T.S. et D’Odorico, P. 2017. The nexus between forest fragmentation in Africa and Ebola virus disease outbreaks. Scientific Reports, 7(1): 41613. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep41613).
36 Newton, P., Castle, S., Kinzer, A., Miller, D. et Oldekop, J. 2022. The number of forest-proximate people – A new methodology and global estimates. Rome, FAO.
37 Castañeda, A., Doan, D., Newhouse, D., Nguyen, M.C., Uematsu, H. et Azevedo, J.P. 2018. A new profile of the global poor. World Development, 101: 250-267. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.08.002).
38 Miller, D.C., Muñoz-Mora, J.C. et Christiaensen, L. 2017. Prevalence, economic contribution, and determinants of trees on farms across Sub-Saharan Africa. Forest Policy and Economics, 84: 47-61. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.005).
39 FAO. 2020. Évaluation des ressources forestières mondiales 2020 – Rapport principal. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825fr
40 FAO. 2020. Évaluation des ressources forestières mondiales 2020 – Rapport principal. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825fr
41 FAO. 2020. Évaluation des ressources forestières mondiales 2020 – Rapport principal. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825fr
42 FAO. 2020. Évaluation des ressources forestières mondiales 2020 – Rapport principal. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825fr
43 Initiative des droits et ressources (RRI). 2018. At a crossroads – Consequential trends in recognition of community-based forest tenure from 2002–2017. Initiative des droits et ressources. https://doi.org/10.53892/UCYL3747).
44 Miller, D.C., Rana, P., Nakamura, K., Irwin, S., Cheng, S.H., Ahlroth, S. et Perge, E. 2021. A global review of the impact of forest property rights interventions on poverty. Global Environmental Change, 66: 102218. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102218).
45 Meinzen-Dick, R. 2009. Property rights for poverty reduction? 10 p. ONU/DESA Working Papers 91. New York (États-Unis), Département des affaires économiques et sociales de l’ONU.
46 Hajjar, R., Newton, P., Ihalainen, M., Agrawal, A. et Gabay, M. 2020. Levers for alleviating poverty in forests and tree-based systems. Forests, trees and the eradication of poverty – Potential and limitations, p. 125-176. IUFRO World Series 39. Union internationale des instituts de recherches forestières.
47 Banque mondiale. 2021. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2021 – Managing assets for the future. Washington (États-Unis).
48 Banque mondiale. 2021. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2021 – Managing assets for the future. Washington (États-Unis).
49 Banque mondiale. 2021. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2021 – Managing assets for the future. Washington (États-Unis).
50 Forum économique mondial. 2020. Nature risk rising – Why the crisis engulfing nature matters for business and the economy. New Nature Economy. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_New_Nature_Economy_Report_2020.pdf).
51 Foundation for Sustainable Development. Non daté. ESVD [en ligne]. [Consulté le 18 janvier 2022]. https://www.esvd.info
52 Sorrenti, S. 2017. Non-wood forest products in international statistical systems. Rome, FAO.
53 Brander, L.M., de Groot, R., Schägner, P., Guisado-Goñi, P., van ’t Hoff, V. et Solomonides, S. 2022. The role of forest ecosystem services to support the green recovery – Evidence from the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database. Background paper for State of the World’s Forests 2022. FAO.
54 Brander, L.M., de Groot, R., Schägner, P., Guisado-Goñi, P., van ’t Hoff, V. et Solomonides, S. 2022. The role of forest ecosystem services to support the green recovery – Evidence from the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database. Background paper for State of the World’s Forests 2022. FAO.
55 Balmford, A., Green, J.M.H., Anderson, M., Beresford, J., Huang, C., Naidoo, R., Walpole, M. et al. 2015. Walk on the wild side: estimating the global magnitude of visits to protected areas. PLOS Biology, 13(2): e1002074. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002074).
56 Li, Y., Mei, B., Linhares-Juvenal, T. et Formenton Cardoso, N. 2022. Forest sector contributions to the national economies in 2015 – The direct, indirect and induced effects on value-added, employment and labour income. Rome, FAO.
57 Li, Y., Mei, B., Linhares-Juvenal, T. et Formenton Cardoso, N. 2022. Forest sector contributions to the national economies in 2015 – The direct, indirect and induced effects on value-added, employment and labour income. Rome, FAO.
58 Li, Y., Mei, B., Linhares-Juvenal, T. et Formenton Cardoso, N. 2022. Forest sector contributions to the national economies in 2015 – The direct, indirect and induced effects on value-added, employment and labour income. Rome, FAO.
59 Li, Y., Mei, B., Linhares-Juvenal, T. & Formenton Cardoso, N. 2022. Forest sector contributions to the national economies in 2015 – The direct, indirect and induced effects on value-added, employment and labour income. Rome, FAO.
60 FAO. Non daté. FAOSTAT [en ligne]. [Consulté le 27 décembre 2021]. https://www.fao.org/faostat/fr/#data/FO
61 Lippe, R.S., Cui, S. et Schweinle, J. À paraître. Contribution of the forest sector to total employment in national economies. FAO.
62 Lippe, R.S., Cui, S. et Schweinle, J. À paraître. Contribution of the forest sector to total employment in national economies. FAO.
63 Fonds monétaire international (FMI). 2021. World economic outlook update. janvier. 11 p.
64 Lakner, C., Yonzan, N., Mahler, D.G., Castaneda Aguilar, A. et Wu, H. 2021. Updated estimates of the impact of COVID-19 on global poverty: looking back at 2020 and the outlook for 2021. Dans: World Bank Blogs [en ligne]. [Consulté le 30 décembre 2021]. https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/updated-estimates-impact-covid-19-global-poverty-looking-back-2020-and-outlook-2021
65 Wunder, S., Kaimowitz, D., Jensen, S. et Feder, S. 2021. Coronavirus, macroeconomy, and forests: what likely impacts? Forest Policy and Economics, 131: 102536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102536
66 Organisation des Nations Unies (ONU). Non daté. UN Comtrade | International Trade Statistics Database [en ligne]. [Consulté le 13 novembre 2021]. https://comtrade.un.org/
67 Centre du commerce international (CCI). Non daté. Trade map – Trade statistics for international business development [en ligne]. [Consulté le 4 janvier 2022]. https://www.trademap.org/Index.aspx
68 Held, C., Meier-Landsberg, E. et Alonso, V. 2022. Global forest sector outlook 2050 – Assessing the future demand and sources of timber for a sustainable economy. Background paper for the State of the World’s Forests 2022. FAO.
69 Held, C., Meier-Landsberg, E. et Alonso, V. 2022. Global forest sector outlook 2050 – Assessing the future demand and sources of timber for a sustainable economy. Background paper for the State of the World’s Forests 2022. FAO.
70 Shupler, M., Mwitari, J., Gohole, A., Anderson de Cuevas, R., Puzzolo, E., Čukić, I., Nix, E. et al. 2021. COVID-19 impacts on household energy & food security in a Kenyan informal settlement: the need for integrated approaches to the SDGs. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 144: 111018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111018
71 Stoner, O., Lewis, J., Martínez, I.L., Gumy, S., Economou, T. et Adair-Rohani, H. 2021. Household cooking fuel estimates at global and country level for 1990 to 2030. Nature Communications, 12(1): 5793. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26036-x
72 Lim, S.S., Vos, T., Flaxman, A.D., Danaei, G., Shibuya, K., Adair-Rohani, H., AlMazroa, M.A. et al. 2012. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The Lancet, 380(9859): 2224-2260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8
73 Bennitt, F.B., Wozniak, S.S., Causey, K., Burkart, K. et Brauer, M. 2021. Estimating disease burden attributable to household air pollution: new methods within the Global Burden of Disease Study. The Lancet Global Health, 9: S18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00126-1
74 Chidumayo, E.N. et Gumbo, D.J. 2013. The environmental impacts of charcoal production in tropical ecosystems of the world: a synthesis. Energy for Sustainable Development, 17(2): 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2012.07.004
75 Agence internationale de l’énergie (AIE), IRENA, ONU, Banque mondiale et Organisation mondiale de la Santé (OMS). 2021. Tracking SDG7 – The Energy Progress Report 2021. Washington (États-Unis), Banque mondiale.
76 Stoner, O., Lewis, J., Martínez, I.L., Gumy, S., Economou, T. et Adair-Rohani, H. 2021. Household cooking fuel estimates at global and country level for 1990 to 2030. Nature Communications, 12(1): 5793. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26036-x
77 FAO. Non daté. FAOSTAT [en ligne]. [Consulté le 11 janvier 2022]. https://www.fao.org/faostat/fr/#data/FO
78 FAO. 2014. 2014 Situation des forêts du monde – Mieux tirer parti des avantages socioéconomiques des forêts. Rome, FAO. 146 p. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.fao.org/3/i3710f/i3710f.pdf).
79 Shackleton, C.M. et de Vos, A. 2022. How many people globally actually use non-timber forest products? Forest Policy and Economics, 135: 102659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102659
80 Lovrić, M., Da Re, R., Vidale, E., Prokofieva, I., Wong, J., Pettenella, D., Verkerk, P.J. et al. 2020. Non-wood forest products in Europe – a quantitative overview. Forest Policy and Economics, 116: 102175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102175
81 FAO. Non daté. FAOSTAT [en ligne]. [Consulté le 27 décembre 2021]. https://www.fao.org/faostat/fr/#data/FO
82 Jenkins, M., Timoshyna, A. et Cornthwaite, M. 2018. Wild at home – Exploring the global harvest, trade and use of wild plant ingredients. Cambridge (Royaume-Uni), TRAFFIC International.
83 Nasi, R., Taber, A. et Van Vliet, N. 2011. Empty forests, empty stomachs? Bushmeat and livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon Basins. International Forestry Review, 13(3): 355-368. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554811798293872
84 Coad, L., Fa, J.E., Abernethy, K., Van Vliet, N., Santamaria, C., Wilkie, D., El Bizri, H.R. et al. 2019. Towards a sustainable, participatory and inclusive wild meat sector. Centre de recherche forestière internationale (CIFOR). https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/007046
85 Señaris et Ferrer (2012), comme on le voit dans: Coad, L., Fa, J.E., Abernethy, K., Van Vliet, N., Santamaria, C., Wilkie, D., El Bizri, H.R. et al. 2019. Towards a sustainable, participatory and inclusive wild meat sector. Centre de recherche forestière internationale (CIFOR). https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/007046
86 Jagger, P. et Cheek, J.Z. 2020. Key concepts for understanding forest-poverty dynamics. Dans: D.C. Miller, S. Mansourian et C. Wildburger (sous la dir. de). Forests, trees and the eradication of poverty – Potential and limitations, p. 33-54. IUFRO World Series. Vienne, Union internationale des instituts de recherches forestières (IUFRO).
87 Angelsen, A., Martius, C., de Sy, V. et Duchelle, A. 2018. Transforming REDD+ – Lessons and new directions. Bogor (Indonésie), Centre de recherche forestière internationale (CIFOR). 276 p.
88 Hickey, G.M., Pouliot, M., Smith-Hall, C., Wunder, S. et Nielsen, M.R. 2016. Quantifying the economic contribution of wild food harvests to rural livelihoods: a global-comparative analysis. Food Policy, 62: 122-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.06.001
89 Chaudhury, G., Basumatari, M., Darji, C.B., Ahmed, A.F., Borah, D., Sah, R.K., Devi, A. et al. 2021. Economic significance of wild bioresources to rural communities in the Eastern Himalayan state of Assam (nord-est de l’Inde). Trees, Forests and People, 5: 100102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100102
90 Laird, S.A., Awung, G.L., Lysinge, R.J. et Ndive, L.E. 2011. The interweave of people and place: biocultural diversity in migrant and indigenous livelihoods around Mount Cameroon. International Forestry Review, 13(3): 275-293. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554811798293890
91 Asselin, H. 2015. Indigenous forest knowledge. Dans: K. Peh, R. Corlett et Y. Bergeron (sous la dir. de) Routledge handbook of forest ecology, p. 586-596. Routledge.
92 Noack, F., Riekhof, M.-C. et Di Falco, S. 2019. Droughts, biodiversity, and rural incomes in the tropics. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 6(4): 823-852. https://doi.org/10.1086/703487
93 Bawa, A. et Atengdem, P.B. 2016. Impact of CLIP project on the livelihood outcomes of sheabutter processing women in Karaga district of Northern Region, Ghana. International Journal for Research in Agricultural and Food Science, 2(4): 7-29. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://gnpublication.org/index.php/afs/article/view/359).
94 Laube, W. 2015. Global shea nut commodity chains and poverty eradication in northern Ghana: myth or reality? UDS International Journal of Development, 2(1): 128-147. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: http://udsspace.uds.edu.gh:80/handle/123456789/456).
95 Mohammed, F., Boateng, S. et Al-hassan, S. 2013. Effects of adoption of improved sheabutter processing technology on women’s livelihoods and their microenterprise growth. American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(4): 244-250. https://doi.org/10.11634/232907811301419
96 FAO, Centre de recherche forestière internationale, International Forestry Resources and Institutions Research Network et Banque mondiale. 2016. National socioeconomic surveys in forestry – Guidance and survey modules for measuring the multiple roles of forests in household welfare and livelihoods. FAO Forestry Paper 179. Rome.
97 Curtis, P.G., Slay, C.M., Harris, N.L., Tyukavina, A. et Hansen, M.C. 2018. Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science, 361(6407): 1108-1111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau3445
98 De Sy, V., Herold, M., Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M. et Ochieng, R. 2018. Information and policy change: data on drivers can drive change if used wisely. Transforming REDD+: Lessons and New Directions, Bogor (Indonésie), Centre de recherche forestière internationale.
99 Hosonuma, N., Herold, M., Sy, V.D., Fries, R.S.D., Brockhaus, M., Verchot, L., Angelsen, A. et al. 2012. An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environmental Research Letters, 7(4): 044009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044009
100 Pendrill, F., Persson, U.M., Godar, J. et Kastner, T. 2019. Deforestation displaced: trade in forest-risk commodities and the prospects for a global forest transition. Environmental Research Letters, 14(5): 055003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab0d41
101 FAO. En préparation. Global Forest Resources Assessment – Remote sensing survey.
102 FAO. En préparation. Global Forest Resources Assessment – Remote sensing survey.
103 Dummett, C. et Blundell, A. 2021. Illicit harvest, complicit goods – The state of illegal deforestation for agriculture. 81 p. Forest Trends.
104 Pacheco, P., Mo, K., Dudley, N., Shapiro, A., Aguilar-Amuchastegui, N., Ling, P.-Y., Anderson, C. et al. 2021. Deforestation fronts – Drivers and responses in a changing world. Gland (Suisse), Fonds mondial pour la nature.
105 ONU. 2019. World Population Prospects 2019 – Highlights. ONU. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://doi.org/10.18356/13bf5476-en).
106 van Dijk, M., Morley, T., Rau, M.L. et Saghai, Y. 2021. A meta-analysis of projected global food demand and population at risk of hunger for the period 2010–2050. Nature Food, 2(7): 494-501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00322-9
107 Meyfroidt, P., Lambin, E.F., Erb, K.-H. et Hertel, T.W. 2013. Globalization of land use: distant drivers of land change and geographic displacement of land use. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(5): 438-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.04.003
108 Hoang, N.T. et Kanemoto, K. 2021. Mapping the deforestation footprint of nations reveals growing threat to tropical forests. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(6): 845-853. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01417-z
109 FAO. En préparation. Global Forest Resources Assessment – Remote sensing survey.
110 Voora, V., Larrea, C., Bermudez, S. et Baliño, S. 2020. Global market report – Palm oil. International Institute for Sustainable Development and State of Sustainability Initiatives. 16 p.
111 Franklin, S.L. et Pindyck, R.S. 2018. Tropical forests, tipping points, and the social cost of deforestation. Ecological Economics, 153: 161-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.06.003
112 Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S.L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N. et al. (sous la direction de). 2021. Climate Change 2021 – The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
113 Programme des Nations Unies pour l’environnement (PNUE) et UICN. 2021. Nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation. Nairobi (Kenya) et Gland (Suisse). 35 p. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/37318/NBSCCM.pdf).
114 GIEC. 2019. Climate change and land – An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, P. Zhai et al. (sous la dir. de).
115 Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S.L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N. et al. (sous la direction de). 2021. Climate Change 2021 – The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
116 GIEC. 2019. Climate Change and Land – An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, P. Zhai, et al. (sous la dir. de).
117 Goldstein, A., Turner, W.R., Spawn, S.A., Anderson-Teixeira, K.J., Cook-Patton, S., Fargione, J., Gibbs, H.K. et al. 2020. Protecting irrecoverable carbon in Earth’s ecosystems. Nature Climate Change, 10(4): 287-295. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0738-8
118 Busch, J. et Engelmann, J. 2017. Cost-effectiveness of reducing emissions from tropical deforestation, 2016-2050. Environmental Research Letters, 13(1): 015001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa907c
119 Roe, S., Streck, C., Beach, R., Busch, J., Chapman, M., Daioglou, V., Deppermann, A. et al. 2021. Land-based measures to mitigate climate change: potential and feasibility by country. Global Change Biology, 27(23): 6025-6058. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15873
120 Austin, K.G., Baker, J.S., Sohngen, B.L., Wade, C.M., Daigneault, A., Ohrel, S.B., Ragnauth, S. et al. 2020. The economic costs of planting, preserving, and managing the world’s forests to mitigate climate change. Nature Communications, 11(1): 5946. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19578-z
121 Roe, S., Streck, C., Beach, R., Busch, J., Chapman, M., Daioglou, V., Deppermann, A. et al. 2021. Land-based measures to mitigate climate change: potential and feasibility by country. Global Change Biology, 27(23): 6025-6058. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15873
122 Fuss, S., Golub, A. et Lubowski, R. 2021. The economic value of tropical forests in meeting global climate stabilization goals. Global Sustainability, 4: e1. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.34
123 FAO. 2019. The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture, J. Bélanger et D. Pilling (sous la dir. de). FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments. Rome.
124 Klein, A.-M., Vaissière, B.E., Cane, J.H., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S.A., Kremen, C. et Tscharntke, T. 2007. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1608): 303-313. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3721
125 IPBES. 2019. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3831673
126 Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R.T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R. et al. 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science, 359(6373): 270-272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826
127 Hill, S.L.L., Arnell, A., Maney, C., Butchart, S.H.M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Ciciarelli, C., Davis, C. et al. 2019. Measuring forest biodiversity status and changes globally. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 2: 70. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2019.00070
128 Waldron, A., Adams, V., Allan, J., Arnell, A., Abrantes, J.P., Asner, G., Atkinson, S. et al. 2020. Protecting 30 percent of the planet – Costs, benefits and economic implications. Working paper analysing the economic implications of the proposed 30% target for areal protection in the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19950.64327
129 Zomer, R.J., Trabucco A, Coe, R., Place, F., van Noordwijk, M. et Xu, J.C. 2014. Trees on farms – An update and reanalysis of agroforestry’s global extent and socio-ecological characteristics. Centre mondial d’agroforesterie (ICRAF). https://doi.org/10.5716/WP14064.PDF
130 Institut des ressources mondiales (WRI). Non daté. Global Forest Watch [en ligne]. [Consulté le 14 novembre 2021]. https://www.wri.org/initiatives/global-forest-watch
131 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program) (sous la direction de). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being – Synthesis. Washington (États-Unis), Island Press. 137 p.
132 Dasgupta, P. 2021. The economics of biodiversity: the Dasgupta review – Full report. Mis à jour le 18 février 2021. Londres, HM Treasury. 610 p.
133 WWAP (Programme mondial pour l’évaluation des ressources en eau)/ONU-Eau. 2018. World Water Development Report 2018. Dans: ONU-Eau [en ligne]. [Consulté le 8 novembre 2021]. https://www.unwater.org/publications/world-water-development-report-2018/
134 UNESCO WWAP. 2021. United Nations World Water Development Report 2021 – Valuing water. Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’éducation, la science et la culture (UNESCO).
135 Singh, S. et Mishra, A. 2014. Deforestation-induced costs on the drinking water supplies of the Mumbai metropolitan, India. Global Environmental Change, 27: 73-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.020
136 Turpie, J., Warr, B. et Carter Ingram, J. 2015. Benefits of forest ecosystems in Zambia and the role of REDD+ in a green economy transformation. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.globallandscapesforum.org/publication/benefits-of-forest-ecosystems-in-zambia-and-the-role-of-redd-in-a-green-economy-transformation/).
137 Arias, M.E., Cochrane, T.A., Lawrence, K.S., Killeen, T.J. et Farrell, T.A. 2011. Paying the forest for electricity: a modelling framework to market forest conservation as payment for ecosystem services benefiting hydropower generation. Environmental Conservation, 38(4): 473-484. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000464
138 Moran, E.F., Lopez, M.C., Moore, N., Müller, N. et Hyndman, D.W. 2018. Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(47): 11891-11898. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1809426115
139 Annandale, G.W., Morris, G.L. et Karki, P. 2016. Extending the life of reservoirs – Sustainable sediment management for dams and run-of-river hydropower. Washington (États-Unis), Banque mondiale. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0838-8
140 Menéndez, P., Losada, I.J., Torres-Ortega, S., Narayan, S. et Beck, M.W. 2020. The global flood protection benefits of mangroves. Scientific Reports, 10(1): 4404. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61136-6
141 Menéndez, P., Losada, I.J., Torres-Ortega, S., Narayan, S. et Beck, M.W. 2020. The global flood protection benefits of mangroves. Scientific Reports, 10(1): 4404. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61136-6
142 Allen, T., Murray, K.A., Zambrana-Torrelio, C., Morse, S.S., Rondinini, C., Di Marco, M., Breit, N. et al. 2017. Global hotspots and correlates of emerging zoonotic diseases. Nature Communications, 8(1): 1124. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00923-8
143 Wilcox, B.A. et Ellis, B.R. 2006. Les forêts et les maladies infectieuses émergentes chez l’homme. Unasylva, 57: 11-18. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.fao.org/3/a0789f/a0789f03.htm).
144 Sow, A., Nikolay, B., Faye, O., Cauchemez, S., Cano, J., Diallo, M., Faye, O. et al. 2020. Changes in the transmission dynamic of Chikungunya virus in southeastern Senegal. Viruses, 12(2): 196. https://doi.org/10.3390/v12020196
145 IPBES. 2020. Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4147317
146 Dobson, A.P., Pimm, S.L., Hannah, L., Kaufman, L., Ahumada, J.A., Ando, A.W., Bernstein, A. et al. 2020. Ecology and economics for pandemic prevention. Science, 369(6502): 379–381. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc3189
147 IPBES. 2020. Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4147317
148 FAO. 2020. Programme global d’intervention et de redressement covid-19 de la FAO - Prévenir la prochaine pandémie zoonotique: Renforcer et élargir l’approche «Une seule santé» pour conjurer les pandémies d’origine animale. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb0301fr
149 Jung, M., Arnell, A., de Lamo, X., García-Rangel, S., Lewis, M., Mark, J., Merow, C. et al. 2021. Areas of global importance for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, carbon and water. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(11): 1499-1509. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01528-7
150 Reed, J., Barlow, J., Carmenta, R., van Vianen, J. et Sunderland, T. 2019. Engaging multiple stakeholders to reconcile climate, conservation and development objectives in tropical landscapes. Biological Conservation, 238: 108229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108229
151 Denier, L., Scherr, S., Shames, S., Chatterton, P., Hovani, L. et Stam, N. 2015. The little sustainable landscapes book. Oxford (Royaume-Uni), Global Canopy Foundation. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://globalcanopy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/GCP_LSLB_EN.pdf).
152 Reed, J., Ickowitz, A., Chervier, C., Djoudi, H., Moombe, K., Ros-Tonen, M., Yanou, M. et al. 2020. Integrated landscape approaches in the tropics: a brief stock-take. Land Use Policy, 99: 104822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104822
153 GIEC. 2022. Climate Change 2022 – Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. H.O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem et B. Rama (sous la dir. de). Cambridge University Press. En cours d’impression.
154 Meybeck, A., Gitz, V., Wolf, J. et Wong, T. 2020. Intégration de la foresterie et de l’agroforesterie dans les plans d’adaptation nationaux – Directives complémentaires. Rome/Bogor (Indonésie), FAO et CGIAR. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1203fr
155 FAO, ed. 2017. The future of food and agriculture – Trends and challenges. Rome. 163 p.
156 Banque mondiale. Non daté. Agricultural land (sq. km) | Data [en ligne]. [Consulté le 11 novembre 2021]. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI.K2?end=2015&start=1961
157 Ritchie, H. et Roser, M. 2013. Crop yields – Our world in data [en ligne]. [Consulté le 8 novembre 2021]. https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields#citation
158 Campanhola, C. et Pandey, S. (sous la direction de). 2019. Sustainable food and agriculture. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2016-0-01212-3
159 Byerlee, D., Stevenson, J. et Villoria, N. 2014. Does intensification slow crop land expansion or encourage deforestation? Global Food Security, 3(2): 92-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2014.04.001
160 Ritchie, H. et Roser, M. 2013. Crop Yields - Our World in Data [en ligne]. [Consulté le 8 novembre 2021]. https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields#citation
161 Evenson, R.E. et Rosegrant, M. 2003. The economic consequences of crop genetic improvement programmes. Dans: R.E. Evenson et D. Gollin (sous la dir. de). Crop variety improvement and its effect on productivity – The impact of international agricultural research, p. 473-497. Wallingford, CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851995496.0473
162 Stevenson, J.R., Villoria, N., Byerlee, D., Kelley, T. et Maredia, M. 2013. Green Revolution research saved an estimated 18 to 27 million hectares from being brought into agricultural production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(21): 8363-8368. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208065110
163 Mosnier, A., Mant, R., Pirker, J., Makoudjou, A., Awono, E., Bodin, P., Tonga, P. et al. 2015. Modelling land use changes in Cameroon 2000–2030 – A report by the REDD-PAC project. Cambridge, Laxenburg, Yaoundé, UNEP-WCMC, IIASA, COMIFAC. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/13771/).
164 Mosnier, P., Mant, R., Pirker, J., Bodin, P., Bokelo, D., Tonga, P., Havlik, P. et al. Non daté. Modelling land use changes in the Democratic Republic of Congo 2000-2030. A report by the REDD-PAC project. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/13775/).
165 Havlík, P., Valin, H., Mosnier, A., Obersteiner, M., Baker, J.S., Herrero, M., Rufino, M.C. et al. 2013. Crop productivity and the global livestock sector: implications for land use change and greenhouse gas emissions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 95(2): 442-448. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aas085
166 Lobell, D.B., Baldos, U.L.C. et Hertel, T.W. 2013. Climate adaptation as mitigation: the case of agricultural investments. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1): 015012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015012
167 Stabile, M.C.C., Guimarães, A.L., Silva, D.S., Ribeiro, V., Macedo, M.N., Coe, M.T., Pinto, E. et al. 2020. Solving Brazil’s land use puzzle: increasing production and slowing Amazon deforestation. Land Use Policy, 91: 104362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104362
168 Mullan, K., Caviglia-Harris, J.L. et Sills, E.O. 2021. Sustainability of agricultural production following deforestation in the tropics: evidence on the value of newly-deforested, long-deforested and forested land in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy, 108: 105660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105660
169 Garcia, E., Ramos Filho, F., Mallmann, G. et Fonseca, F. 2017. Costs, benefits and challenges of sustainable livestock intensification in a major deforestation frontier in the Brazilian Amazon. Sustainability, 9(1): 158. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010158
170 Krause, M., Lotze-Campen, H., Popp, A., Dietrich, J.P. et Bonsch, M. 2013. Conservation of undisturbed natural forests and economic impacts on agriculture. Land Use Policy, 30(1): 344–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.03.020
171 Villoria, N.B., Byerlee, D. et Stevenson, J. 2014. The effects of agricultural technological progress on deforestation: what do we really know? Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 36(2): 211-237. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppu005
172 Byerlee, D., Stevenson, J. et Villoria, N. 2014. Does intensification slow crop land expansion or encourage deforestation? Global Food Security, 3(2): 92-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2014.04.001
173 Lobell, D.B., Baldos, U.L.C. et Hertel, T.W. 2013. Climate adaptation as mitigation: the case of agricultural investments. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1): 015012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015012
174 Stabile, M.C.C., Guimarães, A.L., Silva, D.S., Ribeiro, V., Macedo, M.N., Coe, M.T., Pinto, E. et al. 2020. Solving Brazil’s land use puzzle: increasing production and slowing Amazon deforestation. Land Use Policy, 91: 104362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104362
175 Garrett, R.D., Levy, S., Carlson, K.M., Gardner, T.A., Godar, J., Clapp, J., Dauvergne, P. et al. 2019. Criteria for effective zero-deforestation commitments. Global Environmental Change, 54: 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.11.003
176 Lambin, E.F., Gibbs, H.K., Heilmayr, R., Carlson, K.M., Fleck, L.C., Garrett, R.D., le Polain de Waroux, Y. et al. 2018. The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nature Climate Change, 8(2): 109-116. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0061-1
177 Rueda, X., Garrett, R.D. et Lambin, E.F. 2017. Corporate investments in supply chain sustainability: selecting instruments in the agri-food industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142: 2480-2492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.026
178 Rothrock, P. et Wheaterer, L. 2020. Commitments in action – Corporate tells for financing forest conservation & restoration, 2020 [en ligne]. Forest Trends. [Consulté le 5 novembre 2021]. https://www.forest-trends.org/publications/commitments-in-action-corporate-tells-for-financing-forest-conservation-restoration-2020/
179 Garrett, R.D., Levy, S., Carlson, K.M., Gardner, T.A., Godar, J., Clapp, J., Dauvergne, P. et al. 2019. Criteria for effective zero-deforestation commitments. Global Environmental Change, 54: 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.11.003
180 CDP. 2021. The collective effort to end deforestation – A pathway for companies to raise their ambition. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.cdp.net/en/research/global-reports/global-forests-report-2020).
181 CDP. 2021. Home – CDP [en ligne]. [Consulté le 10 novembre 2021]. https://www.cdp.net/en
182 Burley, H. et Thomson, E. 2022. A climate wake-up – But business failing to hear the alarm on deforestation. Oxford (Royaume-Uni), Global Canopy. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://forest500.org/sites/default/files/forest500_2022report_final.pdf).
183 ONU. Non daté. Pistes d’action | ONU. Dans: Sommet sur les systèmes alimentaires [en ligne]. [Consulté le 9 février 2022]. https://www.un.org/fr/food-systems-summit/action-tracks
184 Roberts, C.M., O’Leary, B.C. et Hawkins, J.P. 2020. Climate change mitigation and nature conservation both require higher protected area targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1794): 20190121. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0121
185 Robinson, B.E., Holland, M.B. et Naughton-Treves, L. 2014. Does secure land tenure save forests? A meta-analysis of the relationship between land tenure and tropical deforestation. Global Environmental Change, 29: 281-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.012
186 FAO. 2021. Indigenous Peoples’ food systems. FAO, Alliance de Bioversity International et CIAT. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5131en
187 Lipscomb, M. et Prabakaran, N. 2020. Property rights and deforestation: evidence from the Terra Legal land reform in the Brazilian Amazon. World Development, 129: 104854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104854
188 Segura Warnholtz, G., Fernández, M. et Springer, F. 2017. Securing forest tenure rights for rural development – Lessons from six countries in Latin America. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/26301).
189 Moffette, F., Alix-Garcia, J., Shea, K. et Pickens, A.H. 2021. The impact of near-real-time deforestation alerts across the tropics. Nature Climate Change, 11(2): 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00956-w
190 Gibbs, H.K., Munger, J., L’Roe, J., Barreto, P., Pereira, R., Christie, M., Amaral, T. et al. 2016. Did ranchers and slaughterhouses respond to zero-deforestation agreements in the Brazilian Amazon? Conservation Letters, 9(1): 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12175
191 Heilmayr, R., Rausch, L.L., Munger, J. et Gibbs, H.K. 2020. Brazil’s Amazon Soy Moratorium reduced deforestation. Nature Food, 1(12): 801-810. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00194-5
192 Carodenuto, S. 2019. Governance of zero deforestation cocoa in West Africa: new forms of public–private interaction. Environmental Policy and Governance, 29(1): 55-66. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1841
193 Silva, de F., Perrin, R.K. et Fulginiti, L.E. 2019. The opportunity cost of preserving the Brazilian Amazon forest. Agricultural Economics, 50(2): 219-227. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12478
194 Jones, K.W., Powlen, K., Roberts, R. et Shinbrot, X. 2020. Participation in payments for ecosystem services programs in the Global South: a systematic review. Ecosystem Services, 45: 101159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101159
195 Salzman, J., Bennett, G., Carroll, N., Goldstein, A. et Jenkins, M. 2018. The global status and trends of payments for ecosystem services. Nature Sustainability, 1(3): 136-144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0033-0
196 Searchinger, T.D., Malins, C., Dumas, P., Baldock, D., Glauber, J., Jayne, T., Huang, J. et al. 2020. Revising public agricultural support to mitigate climate change. Washington (États-Unis), Banque mondiale. https://doi.org/10.1596/33677
197 Searchinger, T.D., Malins, C., Dumas, P., Baldock, D., Glauber, J., Jayne, T., Huang, J. et al. 2020. Revising public agricultural support to mitigate climate change. Washington (États-Unis), Banque mondiale. https://doi.org/10.1596/33677
198 Poore, J. et Nemecek, T. 2018. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392): 987-992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
199 Börner, J., Schulz, D., Wunder, S. et Pfaff, A. 2020. The effectiveness of forest conservation policies and programs. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 12(1): 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-110119-025703
200 Rakatama, A., Pandit, R., Ma, C. et Iftekhar, S. 2017. The costs and benefits of REDD+: A review of the literature. Forest Policy and Economics, 75: 103-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.08.006
201 Leblois, A., Damette, O. et Wolfersberger, J. 2017. What has driven deforestation in developing countries since the 2000s? Evidence from new remote-sensing data. World Development, 92: 82-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.012
202 Anonyme. 2020. Progress on the New York Declaration on Forests Goal 1 assessment. Climate Focus. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://forestdeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2020NYDFGoal1.pdf).
203 Anonyme. 2020. Progress on the New York Declaration on Forests Goal 1 assessment. Climate Focus. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://forestdeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2020NYDFGoal1.pdf).
204 Gichuki, L., Brouwer, R., Davies, J., Vidal, A., Kuzee, M., Magero, C., Walter, S. et al. 2019. Reviving land and restoring landscapes – Policy convergence between forest landscape restoration and land degradation neutrality. UICN. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2019.11.en
205 PNUE (sous la direction de). 2009. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for national and international policy makers – Summary. Responding to the value of nature. The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity. Genève (Suisse). 39 p.
206 Oberle, B., Bringezu, S., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hellweg, S., Schandl, H. et Clement, J. 2019. Global resources outlook 2019 – Natural resources for the future we want. Nairobi, PNUE.
207 Mirzabaev, A., Sacande, M., Motlagh, F., Shyrokaya, A. et Martucci, A. 2021. Economic efficiency and targeting of the African Great Green Wall. Nature Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00801-8
208 Mansuy, N. 2020. Stimulating post-COVID-19 green recovery by investing in ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 28(6): 1343-1347. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13296
209 Benayas, J.M.R., Newton, A.C., Diaz, A. et Bullock, J.M. 2009. Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science, 325(5944): 1121-1124. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172460
210 Burek, P., Satoh, Y., Fischer, G., Kahil, M.T., Schertzer, A., Tramberend, S., Fabiola Nava, L. et al. 2016. Water futures and solution – Fast Track Initiative final report. 113 p. 16-006. Laxenburg (Autriche), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/13008/1/WP-16-006.pdf).
211 WWAP/ ONU-Eau. 2018. World Water Development Report 2018. Dans: ONU-Eau [en ligne]. [Consulté le 8 novembre 2021]. https://www.unwater.org/publications/world-water-development-report-2018/
212 van der Esch, S., Sewell, A., Bakkenes, M., Doelman, J., Stehfest, E., Langhans, C., Fleskens, L. et al. 2021. The global potential for land restoration – Scenarios for the Global Land Outlook 2. Main messages and executive summary. La Haye, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
213 Stanturf, J., Mansourian, S. et Kleine, M. (sous la direction de). 2017. Implementing forest landscape restoration – A practitioner’s guide. Vienne, Union internationale des instituts de recherches forestières.
214 GIEC et Edenhofer, O. (sous la direction de). 2014. Climate change 2014 – Mitigation of climate change: Working Group III contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York, Cambridge University Press. 1435 p.
215 GIEC. En cours d’impression. Summary for Policymakers. Dans: Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud et al. (sous la dir. de). Cambridge University Press.
216 Witze, A. 2020. The Arctic is burning like never before – and that’s bad news for climate change. Nature, 585(7825): 336-337. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02568-y
217 FAO. 2020. Peatlands mapping and monitoring – Recommendations and technical overview. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8200en
218 Similä, M., Aapala, K., Penttinen, J. et Finnland (sous la direction de) . 2014. Ecological restoration in drained peatlands – Best practices from Finland. Vantaa (Metsähallitus), Natural Heritage Services [u.a.]. 84 p.
219 Kiely, L., Spracklen, D.V., Arnold, S.R., Papargyropoulou, E., Conibear, L., Wiedinmyer, C., Knote, C. et al. 2021. Assessing costs of Indonesian fires and the benefits of restoring peatland. Nature Communications, 12(1): 7044. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27353-x
220 Prosperi, P., Bloise, M., Tubiello, F.N., Conchedda, G., Rossi, S., Boschetti, L., Salvatore, M. et al. 2020. New estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning and peat fires using MODIS Collection 6 burned areas. Climatic Change, 161(3): 415-432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02654-0
221 National Interagency Fire Center. Non daté. Suppression costs | National Interagency Fire Center [en ligne]. [Consulté le 14 janvier 2022]. https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics/suppression-costs
222 Gouvernement du Canada. 2021. Cost of wildland fire protection [en ligne]. [Consulté le 19 janvier 2022]. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/climate-change/impacts-adaptations/climate-change-impacts-forests/forest-change-indicators/cost-fire-protection/17783
223 Thomas, D., Butry, D., Gilbert, S., Webb, D. et Fung, J. 2017. The costs and losses of wildfires – A literature survey. NIST SP 1215. Gaithersburg (États-Unis), National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1215
224 Association for Fire Ecology, International Association of Wildland Fire et The Nature Conservancy. 2015. Reduce wildfire risks or we’ll continue to pay more for fire disasters – Position statement. [Consulté le 18 janvier 2022]. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ea4a2778a22135afc733499/t/5eae000aed72103d3af6301b/1588461581402/True-Costs-of-Wildfire-2.pdf
225 FAO et Mécanisme mondial de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la désertification. 2015. Sustainable financing for forest and landscape restoration – Opportunities, challenges and the way forward. Rome. 114 p.
226 PNUE. 2021. State of finance for nature – Tripling investments in nature-based solutions by 2030. Nairobi.
227 O’Callaghan, B.J. et Murdock, E. 2021. Are we building back better? Evidence from 2020 and pathways to inclusive green recovery spending. Global Recovery Observatory et PNUE. 57 p.
228 Hepburn, C., O’Callaghan, B., Stern, N., Stiglitz, J. et Zenghelis, D. 2020. Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36(Supplement_1): S359-S381. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/graa015
229 Besseau, P., Graham, S. et Christophersen, T. (sous la direction de). 2018. Restoring forests and landscapes – The key to a sustainable future. Vienne, Partenariat mondial sur la restauration des forêts et des paysages. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.forestlandscaperestoration.org/images/gpflr_final%2027aug.pdf).
230 Verdone, M. et Seidl, A. 2017. Time, space, place, and the Bonn Challenge global forest restoration target. Restoration Ecology, 25(6): 903-911. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12512
231 Roe, S., Streck, C., Beach, R., Busch, J., Chapman, M., Daioglou, V., Deppermann, A. et al. 2021. Land-based measures to mitigate climate change: potential and feasibility by country. Global Change Biology, 27(23): 6025-6058. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15873
232 Dave, R., Saint-Laurent, C., Murray, L., Antunes Daldegan, G., Brouwer, R., de Mattos Scaramuzza, C.A., Raes, L. et al. 2019. Second Bonn Challenge progress report – Application of the Barometer in 2018. UICN. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2019.06.en
233 Rudee, A. 2020. Want to help the US economy? Rethink the Trillion Trees Act. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.wri.org/insights/want-help-us-economy-rethink-trillion-trees-act).
234 ELD Initiative. 2015. Report for policy and decision makers - Reaping economic and environmental benefits from sustainable land management. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.eld-initiative.org/fileadmin/pdf/ELD-pm-report_05_web_300dpi.pdf).
235 Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la désertification. 2020. The Great Green Wall – Implementation status and way ahead to 2030. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.unccd.int/publications/great-green-wall-implementation-status-and-way-ahead-2030).
236 Stanturf, J., Mansourian, S. et Kleine, M. (sous la direction de). 2017. Implementing forest landscape restoration – A practitioner’s guide. Vienne, Union internationale des instituts de recherches forestières.
237 Dietzel, A., Maes, J., Commission européenne, Centre commun de recherche et Institut de l’environnement et du développement durable. 2015. Costs of restoration measures in the EU based on an assessment of LIFE projects. Luxembourg, Publications Office. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: http://dx.publications.europa.eu/10.2788/235713).
238 De Groot, R.S., Blignaut, J., Van Der Ploeg, S., Aronson, J., Elmqvist, T. et Farley, J. 2013. Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conservation Biology, 27(6): 1286-1293. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12158
239 Birch, J.C., Newton, A.C., Aquino, C.A., Cantarello, E., Echeverría, C., Kitzberger, T., Schiappacasse, I. et al. 2010. Cost-effectiveness of dryland forest restoration evaluated by spatial analysis of ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(50): 21925-21930. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003369107
240 Bodin, B., Garavaglia, V., Pingault, N., Ding, H., Wilson, S., Meybeck, A., Gitz, V. et al. 2021. A standard framework for assessing the costs and benefits of restoration: introducing The Economics of Ecosystem Restoration. Restoration Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13515
241 Bodin, B., Garavaglia, V., Pingault, N., Ding, H., Wilson, S., Meybeck, A., Gitz, V. et al. 2021. A standard framework for assessing the costs and benefits of restoration: introducing The Economics of Ecosystem Restoration. Restoration Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13515
242 Holl, K.D. et Howarth, R.B. 2000. Paying for restoration. Restoration Ecology, 8(3): 260-267. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100x.2000.80037.x
243 Shoo, L.P., Catterall, C.P., Nicol, S., Christian, R., Rhodes, J., Atkinson, P., Butler, D. et al. 2017. Navigating complex decisions in restoration investment. Conservation Letters, 10(6): 748-756. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12327
244 Brancalion, P.H.S., Amazonas, N.T., Chazdon, R.L., Melis, J., Rodrigues, R.R., Silva, C.C., Sorrini, T.B. et al. 2020. Exotic eucalypts: from demonized trees to allies of tropical forest restoration? Journal of Applied Ecology, 57(1): 55-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13513
245 De Groot, R.S., Blignaut, J., Van Der Ploeg, S., Aronson, J., Elmqvist, T. et Farley, J. 2013. Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conservation Biology, 27(6): 1286-1293. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12158
246 Kimball, S., Lulow, M., Sorenson, Q., Balazs, K., Fang, Y.-C., Davis, S.J., O’Connell, M. et al. 2015. Cost-effective ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 23(6): 800-810. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12261
247 UICN. Non daté. Méthodologie d’évaluation des opportunités de restauration (MOER) | UICN [en ligne]. [Consulté le 31 décembre 2021]. https://www.iucn.org/theme/forests/our-work/forest-landscape-restoration/restoration-opportunities-assessment-methodology-roam
248 International Institute for Sustainability. Non daté. WePlan Forests [en ligne]. [Consulté le 31 décembre 2021]. http://weplan-forests.org/
249 Beyer, H.L., Williams, B., Schmoeller, M. et Crouzeilles, R. 2021. The implications of natural regeneration for tropical and subtropical forest restoration in Colombia, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Peru and the Philippines.
250 Zomer, R.J., Neufeldt, H., Xu, J., Ahrends, A., Bossio, D., Trabucco, A., van Noordwijk, M. et al. 2016. Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land: the contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Scientific Reports, 6(1): 29987. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29987
251 Pumariño, L., Sileshi, G.W., Gripenberg, S., Kaartinen, R., Barrios, E., Muchane, M.N., Midega, C. et al. 2015. Effects of agroforestry on pest, disease and weed control: a meta-analysis. Basic and Applied Ecology, 16(7): 573-582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2015.08.006
252 Minnemeyer, S., Laestadius, L. et Sizer, N. 2011. A world of opportunity. Washington (États-Unis), WRI. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: http://pdf.wri.org/world_of_opportunity_brochure_2011-09.pdf).
253 Pumariño, L., Sileshi, G.W., Gripenberg, S., Kaartinen, R., Barrios, E., Muchane, M.N., Midega, C. et al. 2015. Effects of agroforestry on pest, disease and weed control: a meta-analysis. Basic and Applied Ecology, 16(7): 573-582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2015.08.006
254 Muchane, M.N., Sileshi, G.W., Gripenberg, S., Jonsson, M., Pumariño, L. et Barrios, E. 2020. Agroforestry boosts soil health in the humid and sub-humid tropics: a meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 295: 106899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.106899
255 Udawatta, R.P., Rankoth, L. et Jose, S. 2019. Agroforestry and biodiversity. Sustainability, 11(10): 2879. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102879
256 Barral, M.P., Rey Benayas, J.M., Meli, P. et Maceira, N.O. 2015. Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: a global meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 202: 223-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.009
257 Muchane, M.N., Sileshi, G.W., Gripenberg, S., Jonsson, M., Pumariño, L. et Barrios, E. 2020. Agroforestry boosts soil health in the humid and sub-humid tropics: a meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 295: 106899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.106899
258 Zomer, R.J., Neufeldt, H., Xu, J., Ahrends, A., Bossio, D., Trabucco, A., van Noordwijk, M. et al. 2016. Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land: the contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Scientific Reports, 6(1): 29987. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29987
259 Zomer, R.J., Neufeldt, H., Xu, J., Ahrends, A., Bossio, D., Trabucco, A., van Noordwijk, M. et al. 2016. Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land: the contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Scientific Reports, 6(1): 29987. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29987
260 Rosenstock, T.S., Wilkes, A., Jallo, C., Namoi, N., Bulusu, M., Suber, M., Mboi, D. et al. 2019. Making trees count: measurement and reporting of agroforestry in UNFCCC national communications of non-Annex I countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 284: 106569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106569
261 Lehmann, L.M., Smith, J., Westaway, S., Pisanelli, A., Russo, G., Borek, R., Sandor, M. et al. 2020. Productivity and economic evaluation of agroforestry systems for sustainable production of food and non-food products. Sustainability, 12(13): 5429. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135429
262 Kuyah, S., Whitney, C.W., Jonsson, M., Sileshi, G.W., Öborn, I., Muthuri, C.W. et Luedeling, E. 2019. Agroforestry delivers a win-win solution for ecosystem services in sub-Saharan Africa. A meta-analysis. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 39(5): 47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-019-0589-8
263 Aryal, K., Thapa, P.S. et Lamichhane, D. 2019. Revisiting agroforestry for building climate resilient communities: a case of package-based integrated agroforestry practices in Nepal. Emerging Science Journal, 3(5): 303-311. https://doi.org/10.28991/esj-2019-01193
264 Lawin, K.G. et Tamini, L.D. 2019. Land tenure differences and adoption of agri-environmental practices: evidence from Benin. The Journal of Development Studies, 55(2): 177-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2018.1443210
265 Ollinaho, O.I. et Kröger, M. 2021. Agroforestry transitions: the good, the bad and the ugly. Journal of Rural Studies, 82: 210-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.016
266 Do, H., Luedeling, E. et Whitney, C. 2020. Decision analysis of agroforestry options reveals adoption risks for resource-poor farmers. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 40(3): 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00624-5
267 Charles, R., Munishi, P. et Nzunda, E. 2013. Agroforestry as adaptation strategy under climate change in Mwanga District, Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. International Journal of Environmental Protection, 3: 29-38.
268 Fisher, M., Chaudhury, M. et McCusker, B. 2010. Do forests help rural households adapt to climate variability? Evidence from southern Malawi. World Development, 38(9): 1241-1250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.03.005
269 Wunder, S., Börner, J., Shively, G. et Wyman, M. 2014. Safety nets, gap filling and forests: a global-comparative perspective. World Development, 64: S29-S42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.005
270 Magcale-Macandog, D.B., Rañola, F.M., Rañola, R.F., Ani, P.A.B. et Vidal, N.B. 2010. Enhancing the food security of upland farming households through agroforestry in Claveria, Misamis Oriental, Philippines. Agroforestry Systems, 79(3): 327-342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-009-9267-1
271 Glover, E., Hassan, B.A. et Glover, M. 2013. Analysis of socio-economic conditions influencing adoption of agroforestry practices. International Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 3: 178-184.
272 Bettles, J., Battisti, D.S., Cook-Patton, S.C., Kroeger, T., Spector, J.T., Wolff, N.H. et Masuda, Y.J. 2021. Agroforestry and non-state actors: a review. Forest Policy and Economics, 130: 102538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102538
273 Sollen-Norrlin, M., Ghaley, B.B. et Rintoul, N.L.J. 2020. Agroforestry benefits and challenges for adoption in Europe and beyond. Sustainability, 12(17): 7001. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177001
274 Brondizio, E.S. 2012. Institutional crafting and the vitality of rural areas in an urban world: perspectives from a Japanese community in the Amazon. Global Environmental Research, 16(2): 145-151.
275 Futemma, C., De Castro, F. et Brondizio, E.S. 2020. Farmers and social innovations in rural development: collaborative arrangements in eastern Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy, 99: 104999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104999
276 Piekielek, J. 2010. Cooperativism and agroforestry in the eastern Amazon: the case of Tomé-Açu. Latin American Perspectives, 37(6): 12-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X10382097
277 Ollinaho, O.I. et Kröger, M. 2021. Agroforestry transitions: the good, the bad and the ugly. Journal of Rural Studies, 82: 210-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.016
278 Franzel, S., Denning, G.L., Lillesø, J.P.B. et Mercado, A.R. 2004. Scaling up the impact of agroforestry: lessons from three sites in Africa and Asia. Dans: P.K.R. Nair, M.R. Rao et L.E. Buck (sous la dir. de). New vistas in agroforestry, p. 329-344. Advances in Agroforestry. Dordrecht (Pays-Bas), Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2424-1_23
279 Wilson, M. et Lovell, S. 2016. Agroforestry—the next step in sustainable and resilient agriculture. Sustainability, 8(6): 574. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060574
280 Robiglio, V. et Reyes, M. 2016. Restoration through formalization? Assessing the potential of Peru’s Agroforestry Concessions scheme to contribute to restoration in agricultural frontiers in the Amazon region. World Development Perspectives, 3: 42-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2016.11.013
281 Waldén, P., Ollikainen, M. et Kahiluoto, H. 2020. Carbon revenue in the profitability of agroforestry relative to monocultures. Agroforestry Systems, 94(1): 15-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00355-x
282 PNUE. 2021. State of finance for nature – Tripling investments in nature-based solutions by 2030. Nairobi. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.unep.org/resources/state-finance-nature).
283 PNUE et FAO. 2021. Becoming #GenerationRestoration – Ecosystem restoration for people, nature and climate. Nairobi (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/36251/ERPNC.pdf).
284 Herrick, J.E., Abrahamse, T. et PNUE. 2019. Land restoration for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals – An International Resource Panel think piece.
285 Oberle, B., Bringezu, S., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hellweg, S., Schandl, H. et Clement, J. 2019. Global resources outlook 2019 – Natural resources for the future we want. Nairobi, PNUE.
286 Popp, J., Lakner, Z., Harangi-Rákos, M. et Fári, M. 2014. The effect of bioenergy expansion: food, energy, and environment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 32: 559-578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.056
287 FAO. Non daté. Statistiques des produits forestiers – Consommation et production de produits forestiers [en ligne]. [Consulté le 11 novembre 2021]. https://www.fao.org/forestry/statistics/80938@180723/fr/
288 Conseil mondial des entreprises pour le développement durable. 2020. Circular bioeconomy – The business opportunity contributing to a sustainable world. Genève (Suisse). (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.wbcsd.org/contentwbc/download/10806/159810/1).
289 Banque mondiale. 2016. Housing for all by 2030. Infographics [en ligne]. Banque mondiale. [Consulté le 8 novembre 2021]. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/infographic/2016/05/13/housing-for-all-by-2030
290 Conseil mondial des entreprises pour le développement durable. 2020. Circular bioeconomy – The business opportunity contributing to a sustainable world.
291 Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, AIE et PNUE. 2019. 2019 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction Sector – Towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: http://www.unep.org/resources/publication/2019-global-status-report-buildings-and-construction-sector).
292 Churkina, G., Organschi, A., Reyer, C.P.O., Ruff, A., Vinke, K., Liu, Z., Reck, B.K. et al. 2020. Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nature Sustainability, 3(4): 269-276. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0462-4
293 Verkerk, P.J., Hassegawa, M., Van Brusselen, J., Cramm, M., Chen, X., Imparato Maximo, Y., Koç, M. et al. 2021. Forest products in the global bioeconomy. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7274en
294 Ottelin, J., Amiri, A., Steubing, B. & Junnila, S. 2021. Comparative carbon footprint analysis of residents of wooden and non-wooden houses in Finland. Environmental Research Letters, 16(7): 074006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac06f9
295 Stora Enso. Non daté. 10 reasons why wooden buildings are good for you – And the scientific research to back it up. White paper.
296 Knox, A. et Parry-Husbands, H. 2018. Workplaces – Wellness + wood = productivity. Forest and Wood Products Australia.
297 Stay, M. 2021. Gabon’s Special Economic Zone, the world’s first certified carbon neutral industrial zone – VivAfrik. Dans: New in 24 [en ligne]. [Consulté le 27 décembre 2021]. https://new.in-24.com/world/amp/229127
298 Vussonji, D.C., Makeka, M. et Zwane, C. À paraître. Building a sustainable circular bioeconomy in Africa through forest products – Trends, opportunities and challenges. Dalberg Catalyst et FAO.
299 Makake, M. 2021. Toward a regenerative forest economy for Gabon. Presentation made at the Yale Forest Forum.
300 Vussonji, D.C., Makeka, M. et Zwane, C. À paraître. Building a sustainable circular bioeconomy in Africa through forest products – Trends, opportunities and challenges. Dalberg Catalyst et FAO.
301 Secrétariat du Comité consultatif de la filière bois durable. 2020. Status of public policies encouraging wood use in construction – An overview. FAO.
302 Breneman, S., Timmers, M. et Richardson, D. 2019. Tall wood buildings in the 2021 IBC. Up to 18 stories of mass timber. Wood Products Council. https://www.woodworks.org/wp-content/uploads/wood_solution_paper-TALL-WOOD.pdf
303 Forest and Wood Products Australia. 2019. FWPA drives new National Construction Code changes to increase demand for timber products. Communiqué de presse. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.fwpa.com.au/images/mediareleases/2019/FWPA_MR_NCC_2019_Changes_FINAL.pdf).
304 Conseil mondial des entreprises pour le développement durable. 2020. Circular bioeconomy – The business opportunity contributing to a sustainable world. Genève (Suisse). (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.wbcsd.org/contentwbc/download/10806/159810/1).
305 Rotherham, T. et Burrows, J. 2014. Improvement in efficiency of fibre utilization by the Canadian forest products industry 1970 to 2010. The Forestry Chronicle, 90(6): 801-806.
306 FAO, Organisation internationale des bois tropicaux et ONU. 2020. Forest product conversion factors. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca7952en
307 FAO. Non daté. FAOSTAT [en ligne]. [Consulté le 27 décembre 2021]. https://www.fao.org/faostat/fr/#data/FO
308 Bais-Moleman, A.L., Sikkema, R., Vis, M., Reumerman, P., Theurl, M.C. et Erb, K.-H. 2018. Assessing wood use efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of wood product cascading in the European Union. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172: 3942-3954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.153
309 Allott, J., O’Kelly, G. et Pendergraph, S. 2020. Data: The next wave in forestry productivity | McKinsey. Dans: McKinsey & Company [en ligne]. [Consulté le 27 décembre 2021]. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/paper-forest-products-and-packaging/our-insights/data-the-next-wave-in-forestry-productivity
310 Ellen MacArthur Foundation. 2021. The nature imperative – How the circular economy tackles biodiversity loss. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/biodiversity-report).
311 Commission européenne. Non daté. Bio-based products. [en ligne]. Internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs. [Consulté le 5 novembre 2021]. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/biotechnology/bio-based-products_en
312 Metreveli, G., Wågberg, L., Emmoth, E., Belák, S., Strømme, M. et Mihranyan, A. 2014. A size-exclusion nanocellulose filter paper for virus removal. Advanced Healthcare Materials, 3(10): 1546-1550. https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201300641
313 University of British Columbia. 2020. UBC researchers develop biodegradable medical mask for COVID-19 [en ligne]. [Consulté le 13 novembre 2021]. https://news.ubc.ca/2020/05/21/ubc-researchers-develop-biodegradable-medical-mask-for-covid-19/
314 Claro, F.C., Jordão, C., de Viveiros, B.M., Isaka, L.J.E., Villanova Junior, J.A. et Magalhães, W.L.E. 2020. Low cost membrane of wood nanocellulose obtained by mechanical defibrillation for potential applications as wound dressing. Cellulose, 27(18): 10765-10779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-020-03129-2
315 UPM. Undated. Wood-based FibDex® wound dressing can speed up healing and bring new convenience to patient care | UPM.COM [en ligne]. [Consulté le 13 novembre 2021]. https://www.upm.com/articles/innovations/20/wood-based-fibdex-wounddressing-can-speed-up-healing-and-bring-new-convenience-topatient-care/
316 Smith, T., Majid, F., Eckl, V. et Reynolds, C.M. 2021. Herbal supplement sales in US increase by record-breaking 17.3% in 2020. HerbalGram, (131): 52-65.
317 Association européenne de l’industrie de la biomasse. Non daté. Biochemicals [en ligne]. [Consulté le 27 décembre 2021]. https://www.eubia.org/cms/wiki-biomass/biochemicals-and-biopolymers/
318 ONU et FAO. 2021. Forest Sector Outlook Study 2020–2040. Geneva Timber and Forest Study Paper 51. Genève (Suisse), ONU. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/SP-51-2021-11_0.pdf).
319 Verkerk, P.J., Hassegawa, M., Van Brusselen, J., Cramm, M., Chen, X., Imparato Maximo, Y., Koç, M. et al. 2021. Forest products in the global bioeconomy. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7274en
320 ReportLinker. 2020. Global cellulosic man-made fibers industry.
321 Verkerk, P.J., Hassegawa, M., Van Brusselen, J., Cramm, M., Chen, X., Imparato Maximo, Y., Koç, M. et al. 2021. Forest products in the global bioeconomy. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7274en
322 ONU et FAO. 2021. Forest Sector Outlook Study 2020–2040. Geneva Timber and Forest Study Paper 51. Genève (Suisse), ONU. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/SP-51-2021-11_0.pdf).
323 AIE. 2021. Net Zero by 2050. A roadmap for the global energy sector. AIE. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050).
324 Bailis, R., Drigo, R., Ghilardi, A. et Masera, O. 2015. The carbon footprint of traditional woodfuels. Nature Climate Change, 5(3): 266–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2491
325 Programme d’assistance pour la gestion du secteur énergétique (ESMAP). 2012. Commercial woodfuel production – Experience from three locally controlled wood production models. Knowledge Series 012/12. World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance Program. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/17478/751950ESMAP0WP0el0KS120120Optimized.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y).
326 FAO. 2020. Production durable du charbon de bois pour la sécurité alimentaire et la restauration des paysages forestiers. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.fao.org/3/ca7967fr/ca7967fr.pdf).
327 Guidal, A., Herail, A. et Rosenstock, T. 2019. Feasibility of industrial charcoal production in the Republic of Congo. Kinshasa, Centre mondial d'agroforesterie-ICRAF.
328 MNREM. 2017. National Charcoal Strategy of Malawi (2017–2027). Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mining (MNREM), Malawi.
329 REN21. 2021. Renewables 2021 Global Status Report. REN21 Secretariat. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/GSR2021_Full_Report.pdf).
330 Lazaridou, D.C., Michailidis, A. et Trigkas, M. 2021. Exploring environmental and economic costs and benefits of a forest-based circular economy: a literature review. Forests, 12(4): 436. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12040436
331 Raven, P. 2021. Letter regarding use of forests for bioenergy to President Biden, President von der Leyen, President Michel, Prime Minister Suga, and President Moon.
332 AIE. 2021. Net zero by 2050 – A roadmap for the global energy sector. AIE. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050).
333 CCA. 2021. Venture Catalyst [en ligne]. https://cleancooking.org/venture-catalyst/
334 Wiebe, K.S., Simas, M. et Harsdorff, M. Non daté. Measuring the socioeconomic impacts of climate policies to guide NDC enhancement and a just transition. Nigeria Green Jobs Assessment Report. PNUE et Organisation internationale du Travail (OIT).
335 Renner, M. 2017. Rural renewable energy investments and their impact on employment. Strengthen Publication Series Working Paper 1. 95 p. Genève (Suisse), OIT.
336 Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques (OCDE). Non daté. Climate Change: OECD DAC External Development Finance Statistics – OECD [en ligne]. [Consulté le 19 janvier 2022]. https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-topics/climate-change.htm
337 Whiteman, A., Wickramasinghe, A. et Piña, L. 2015. Global trends in forest ownership, public income and expenditure on forestry and forestry employment. Forest Ecology and Management, 352: 99-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.04.011
338 OCDE. 2020. Vers une utilisation durable des terres – Aligner les politiques en matière de biodiversité, de climat et d’alimentation. OCDE. https://doi.org/10.1787/9a64358a-fr
339 PNUE. 2021. State of finance for nature – Tripling investments in nature-based solutions by 2030. Nairobi.
340 FAO, Programme des Nations Unies pour le développement (PNUD) et PNUE. 2021. A multi-billion-dollar opportunity – Repurposing agricultural support to transform food systems. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb6562en
341 Vivid Economics et Finance for Biodiversity Initiative. 2021. Greenness of Stimulus Index – An assessment of COVID-19 stimulus by G20 countries and other major economies in relation to climate action and biodiversity goals. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://a1be08a4-d8fb-4c22-9e4a-2b2f4cb7e41d.filesusr.com/ugd/643e85_f712aba98f0b4786b54c455fc9207575.pdf).
342 Bottaro, G., Liagre, L. et Pettenella, D. 2021. How is the forest sector integrated in the National Recovery and Resilience Plans of EU countries?
343 Global Recovery Observatory. Non daté. Global Recovery Observatory – Oxford University Economic Recovery Project [en ligne]. [Consulté le 11 novembre 2021]. https://recovery.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/tracking/1
344 Group of Multilateral Development Banks. 2021. Joint report on multilateral development banks’ climate finance 2020. Londres, Banque européenne pour la reconstruction et le développement. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/9234bfc633439d0172f6a6eb8df1b881-0020012021/original/2020-Joint-MDB-report-on-climate-finance-Report-final-web.pdf).
345 Group of Multilateral Development Banks. 2021. Joint report on multilateral development banks’ climate finance 2020. Londres, Banque européenne pour la reconstruction et le développement. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/9234bfc633439d0172f6a6eb8df1b881-0020012021/original/2020-Joint-MDB-report-on-climate-finance-Report-final-web.pdf).
346 Swann, S., Blandford, L., Cheng, S., Cook, J., Miller, A. et Barr, R. 2021. Public international funding of nature-based solutions for adaptation – A landscape assessment. WRI. https://doi.org/10.46830/wriwp.20.00065
347 Atteridge, A. et Tenggren, S. 2019. Finance for the adaptation of ecosystems to climate change – A review of the Adaptation Fund portfolio. 28 p. Stockholm, Stockholm Environment Institute.
348 PNUE. 2021. State of finance for nature – Tripling investments in nature-based solutions by 2030. Nairobi.
349 PNUE. 2021. State of finance for nature – Tripling investments in nature-based solutions by 2030. Nairobi.
350 Forum économique mondial. 2021. Investing in forests – The business case. Genève (Suisse). (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Investing_in_Forests_2021.pdf).
351 Castrén, T., Katila, M., Lindroos, K. et Salmi, J. 2014. private financing for sustainable forest management and forest products in developing countries—Trends and drivers. Washington (États-Unis), Programme sur les forêts (PROFOR).
352 PNUE. 2021. State of finance for nature – Tripling investments in nature-based solutions by 2030. Nairobi.
353 Indufor Oy et Criterion Africa Partners. 2017. Allocating capital for maximum impact in Africa’s plantation forestry sector. Helsinki.
354 Held, C. 2020. The impact of FLEGT VPAs on forest sector investment risk in Indonesia and Viet Nam. 24 p. Organisation internationale des bois tropicaux.
355 Forest Europe. 2020. State of Europe’s Forests 2020. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://foresteurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/SoEF_2020.pdf).
356 Forest Europe. 2020. State of Europe’s Forests 2020. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://foresteurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/SoEF_2020.pdf).
357 PNUE. 2021. State of finance for nature – Tripling investments in nature-based solutions by 2030. Nairobi.
358 Banque mondiale. 2020. Mobilizing private finance for nature. Washington (États-Unis), Banque mondiale. https://doi.org/10.1596/35984
359 Elbein, S. 2020. A new way to profit from ancient Alaskan forests – leave them standing [en ligne]. National Geographic. [Consulté le 12 novembre 2021]. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/new-way-to-profit-from-ancient-alaskan-forests-leave-them-standing
360 World Wide Fund for Nature. 2020. Community leaders in Central Vietnam pioneer a sustainable forestry model [online]. WWF Forest Solutions. [Cited 10 November 2021]. https://forestsolutions.panda.org/insights/community-leaders-in-central-vietnam-pioneer-a-sustainable-forestry-model Fonds mondial pour la nature (WWF). 2020. Community leaders in Central Vietnam pioneer a sustainable forestry model [en ligne]. WWF Forest Solutions. [Consulté le 10 novembre 2021]. https://forestsolutions.panda.org/insights/community-leaders-in-central-vietnam-pioneer-a-sustainable-forestry-model
361 WWF. 2017. Vietnam – Supplying the world with garden furniture, small forest owners in Vietnam could help end deforestation [en ligne]. [Consulté le 10 novembre 2021]. https://wwf.exposure.co/vietnam
362 Nguyen Vinh Quang, To Xuan Phuc, Basik Treanor, N., Nguyen Ton Quyen et Cao Thi. 2018. Linking smallholder plantations to global markets. Washington (États-Unis), Forest Trends. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.forest-trends.org/publications/linking-smallholder-plantations-to-global-markets/).
363 Pham, T.T., Nguyen, D.T., Ðào Thi, L.C. et Hoàng, T.L. 2020. Preparing Vietnam for new rules on international market: Zero deforestation production and business. Centre de recherche forestière internationale (CIFOR). https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/007573
364 Sadanandan Nambiar, E.K. 2021. Strengthening Vietnam’s forestry sectors and rural development: higher productivity, value, and access to fairer markets are needed to support small forest growers. Trees, Forests and People, 3: 100052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100052
365 OCDE. Non daté. Blended Finance – OECD [en ligne]. [Consulté le 28 décembre 2021]. https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/blended-finance-principles/
366 Blended Finance Taskforce. Non daté. Tropical Asia Forest Fund 2 [en ligne]. [Consulté le 10 novembre 2021]. https://www.blendedfinance.earth/blended-finance-funds/2020/11/16/tropical-asia-forest-fund-2
367 Fonds vert pour le climat. Non daté. FP173: The Amazon Bioeconomy Fund: Unlocking private capital by valuing bioeconomy products and services with climate mitigation and adaptation results in the Amazon | Fonds vert pour le climat [en ligne]. [Consulté le 28 décembre 2021]. https://www.greenclimate.fund/project/fp173
368 Louman, B., Meybeck, A., Mulder, G., Brady, M., Fremy, F., Savenije, H., Gitz, V. et al. 2020. Innovative finance for sustainable landscapes. Centre de recherche forestière internationale (CIFOR). https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/007852
369 Almeida, M. 2020. Green Bonds Global State of the Market 2019. Climate Bonds Initiative.
370 Commission européenne. 2021. 250 milliards d’obligations vertes NextGenerationEU [en ligne]. [Consulté le 14 novembre 2021]. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/fr/ip_21_4565
371 FAO. 2019. Catalyzing private finance for inclusive and sustainable forest value chains. Report of the expert meeting. Rome. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.fao.org/forestry/48858-064440fb9719c37f1b7b2a3e957b017c1.pdf); PNUE. Non daté. Private investment for restoration: Addressing the pipeline bottleneck [en ligne]. [Consulté le 28 décembre 2021]. https://www.unep.org/events/webinar/private-investment-restoration-addressing-pipeline-bottleneck
372 Cunningham, S.A., Attwood, S.J., Bawa, K.S., Benton, T.G., Broadhurst, L.M., Didham, R.K., McIntyre, S. et al. 2013. To close the yield-gap while saving biodiversity will require multiple locally relevant strategies. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 173: 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.04.007
373 Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., Cassidy, E.S., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N.D. et al. 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369): 337-342. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452
374 Angelsen, A., Kaimowitz, D. et Centre de recherche forestière internationale, eds. 2001. Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestation. New York(États-Unis), CABI Pub, en association avec le Centre de recherche forestière internationale. 422 p.
375 Banque mondiale. 2017. Harnessing the potential of productive forests and timber supply chains for climate change mitigation and green growth. Washington (États-Unis). (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/sites/default/files/knowledge-documents/productive_forests_pub_4-3-17web.pdf).
376 Nambiar, E.K.S. 2019. Tamm Review: re-imagining forestry and wood business: pathways to rural development, poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation in the tropics. Forest Ecology and Management, 448: 160-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.06.014
377 FAO, PNUD et PNUE. 2021. A multi-billion-dollar opportunity – Repurposing agricultural support to transform food systems. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb6562en
378 FAO, PNUD et PNUE. 2021. A multi-billion-dollar opportunity – Repurposing agricultural support to transform food systems. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb6562en
379 Whiteman, A., Wickramasinghe, A. et Piña, L. 2015. Global trends in forest ownership, public income and expenditure on forestry and forestry employment. Forest Ecology and Management, 352: 99-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.04.011
380 Banque mondiale. 2021. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2021 – Managing assets for the future. Washington (États-Unis).
381 FAO, PNUD et PNUE. 2021. A multi-billion-dollar opportunity – Repurposing agricultural support to transform food systems. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb6562en
382 Buttoud, G. 2012. From PES to REDD: making policy tools and economic mechanisms interact for a better forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 18: 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.03.001
383 Karsenty, A. 2021. Fiscal and non-fiscal incentives for sustainable forest management –Synthesis of the lessons derived from case studies in Brazil, Cambodia, the Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Myanmar, Peru, Thailand and Viet Nam. ITTO Technical Series 48. Yokohama (Japon), Organisation internationale des bois tropicaux.
384 Busch, J., Ring, I., Akullo, M., Amarjargal, O., Borie, M., Cassola, R.S., Cruz-Trinidad, A. et al. 2021. A global review of ecological fiscal transfers. Nature Sustainability, 4(9): 756-765. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00728-0.
385 Rao, M., Bast, A. et de Boer, A. 2021. European private food safety standards in global agri-food supply chains: a systematic review. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 24(5): 739-754. https://doi.org/10.22434/IFAMR2020.0146
386 Fernandez de Cordoba, S., ed. 2018. Voluntary sustainability standards, trade and sustainable development. UN Forum on Sustainability Standards. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/unfss_3rd_2018_en.pdf).
387 Voir, par exemple: Cerutti, P.O., Goetghebuer, T., Leszczynska, N., Newbery, J., Breyne, J., Dermawan, A., Mauquoy, C. et al. 2020. Collecting evidence of FLEGT-VPA impacts for improved FLEGT communication. 79 p. Bogor (Indonésie), Centre de recherche forestière internationale (CIFOR).
388 Dieterle, G. et Karsenty, A. 2020. ‘Wood security’: the importance of incentives and economic valorisation in conserving and expanding forests. International Forestry Review, 22(1): 81-92. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554820829523916
389 Pendrill, F., Persson, U.M., Godar, J., Kastner, T., Moran, D., Schmidt, S. et Wood, R. 2019. Agricultural and forestry trade drives large share of tropical deforestation emissions. Global Environmental Change, 56: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.03.002
390 Hoang, N.T. et Kanemoto, K. 2021. Mapping the deforestation footprint of nations reveals growing threat to tropical forests. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(6): 845-853. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01417-z
391 Texte de l’accord: anonyme. Non daté. Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between the Republic of Indonesia and the EFTA states [en ligne]. [Consulté le 10 novembre 2021]. https://www.efta.int/sites/default/files/documents/legal-texts/free-trade-relations/indonesia/efta-indonesia-main-agreement.pdf
392 Confédération suisse. 2021. Huile de palme durable d’Indonésie: le Conseil fédéral approuve l’ordonnance [en ligne]. [Consulté le 10 novembre 2021]. https://www.admin.ch/gov/fr/accueil/documentation/communiques.msg-id-84740.html
393 Marchi, V.D., Maria, E.D. et Micelli, S. 2013. Environmental strategies, upgrading and competitive advantage in global value chains: environmental strategies, upgrading and competitive advantage in GVC. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(1): 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1738
394 Network for Greening the Finance Sector. 2021. NGFS and INSPIRE launch a joint research project on ‘Biodiversity and Financial Stability’ | Banque de France [en ligne]. [Consulté le 14 novembre 2021]. https://www.ngfs.net/en/communique-de-presse/ngfs-and-inspire-launch-joint-research-project-biodiversity-and-financial-stability
395 Taskforce on Nature-Related Financial Disclosures. Non daté. About – TNFD [en ligne]. [Consulté le 1 janvier 2022]. https://tnfd.global/about/
396 Organisation de l’aviation civile internationale (OACI). Non daté. Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) [en ligne]. [Consulté le 10 novembre 2021]. https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CORSIA/Pages/default.aspx
397 Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest finance (LEAF) Coalition. Non daté. The LEAF Coalition [en ligne]. [Consulté le 10 novembre 2021]. https://leafcoalition.org/
398 Ecosystem Marketplace. Non daté. Global carbon hub for data and insights on carbon markets and voluntary offsets – Ecosystem Marketplace [en ligne]. [Consulté le 10 novembre 2021]. https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/carbon-markets/
399 Ecosystem Marketplace. Non daté. Global Carbon Hub for Data and Insights on Carbon Markets and Voluntary Offsets - Ecosystem Marketplace [en ligne]. [Consulté le 10 novembre 2021]. https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/carbon-markets/
400 Banque mondiale. 2017. Harnessing the potential of productive forests and timber supply chains for climate change mitigation and green growth. Washington (États-Unis). (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/sites/default/files/knowledge-documents/productive_forests_pub_4-3-17web.pdf).
401 Fonds vert pour le climat. Non daté. Portfolio dashboard | Fonds vert pour le climat [en ligne]. [Consulté le 28 décembre 2021]. https://www.greenclimate.fund/projects/dashboard
402 Nesha, M.K., Herold, M., De Sy, V., Duchelle, A.E., Martius, C., Branthomme, A., Garzuglia, M. et al. 2021. An assessment of data sources, data quality and changes in national forest monitoring capacities in the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005–2020. Environmental Research Letters, 16(5): 054029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd81b
403 Nesha, M.K., Herold, M., De Sy, V., Duchelle, A.E., Martius, C., Branthomme, A., Garzuglia, M. et al. 2021. An assessment of data sources, data quality and changes in national forest monitoring capacities in the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005–2020. Environmental Research Letters, 16(5): 054029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd81b
404 Nesha, M.K., Herold, M., De Sy, V., Duchelle, A.E., Martius, C., Branthomme, A., Garzuglia, M. et al. 2021. An assessment of data sources, data quality and changes in national forest monitoring capacities in the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005–2020. Environmental Research Letters, 16(5): 054029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd81b
405 Chagas, T., Galt, H., Lee, D., Neeff, T. et Streck, C. 2020. A close look at the quality of REDD+ carbon credits. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.climatefocus.com/publications/close-look-quality-redd-carbon-credits).
406 Macqueen, D., Benni, N., Boscolo, M. et Zapata, J. 2018. Access to finance for forest and farm producer organisations (FFPOs). Rome, FAO et Londres, Institut international pour l’environnement et le développement.
407 FAO. 2019. Catalyzing private finance for inclusive and sustainable forest value chains – Report of the expert meeting [en ligne]. [Consulté le 26 novembre 2021]. https://www.fao.org/forestry/48858-064440fb9719c37f1b7b2a3e957b017c1.pdf
408 Lowder, S.K., Sánchez, M.V. et Bertini, R. 2021. Which farms feed the world and has farmland become more concentrated? World Development, 142: 105455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105455
409 Chiriac, D. et Naran, B. 2020. Examining the climate finance gap for small-scale agriculture. Climate Policy Initiative. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/climate-finance-small-scale-agriculture/).
410 Rainforest Foundation Norway. 2021. Falling short – Donor funding for Indigenous Peoples and local communities to secure tenure rights and manage forests in tropical countries (2011-2020). Oslo, Rainforest Foundation Norway. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.cwis.org/document/falling-short-donor-funding-for-indigenous-peoples-and-local-communities-to-secure-tenure-rights-and-manage-forests-in-tropical-countries-2011-2020/).
411 Anonyme. 2021. Governments and private funders announce historic US$1.7 billion pledge at COP26 in support of Indigenous Peoples and local communities / Ford Foundation. Dans: Fondation Ford [en ligne]. [Consulté le 2 février 2022]. https://www.fordfoundation.org/news-and-stories/news-and-press/news/governments-and-private-funders-announce-historic-us-17-billion-pledge-at-cop26-in-support-of-indigenous-peoples-and-local-communities/
412 Starfinger, M. 2021. Financing smallholder tree planting: tree collateral & Thai ‘Tree Banks’ – Collateral 2.0? Land Use Policy, 111: 105765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105765
413 Nugroho, B., Soedomo, S. et Dermawan, A. 2017. Policy effectiveness of loan for delaying timber harvesting for smallholder private forest in Indonesia. Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika (Journal of Tropical Forest Management), 23(2): 61-70. https://doi.org/10.7226/jtfm.23.2.61
414 RECOFTC. 2015. Access to information for securing resource and tenure rights Houaythong Village, Lao PDR. First edition. Equity Case Study Brief. RECOFTC.
415 Parthiban, K.T., Seenivasan, R., Vennila, S., Anbu, P.V., Kumar, P., Saravanan, V., Umesh Kanna, S. et al. 2011. Designing and augmenting pulpwood supply chain through contract tree farming. Indian Journal of Ecology, 38 (Special issue): 41-47.
416 Byakagaba, P., Okullo, J.B.L., Eilu, G. & Mwavu, E.N. 2021. The role of fallowing in the restoration of woody species in the woodlands of northern Uganda. African Journal of Ecology, aje.12895. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12895
417 Lawrence, D. et Louman, B. 2021. Finance for integrated landscape management – A landscape approach to climate-smart cocoa in the Juabeso-Bia Landscape, Ghana. Tropenbos Ghana et Tropenbos International. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.tropenbos.org/file.php/2462/finance-integrated-landscape-mangement-touton-ghana.pdf).
418 Durbin, J., King, D., Calderwood, N., Wells, Z. et Godoy, F. 2019. Benefit sharing at scale – Good practices for results-based land use programs. Washington (États-Unis), Banque mondiale. https://doi.org/10.1596/32765
419 Bertzky, M., Canosa, O., Koch, A. et Llopis, P. 2021. Assessment report – Comparative analysis of benefit-sharing mechanisms in REDD+ programs. Fonds mondial pour la nature. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_assessment_report_redd__programs_v4.pdf).
420 Lowder, S.K., Sánchez, M.V. et Bertini, R. 2021. Which farms feed the world and has farmland become more concentrated? World Development, 142: 105455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105455
421 Fonds mondial pour la nature, PNUE, Centre mondial de surveillance de la conservation, GEF Small Grants Programme, ICCA-Global Support Initiative, LandMark Global Platform of Indigenous and Community Lands, The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, Société pour la conservation de la faune sauvage et al. 2021. The state of the Indigenous Peoples and local communities lands and territories. Gland (Suisse). (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://wwflac.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/report_the_state_of_the_indigenous_peoples_and_local_communities_lands_and_territories_1.pdf).
422 Verdone, M. 2018. The world’s largest private sector? Recognising the cumulative economic value of small-scale forest and farm producers. UICN.
423 PROFOR. 2019. Unlocking the potential of small and medium forest enterprises [en ligne]. [Consulté le 10 novembre 2021]. https://www.profor.info/knowledge/unlocking-potential-small-and-medium-forest-enterprises
424 Mayers, J. 2006. Small and medium-sized forestry enterprises. Tropical Forest Update, 16(2): 10-11.
425 Garnett, S.T., Burgess, N.D., Fa, J.E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z., Robinson, C.J., Watson, J.E.M. et al. 2018. A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability, 1(7): 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6
426 Kruid, S., Macedo, M.N., Gorelik, S.R., Walker, W., Moutinho, P., Brando, P.M., Castanho, A. et al. 2021. Beyond deforestation: carbon emissions from land grabbing and forest degradation in the Brazilian Amazon. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 4: 645282. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.645282
427 Alejo, C., Meyer, C., Walker, W.S., Gorelik, S.R., Josse, C., Aragon-Osejo, J.L., Rios, S. et al. 2021. Are indigenous territories effective natural climate solutions? A neotropical analysis using matching methods and geographic discontinuity designs. PLOS ONE, 16(7): e0245110. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245110
428 Walker, W.S., Gorelik, S.R., Baccini, A., Aragon-Osejo, J.L., Josse, C., Meyer, C., Macedo, M.N. et al. 2020. The role of forest conversion, degradation, and disturbance in the carbon dynamics of Amazon indigenous territories and protected areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(6): 3015–3025. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913321117
429 Blackman, A. et Veit, P. 2018. Titled Amazon indigenous communities cut forest carbon emissions. Ecological Economics, 153: 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.06.016
430 FAO et FILAC. 2021. Forest governance by indigenous and tribal peoples – An opportunity for climate action in Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb2953en
431 Baragwanath, K. et Bayi, E. 2020. Collective property rights reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(34): 20495–20502. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917874117
432 Blackman, A. et Veit, P. 2018. Titled Amazon indigenous communities cut forest carbon emissions. Ecological Economics, 153: 56-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.06.016
433 Ding, H., Veit, P., Gray, E., Reytar, K., Altamirano-Cabrera, J.-C., Blackman, A. et Hodgdon, B. 2016. Climate benefits, tenure costs – The economic case for securing indigenous land rights in the Amazon.
434 FAO et FILAC. 2021. Forest governance by indigenous and tribal peoples – An opportunity for climate action in Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb2953en
435 Tauli-Corpuz, V., Alcorn, J., Molnar, A., Healy, C. et Barrow, E. 2020. Cornered by PAs: adopting rights-based approaches to enable cost-effective conservation and climate action. World Development, 130: 104923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104923
436 Ding, H., Veit, P., Gray, E., Reytar, K., Altamirano-Cabrera, J.-C., Blackman, A. et Hodgdon, B. 2016. Climate benefits, tenure costs – The economic case for securing indigenous land rights in the Amazon.
437 Fonds mondial pour la nature, PNUE, Centre mondial de surveillance de la conservation, GEF Small Grants Programme, ICCA-Global Support Initiative, LandMark Global Platform of Indigenous and Community Lands, The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, Société pour la conservation de la faune sauvage et al. 2021. The state of the indigenous peoples and local communities’ lands and territories – A technical review of the state of Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ lands, their contributions to global biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services, the pressures they face, and recommendations for actions. Gland (Suisse). (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://wwflac.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/report_the_state_of_the_indigenous_peoples_and_local_communities_lands_and_territories_1.pdf).
438 Initiative des droits et ressources, Woodwell Climate Research Center et Rainforest Foundation US. 2021. Significance of community-held territories in 24 countries to global climate. Policy brief. Initiative des droits et ressources. https://doi.org/10.53892/YBGF2711
439 Dawson, N.M., Coolsaet, B., Sterling, E.J., Loveridge, R., Gross-Camp, N.D., Wongbusarakum, S., Sangha, K.K. et al. 2021. The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecology and Society, 26(3): art19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12625-260319
440 Aggarwal, S., Larson, A., McDermott, C., Katila, P. et Giessen, L. 2021. Tenure reform for better forestry: an unfinished policy agenda. Forest Policy and Economics, 123: 102376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102376
441 Gilmour, D.A. 2016. Forty years of community-based forestry – A review of its extent and effectiveness. FAO Forestry Paper 176. Rome, FAO. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://bit.ly/3B1F5lH).
442 Baynes, J., Herbohn, J., Smith, C., Fisher, R. et Bray, D. 2015. Key factors which influence the success of community forestry in developing countries. Global Environmental Change, 35: 226-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.011
443 FAO et ICRAF. 2019. Agroforestry and tenure. Forestry Working Paper 8. Rome, FAO. 40 p.
444 Kraus, S., Liu, J., Koch, N. et Fuss, S. 2021. No aggregate deforestation reductions from rollout of community land titles in Indonesia yet. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(43): e2100741118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2100741118
445 Hajjar, R., Newton, P., Ihalainen, M., Agrawal, A. et Gabay, M. 2020. Levers for alleviating poverty in forests and tree-based systems. Forests, trees and the eradication of poverty – Potential and limitations, p. 125–176. IUFRO World Series 39. Union internationale des instituts de recherches forestières.
446 Miller, D.C., Rana, P., Nakamura, K., Irwin, S., Cheng, S.H., Ahlroth, S. et Perge, E. 2021. A global review of the impact of forest property rights interventions on poverty. Global Environmental Change, 66: 102218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102218
447 Hajjar, R., Newton, P., Ihalainen, M., Agrawal, A. et Gabay, M. 2020. Levers for alleviating poverty in forests and tree-based systems. Forests, trees and the eradication of poverty – Potential and limitations, p. 125–176. IUFRO World Series 39. International Union of Forest Research Organizations.
448 Barrow, E., Kamugisha-Ruhombe, J., Nhantumbo, I., Oyono, R. et Savadogo, M. 2016. Who owns Africa’s forests? Exploring the impacts of forest tenure reform on forest ecosystems and livelihoods. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 25(2): 132–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2016.1159999
449 De Royer, S., Van Noordwijk, M. et Roshetko, J.M. 2018. Does community-based forest management in Indonesia devolve social justice or social costs? International Forestry Review, 20(2): 167-180. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554818823767609
450 Namubiru-Mwaura, E. 2014. Land tenure and gender – Approaches and challenges for strengthening rural women’s land rights. 36 p. Women’s Voice, Agency, & Participation Research Series 6. Washington (États-Unis), Banque mondiale.
451 Elias, M., Hummel, S.S., Basnett, B.S. et Colfer, C.J.P. 2017. Gender bias affects forests worldwide. Ethnobiology Letters, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.14237/ebl.8.1.2017.834
452 Hajjar, R., Newton, P., Ihalainen, M., Agrawal, A. et Gabay, M. 2020. Levers for alleviating poverty in forests and tree-based systems. Forests, trees and the eradication of poverty – Potential and limitations, p. 125-176. IUFRO World Series 39. Union internationale des instituts de recherches forestières.
453 Blomley, T. 2013. Lessons learned from community forestry in Africa and their relevance for REDD+. Washington (États-Unis), USAID-supported Forest Carbon, Markets and Communities Program. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.climatelinks.org/sites/default/files/asset/document/CF_Africa.pdf).
454 FAO et Fonds de développement pour les peuples autochtones d’Amérique latine et des Caraïbes. 2021. Forest governance by indigenous and tribal peoples – An opportunity for climate action in Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb2953en
455 Gilmour, D.A. 2016. Forty years of community-based forestry – A review of its extent and effectiveness. FAO Forestry Paper 176. Rome, FAO. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://bit.ly/3B1F5lH).
456 FAO (sous la direction de). 2012. Voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food security. Rome. 40 p.
457 Alden Wily, L. 2018. Collective land ownership in the 21st century: overview of global trends. Land, 7(2): 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/land7020068
458 Alden Wily, L. 2018. Collective land ownership in the 21st century: overview of global trends. Land, 7(2): 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/land7020068
459 Gouvernement de l’Inde, Ministère des affaires tribales. 2021. Monthly update on status of implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dweller (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Delhi. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://tribal.nic.in/FRA/data/MPRJan2020.pdf).
460 Freudenberger, M.S. 2013. The future of customary tenure – Options for policymakers. USAID Issue Brief. USAID. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.land-links.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/USAID_Land_Tenure_Customary_Tenure_Brief_0-1.pdf).
461 Fitzpatrick, D. 2005. ‘Best practice’ options for the legal recognition of customary tenure. Development and Change, 36(3): 449-475. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0012-155X.2005.00419.x
462 Gouvernement de l’Inde. 2007. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. [Consulté le 29 novembre 2021]. https://www.fra.org.in/document/FRA%20ACT-Eng.pdf
463 Blackman, A., Corral, L., Lima, E.S. et Asner, G.P. 2017. Titling indigenous communities protects forests in the Peruvian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(16): 4123-4128. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1603290114
464 FAO. Non daté. Governance of tenure – SOLA Suite [en ligne]. [Consulté le 10 novembre 2021]. https://www.fao.org/tenure/sola-suite/en
465 Bouvier, I., Brooks, S., Green, J., Lowery, S. et Stevens, C. 2019. Using participatory approaches and innovative technology to empower communities in securing their land. Document présenté à la Conférence annuelle de la Banque mondiale sur la terre et la pauvreté, 25 mars 2019, Washington (États-Unis). (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.land-links.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/using-participatory-approaches-and-innovative-technology-to-empower-communities-in-securing-their-land.pdf).
466 Gilmour, D.A. 2016. Forty years of community-based forestry – A review of its extent and effectiveness. FAO Forestry Paper 176. Rome, FAO. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://bit.ly/3B1F5lH).
467 Aggarwal, S., Larson, A., McDermott, C., Katila, P. et Giessen, L. 2021. Tenure reform for better forestry: an unfinished policy agenda. Forest Policy and Economics, 123: 102376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102376
468 Aggarwal, S., Larson, A., McDermott, C., Katila, P. et Giessen, L. 2021. Tenure reform for better forestry: an unfinished policy agenda. Forest Policy and Economics, 123: 102376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102376
469 Nhantumbo, I., Macqueen, D., Cruz, R. et Serra, A. 2013. Investing in locally controlled forestry in Mozambique – Potential for promoting sustainable rural development in the province of Niassa. Londres, Institut international pour l’environnement et le développement. 92 p. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://pubs.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/13569IIED.pdf).
470 Sonko, K.N. et Camara, K. 2000. Community forestry implementation in the Gambia: its principles and prospects. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Community Forestry in Africa. Participatory Forest Management: A Strategy for Sustainable Forest Management in Africa. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.fao.org/3/X7760B/X7760B00.htm).
471 Lawry, S., McLain, R., Swallow, B. et Biedenweg, K. 2012. Devolution of forest rights and sustainable forest management. Volume 1 – A review of policies and programs in 16 developing countries. USAID. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.land-links.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/USAID_Land_Tenure_Devolution_of_Forest_Rights_and_Sustainable_Forest_Management_Volume_1.pdf).
472 McFarland, W., Whitley, S. et Kissinger, G. 2015. Subsidies to key commodities driving forest loss. 51 p. ODI Working Paper. Overseas Development Institute.
473 Tetra Tech. 2017. Promoting trees outside forests – Action-learning pilot program in Hoshangabad landscape. USAID. 29 p.
474 McLain, R., Lawry, S., Guariguata, M.R. et Reed, J. 2021. Toward a tenure-responsive approach to forest landscape restoration: a proposed tenure diagnostic for assessing restoration opportunities. Land Use Policy, 104: 103748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.053
475 FAO et ICRAF. 2019. Agroforestry and tenure. Forestry Working Paper 8. Rome. 40 p.
476 Commission économique des Nations Unies pour l’Europe et FAO. 2019. Who owns our forests? Forest ownership in the ECE region. Genève (Suisse). (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/publications/SP-43.pdf).
477 Koffi, G. et Worms, P. 2021. Niger formally adopts farmer-managed natural regeneration [en ligne]. ICRAF. [Consulté le 20 octobre 2021]. https://bit.ly/3nfHRix
478 ONU. Non daté. Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR): a technique to effectively combat poverty and hunger through land and vegetation restoration. Dans: United Nations Partnerships for SDGs platform [en ligne]. [Consulté le 16 décembre 2021]. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/?p=30735
479 Stickler, M. 2012. Rights to trees and livelihoods in Niger – Focus on land in Africa. WRI et Landesa.
480 Crouzeilles, R., Ferreira, M.S., Chazdon, R.L., Lindenmayer, D.B., Sansevero, J.B.B., Monteiro, L., Iribarrem, A. et al. 2017. Ecological restoration success is higher for natural regeneration than for active restoration in tropical forests. Science Advances, 3(11): e1701345. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1701345
481 FAO. 2021. Society, economy and forests – The unfolding forest transition in China and the lessons for the future. Bangkok. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb3232en
482 Wang, L. 2012. Success cases and good practices in forest farmer cooperative organizations in China. Rome (Italie), FAO. 32 p. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/ff2dfab2-03dc-56b9-b5e4-fabdb28cb467/).
483 FAO. 2020. Consommation et production de produits forestiers [en ligne]. [Consulté le 13 novembre 2021]. https://www.fao.org/forestry/statistics/80938@180723/fr/
484 He, J., Kebede, B., Martin, A. et Gross-Camp, N. 2020. Privatization or communalization: a multi-level analysis of changes in forest property regimes in China. Ecological Economics, 174: 106629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106629
485 Midgley, S.J., Stevens, P.R. et Arnold, R.J. 2017. Hidden assets: Asia’s smallholder wood resources and their contribution to supply chains of commercial wood. Australian Forestry, 80(1): 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049158.2017.1280750
486 Hoang, H.T.N., Hoshino, S., Onitsuka, K. et Maraseni, T. 2019. Cost analysis of FSC forest certification and opportunities to cover the costs a case study of Quang Tri FSC group in Central Vietnam. Journal of Forest Research, 24(3): 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/13416979.2019.1610993
487 Nambiar, E.K.S. 2021. Strengthening Vietnam’s forestry sectors and rural development: higher productivity, value, and access to fairer markets are needed to support small forest growers. Trees, Forests and People, 3: 100052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100052
488 Pretty, J., Attwood, S., Bawden, R., van den Berg, H., Bharucha, Z.P., Dixon, J., Flora, C.B. et al. 2020. Assessment of the growth in social groups for sustainable agriculture and land management. Global Sustainability, 3: e23. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
489 Pretty, J., Attwood, S., Bawden, R., van den Berg, H., Bharucha, Z.P., Dixon, J., Flora, C.B. et al. 2020. Assessment of the growth in social groups for sustainable agriculture and land management. Global Sustainability, 3: e23. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
490 Fisher, M.R., Moeliono, M., Mulyana, A., Yuliani, E.L., Adriadi, A., Kamaluddin, Judda, J. et al. 2018. Assessing the new social forestry project in Indonesia: recognition, livelihood and conservation? International Forestry Review, 20(3): 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554818824063014
491 Segura Warnholtz, G., Fernández, M., Smyle, J. et Springer, J. 2017. Securing forest tenure rights for rural development – Lessons from six countries in Latin America. Washington (États-Unis), Program on Forests. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/26301).
492 Paudel, N.S., Monterroso, I. et Cronkleton, P. 2012. Secondary level organisations and the democratisation of forest governance: case studies from Nepal and Guatemala. Conservation & Society, 10(2): 124–135. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.conservationandsociety.org.in/articlecited.asp?issn=0972-4923;year=2012;volume=10;issue=2;spage=124;epage=135;aulast=Paudel;type=3;aid=ConservatSoc_2012_10_2_124_97485).
493 FAO. 2016. Reducing rural poverty through farmer-to-farmer exchange. Rome. 4 p. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/66915227-169e-42cb-8b1a-32045c6f1f8c/).
494 Nightingale, A.J. 2018. The socioenvironmental state: political authority, subjects, and transformative socionatural change in an uncertain world. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 1(4): 688-711. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618816467
495 Covey, J., Macqueen, D., Bolin, A. et Hou Jones, X. 2021. Co-producing knowledge: a demand-led, prosperity-focused, research agenda with forest and farm producer organisations. Environmental Science & Policy, 124: 336-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.07.006
496 Stickler, C., Duchelle, A., Ardila, J.P., David, O., Chan, C., Rojas, J.G., Bezerra, T. et al. 2018. The state of jurisdictional sustainability – Synthesis for practitioners and policymakers. San Francisco (États-Unis), Earth Innovation Institute, Centre de recherche forestière internationale et Governor's Climate and Forests Task Force Secretariat. 20 p. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://earthinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Stickler_et_al_2018_StateJS_Synthesis_small.pdf).
497 Stickler, C., Duchelle, A., Ardila, J.P., David, O., Chan, C., Rojas, J.G., Bezerra, T. et al. 2018. The state of jurisdictional sustainability – Synthesis for practitioners and policymakers. San Francisco (États-Unis), Earth Innovation Institute, Centre de recherche forestière internationale and Governor’s Climate and Forests Task Force Secretariat. 20 p. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://earthinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Stickler_et_al_2018_StateJS_Synthesis_small.pdf).
498 IDH. 2015. Mato Grosso set to achieve inclusive green growth [en ligne]. [Consulté le 1 janvier 2022]. https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/news/mato-grosso-set-achieve-inclusive-green-growth/
499 Tropical Forest Alliance. 2021. Jurisdictional approach to sustainability – Lessons learnt from private sector action in Aceh Tamiang, (Indonésie). (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.tropicalforestalliance.org/assets/Uploads/AcehTamiang_Case_study-July2021-Final.pdf).
500 National Forestry and Grassland Administration. 2020. Twenty years’ restoration of forests and grasslands from farmland in China.
501 Xie, C. 2017. Links between social protection and forestry policies – Lessons from China. Social Protection and Forestry Working Paper 4. FAO. 44 p.
502 d’Andrea, M., Ma, Q., Ocampo, A. et Omar, B. Non daté. Expanding social protection in rural areas, focusing on fisheries and forestry. Policy in Focus, 17(2): 34-37. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://ipcig.org/pub/eng/PIF45_Universal_social_protection_a_target_for_all.pdf).
503 National Forestry and Grassland Administration. 2019. A report for monitoring and assessment of the socio-economic impacts of China’s key forestry programs. Beijing, China Forestry Publishing House.
504 National Forestry and Grassland Administration. 2020. China forestry and grassland development report. Beijing, China Forestry Publishing House.
505 Dodds, R., Ali, A. et Galaski, K. 2018. Mobilizing knowledge: determining key elements for success and pitfalls in developing community-based tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(13): 1547-1568. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2016.1150257
506 Asare-Nuamah, P., Botchway, E. et Onumah, J.A. 2019. Helping the helpless: contribution of rural extension services to smallholder farmers’ climate change adaptive capacity and adaptation in rural Ghana. International Journal of Rural Management, 15(2): 244-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973005219876211
507 Hunt, W., Birch, C., Coutts, J. et Vanclay, F. 2012. The many turnings of agricultural extension in Australia. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 18(1): 9-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2012.638780
508 Yusuf, A.S, Adeyemi, T.O, Adeleye, A.S, Bakpolor, V.R, Adegboyega, D.A et Adetola, O.O. 2020. Impacts of agriculture and forestry in the control of climate change: the role of extension services. International Journal on Integrated Education, 3(10): 71-75. https://doi.org/10.31149/ijie.v3i10.681
509 Czapiewski, K. et Janc, K. 2019. Education, human capital and knowledge – the paradigm shift and future scenarios on Polish rural areas. Dans: J. Bański, ed. Three decades of transformation in the East-Central European countryside, p. 351-367. Cham (Suisse), Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21237-7_16
510 Kanwar, A., Balasubramanian, K. et Carr, A. 2019. Changing the TVET paradigm: new models for lifelong learning. International Journal of Training Research, 17(sup1): 54-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.2019.1629722
511 Covey, J., Macqueen, D., Bolin, A. et Hou Jones, X. 2021. Co-producing knowledge: a demand-led, prosperity-focused, research agenda with forest and farm producer organisations. Environmental Science & Policy, 124: 336-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.07.006
512 FAO. 2019. Farmers taking the lead – Thirty years of farmer field schools. Rome. 72 p. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CA5131EN/).
513 Sherwood, S., Schut, M. et Leeuwis, C. 2012. Learning in the social wild: encounters between farmer field schools and agricultural science and development in Ecuador. Dans: Adaptive collaborative approaches in natural resources governance – Rethinking participation, learning and innovation, p. 102-137. Londres, Routledge.
514 Humphries, S., Holmes, T.P., Kainer, K., Koury, C.G.G., Cruz, E. et de Miranda Rocha, R. 2012. Are community-based forest enterprises in the tropics financially viable? Case studies from the Brazilian Amazon. Ecological Economics, 77: 62-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.018
515 Wulandari, C. et Inoue, M. 2018. The importance of social learning for the development of community based forest management in Indonesia: the case of community forestry in Lampung Province. Small-scale Forestry, 17(3): 361-376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-018-9392-7
516 FAO. 2019. Quand les agriculteurs prennent les devants | FAO Stories | FAO [en ligne]. [Consulté le 12 janvier 2022]. https://www.fao.org/fao-stories/article/fr/c/1199158/
517 FAO. Non daté. Commerce et Champs-écoles des producteurs | Plateforme mondiale des Champs-Écoles des Producteurs | FAO [en ligne]. [Consulté le 8 décembre 2021]. https://www.fao.org/farmer-field-schools/ffs-overview/business/fr/
518 Rezaeinejad, I. 2021. Impact online marketing strategies on improving the status of businesses in the COVID-19 Situation in Iran. Asian Basic and Applied Research Journal, 4(2): 24-33. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://globalpresshub.com/index.php/ABAARJ/article/view/1281).
519 Piabuo, S.M., Tsafac, S., Minang, P.A., Foundjem-Tita, D., Guimke, G. et Duguma, L. Non daté. Effect of COVID-19 on rural community enterprises – Case of community forest enterprises in Cameroon. Nairobi, Centre mondial d’agroforesterie-ICRAF.
520 Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C.M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., Elmqvist, T. et al. 2017. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond: lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27: 17-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005
521 FAO. 2021. Indigenous Peoples’ food systems. FAO, Alliance de Bioversity International et CIAT. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5131en
522 Edwards, A., Archer, R., De Bruyn, P., Evans, J., Lewis, B., Vigilante, T., Whyte, S. et al. 2021. Transforming fire management in northern Australia through successful implementation of savanna burning emissions reductions projects. Journal of Environmental Management, 290: 112568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112568
523 Russell-Smith, J., Yates, C.P., Edwards, A.C., Whitehead, P.J., Murphy, B.P. et Lawes, M.J. 2015. Deriving multiple benefits from carbon market-based savanna fire management: an Australian example. PLOS ONE, 10(12): e0143426. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143426
524 Edwards, A., Archer, R., De Bruyn, P., Evans, J., Lewis, B., Vigilante, T., Whyte, S. et al. 2021. Transforming fire management in northern Australia through successful implementation of savanna burning emissions reductions projects. Journal of Environmental Management, 290: 112568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112568
525 Russell-Smith, J., Yates, C., Vernooij, R., Eames, T., van der Werf, G., Ribeiro, N., Edwards, A. et al. 2021. Opportunities and challenges for savanna burning emissions abatement in southern Africa. Journal of Environmental Management, 288: 112414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112414
526 Rekola, M. (sous la direction de). 2019. Global outlook on forest education (GOFE). UNESCO. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://foresteducation.wordpress.com/).
527 Rekola, M. et Sharik, T. 2021. Global synthesis report on forest education. Rome, FAO.
528 FAO et Fonds de développement pour les peuples autochtones d’Amérique latine et des Caraïbes. 2021. Forest governance by indigenous and tribal peoples – An opportunity for climate action in Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb2953en
529 FAO, Union internationale des instituts de recherches forestières et Organisation internationale des bois tropicaux. À paraître . Proceedings of the International Conference on Forest Education. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: www.fao.org/forestry/forest-education/conference/en).
530 FAO. 2018. Agricultural services and digital inclusion. www.fao.org/3/i7361en/I7361EN.pdf
531 Philip, L. et Williams, F. 2019. Remote rural home based businesses and digital inequalities: understanding needs and expectations in a digitally underserved community. Journal of Rural Studies, 68: 306–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.09.011
532 Schroeder, K., Lampietti, J. et Elabed, G. 2021. What’s cooking – Digital transformation of the agrifood system. Washington (États-Unis), Banque mondiale. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1657-4
533 Union internationale des télécommunications. 2020. Measuring digital development – Facts and figures 2020. www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/facts/default.aspx
534 Working Group on 21st Century Financing Models for Sustainable Broadband Development. 2021. 21st century financing models for bridging broadband connectivity gaps. Commission «Le large bande au service du développement durable». 198 p.
535 Misaki, E., Apiola, M., Gaiani, S. et Tedre, M. 2018. Challenges facing sub-Saharan small-scale farmers in accessing farming information through mobile phones: a systematic literature review. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 84(4): e12034. https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12034
536 Secrétaire général des Nations Unies. 2020. Plan d’action de coopération numérique: application des recommandations du Groupe de haut niveau sur la coopération numérique. ONU. https://www.un.org/fr/content/digital-cooperation-roadmap/
537 Harris, L. et Nordhaug, L.M. 2021. The Digital Public Goods Alliance’s commitment to co-develop digital public infrastructure for an equitable recovery | Digital Public Goods Alliance [en ligne]. [Consulté le 25 mars 2022]. https://digitalpublicgoods.net/blog/the-digital-public-goods-alliances-commitment-to-co-develop-digital-public-infrastructure-for-an-equitable-recovery
538 Ivus, O. et Boland, M. 2015. The employment and wage impact of broadband deployment in Canada. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’économique, 48(5): 1803-1830. https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12180
539 Park, S. 2017. Digital inequalities in rural Australia: a double jeopardy of remoteness and social exclusion. Journal of Rural Studies, 54: 399-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.12.018
540 Correa, T., Pavez, I. et Contreras, J. 2017. Beyond access: a relational and resource-based model of household Internet adoption in isolated communities. Telecommunications Policy, 41(9): 757-768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2017.03.008
541 FAO. 2021. FAO-EU FLEGT Programme success story – Innovative digital approaches to sustaining livelihoods through the production and sale of legal timber. FAO. 2 p. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CB4537EN).
542 Poschen, P. 2015. Decent work, green jobs and the sustainable economy – Solutions for climate change and sustainable development. Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing [u.a.]. 182 p. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: http://bit.ly/2O8YUUo).
543 Bolin, A. 2020. Women’s empowerment through collective action – How forest and farm producer organisations can make a difference. FAO et Institut international pour l’environnement et le développement. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8713en).
544 Mwangi, E., Meinzen-Dick, R. et Sun, Y. 2011. Gender and sustainable forest management in East Africa and Latin America. Ecology and Society, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03873-160117
545 Initiative des droits et ressources. 2018. À la croisée des chemins: Tendances dominantes dans la reconnaissance des droits fonciers communautaires entre 2002 et 2017. Washington (États-Unis). https://rightsandresources.org/fr/publication/a-la-croisee-des-chemins-tendances-dominantes-dans-la-reconnaissance-des-droits-fonciers-communautaires-entre-2002-et-2017/
546 Cruz-Burga, Z., Monterroso, I., Larson, A., Valencia, F. et Saldaña, J.S. 2019. The impact of formalizing rights to land and forest – Indigenous community perspectives in Madre de Dios and Loreto. InfoBrief 242. Centre de recherche forestière internationale. https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/007156
547 Durán, R., Monterroso, I. et Larson, A.M. 2018. Género e interculturalidad en la formalización de las comunidades nativas en Perú: Desafíos y recomendaciones. Centre de recherche forestière internationale. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.cifor.org/knowledge/publication/6916/).
548 Bolaños, O. 2017. Los derechos de las mujeres indígenas y los desafíos para los proyectos de titulación de la propiedad comunal en el Perú: Resumen Político [en ligne]. Centre de recherche forestière internationale [Consulté le 10 novembre 2021]. https://www.cifor.org/knowledge/publication/6543/
549 Jhaveri, N.J. 2020. Forest tenure pathways to gender equality – A practitioner’s guide. Centre de recherche forestière internationale. https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/007909
550 Macqueen, D. et Campbell, J. 2020. Prosperity in place – Meaningful work for mobile youth that enhances forest landscapes. Rome et Londres, FAO et Institut international pour l’environnement et le développement. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://pubs.iied.org/13615iied).
551 Macqueen, D. et Campbell, J. 2020. Prosperity in place – Meaningful work for mobile youth that enhances forest landscapes. Rome et Londres, FAO et Institut international pour l’environnement et le développement. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://pubs.iied.org/13615iied).
552 Nanavaty, R., Desai, M. et Bhatt, M. 2018. SEWA: developing a business incubation ecosystem for smallholders and forest producers in India. Dans: Forest business incubation – Towards sustainable forest and farm producer organisation (FFPO) businesses that ensure climate resilient landscapes, p. 245-276. Rome, FAO et Londres, Institut international pour l’environnement et le développement. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://pubs.iied.org/13595iied).
553 Macqueen, D. et Campbell, J. 2020. Prosperity in place – Meaningful work for mobile youth that enhances forest landscapes. Rome et Londres, FAO et Institut international pour l’environnement et le développement. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://pubs.iied.org/13615iied).
554 Holden, S.T. et Tilahun, M. 2018. The importance of Ostrom’s design principles: youth group performance in northern Ethiopia. World Development, 104: 10-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.11.010
555 Herren, H.R., Bassi, A.M., Zhuohua, T. et Binns, P.W. 2012. Green jobs for a revitalised food and agriculture sector. Rome, FAO. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://bit.ly/3pp7kbG).
556 Macqueen, D. et Campbell, J. 2020. Prosperity in place – Meaningful work for mobile youth that enhances forest landscapes. Rome et Londres, FAO et Institut international pour l’environnement et le développement. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://pubs.iied.org/13615iied).
557 Moran, H. 2018. FEDECOVERA: a cooperative business development exercise in Guatemala. Forest business incubation – Towards sustainable forest and farm producer organisation (FFPO) businesses that ensure climate resilient landscapes, p. 91–110. Rome, FAO et Londres, Institut international pour l’environnement et le développement. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://pubs.iied.org/13595iied).
558 Majurin, E. 2012. How women fare in East African cooperatives – The case of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Dar es Salaam, OIT. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gdc/gdcovop.2019352559).
559 Bolin, A. 2020. Women’s empowerment through collective action – How forest and farm producer organisations can make a difference. FAO et Institut international pour l’environnement et le développement. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8713en
560 Allan, A., Ahern, B. et Wilson, M. 2016. The state of linkage report – The first global mapping of savings group linkage. Londres, CARE, Plan et Barclays. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://care.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/The-State-of-Linkage-Report-2016.pdf?x15040).
561 FAO. 2021. Cadre stratégique 2022-2031. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://www.fao.org/3/cb7099fr/cb7099fr.pdf).
562 FAO. 2018. Transformer l’alimentation et l’agriculture pour realiser les ODD: 20 actions interconnectées pour orienter les décideurs. https://www.fao.org/3/I9900FR/i9900fr.pdf
563 Vis, M., Mantau, U. et Allen, B. (sous la direction de). 2016. Study on the optimised cascading use of wood. No 394/PP/ENT/RCH/14/7689. Commission européenne. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2873/827106
564 Kirchherr, J., Reike, D. et Hekkert, M. 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127: 221-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005
565 Bocken, N.M.P., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C. et van der Grinten, B. 2016. Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 33(5): 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124
566 FAO. 2020. Évaluation des ressources forestières mondiales 2020 – Rapport principal. Rome. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825fr).
567 FAO. 2020. Évaluation des ressources forestières mondiales 2020 – Rapport principal. Rome. (Également disponible à l’adresse suivante: https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825fr).
568 Stanturf, J., Mansourian, S. et Kleine, M., eds. 2017. Implementing forest landscape restoration – A practitioner’s guide. Vienne, Union internationale des instituts de recherches forestières.
569 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program) (sous la direction de). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington (États-Unis), Island Press. 137 p.
570 Martínez Pastur, G., Perera, A.H., Peterson, U. et Iverson, L.R. 2018. Ecosystem services from forest landscapes: an overview. Ecosystem services from forest landscapes – broad scale considerations, p. 1-10. New York (États-Unis), Springer Science+Business Media.
571 OIT. 2016. En quoi consiste un emploi vert? [en ligne]. [Consulté le 16 novembre 2021]. https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/green-jobs/news/WCMS_325251/lang--fr/index.htm
572 De Beer, J.H. et McDermott, M.J. 1989. The economic value of non-timber forest products in Southeast Asia - With emphasis on Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. Amsterdam (Pays-Bas), Comité des Pays-Bas pour l’UICN.
573 Shackleton, C., Delang, C.O., Shackleton, S. et Shanley, P. 2011. Non-timber forest products: concept and definitions. Dans: S. Shackleton, C. Shackleton et P. Shanley (sous la dir.de). Non-timber forest products in the global context, p. 3-21. Tropical Forestry. Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17983-9_1
574 FAO. 1999. Towards a harmonized definition of non-wood forest products. Unasylva, 50(198): 63-64.
