Increasing global demand for agricultural commodities spurs conversions of natural ecosystems. Sustainable intensification in areas of high yield gaps has been proposed as a pathway to achieve food security, support rural livelihoods, and improve resource efficiency while also reducing the impact of commodity production by narrowing yield gaps on existing agricultural lands. Following the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Georgia experienced one of the highest losses of agricultural productivity among all former USSR countries and is now highly dependent on food imports. Closing yield gaps in Georgia through sustainable intensification has the potential to increase food self-sufficiency, support rural livelihoods, and strengthen food security and sovereignty. We estimated Georgia’s potential for sustainable intensification in current agricultural areas to achieve self-sufficiency for wheat, maize, and barley. We found that crop yields can be doubled to tripled under high-input production systems, using high-yielding varieties, optimized inputs, fertilizers, and pest control. Yet, self-sufficiency in wheat can only be reached if at least 80% of the attainable yields are achieved and if land is strategically allocated between crops. To achieve such increases, farmers need access to and training for using different crop varieties, fertilizers, and pest and disease control practices and products. Intensification with very high levels of inputs can increase the ecological and human risks of agriculture and raise equity concerns. Yet, intensifying very low input agricultural production systems is often found to be more sustainable, with high yield increases compared to limited impacts on the environment. The high employment rate in the agricultural sector in Georgia provides opportunities for intensification to help reduce poverty and improve livelihoods by increasing incomes and food security.

Commodity agriculture continues to spread into tropical dry forests globally, eroding their social-ecological integrity. Understanding where deforestation frontiers expand, and which impacts this process triggers, is thus important for sustainability planning. We reconstructed past land-system change (1985-2015) and simulated alternative land-system futures (2015-2045) for the Gran Chaco, a 1.1 million km² global deforestation hotspot with high biological and cultural diversity. We co-developed nine plausible future land-system scenarios, consisting of three contrasting policy narratives (Agribusiness, Ecomodernism, and Integration) and three agricultural expansion rates (high, medium, and low). We assessed the social-ecological impacts of our scenarios by comparing them with current biodiversity, carbon density, and areas used by forest-dependent people. Our analyses revealed four major insights. First, intensified agriculture and mosaics of agriculture and remaining natural vegetation have replaced large swaths of woodland since 1985. Second, simulated land-system futures until 2045 revealed potential hotspots of natural vegetation loss (e.g. western and southern Argentinian Chaco, western Paraguayan Chaco), both due to the continued expansion of existing agricultural frontiers and the emergence of new ones. Third, the strongest social-ecological impacts were consistently connected to the Agribusiness scenarios, while impacts were lower for the Ecomodernism and Integration scenarios. Scenarios based on our Integration narrative led to lower social impacts, while Ecomodernism had lower ecological impacts. Fourth, comparing recent land change with our simulations showed that 10 % of the Chaco is on a pathway consistent with our Agribusiness narrative, associated with adverse social-ecological impacts. Our results highlight that much is still at stake in the Chaco. Stricter land-use and conservation planning are urgently needed to avoid adverse social-ecological outcomes, and our results charting the option space of plausible land-system futures can support such planning.

Tropical deforestation continues despite global efforts to curb forest loss. Corporate zero-deforestation supply chain commitments (ZDCs) have the potential to address this deforestation, especially if strong state-led forest governance is absent. Yet, because ZDC adoption is limited to particular locations and supply chains, these commitments may fall short at reducing regional deforestation and protecting biodiverse ecosystems. Here, we leverage timeseries of spatially explicit corporate commodity sourcing data and ZDC commitments to assess the current and potential effect of ZDCs within soybean supply chains on forest loss and biodiversity. We focus on the Brazilian Amazon, where the first ZDC (Soy Moratorium) was implemented, and the Cerrado, where companies have adopted but not implemented ZDCs. We found that in the Amazon, Soy Moratorium signatories that controlled the market caused a 57% reduction in direct deforestation for soy from 2006 to 2015. In the Cerrado, if companies had implemented their ZDCs with the same relative effectiveness as in the Amazon, deforestation for soy could have been reduced by 46%. Thus, ZDC implementation in the Cerrado via stringent monitoring and enforcement could contribute substantially to forest and habitat conservation. Yet, incomplete ZDC adoption leaves >50% of soy-suitable forests and the biodiversity that they harbor outside the reach of ZDCs. To protect these forests, it is vital to incentivize more companies – including smaller, less publicly exposed traders - to make and implement ZDCs, while also promoting forest governance through public policy.

Zero-deforestation supply chain policies that leverage the market power of commodity buyers to change agricultural producer behavior can reduce forest clearing in regions with rapid commodity expansion and weak forest governance. Yet leakage—when deforestation is pushed to other regions—may dilute the global effectiveness of regionally successful policies. Here we show that domestic leakage offsets 43-50% of the avoided deforestation induced by existing and proposed zero-deforestation supply chain policies in Brazil’ssoy sector. However, cross-border leakage is insignificant (<3%) because soybean production is displaced to existing U.S. farmland. Eliminating deforestation from the supply chains of all firms exporting Brazilian soy to the EU or China from 2011-2016 could have reduced net global deforestation by 2% and Brazilian deforestation by 9%. Thus, if major tropical commodity importers (e.g., the EU)require traders to eliminate deforestation from their supply chains,it could help bend the curve on global forest loss.