ArticleNature communications2025
Emissions leakage and economic losses may undermine deforestation-linked oil crop import restrictions.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oil crop supply chains drive rising global biodiversity loss and outsource impacts to the tropics.Nature food · 2026Article
- Global soybean trade dynamics: Drivers, impacts, and sustainability.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Import restrictions on deforestation-linked commodities have been enacted with the goal of reducing global deforestation and emissions. However, the limited market share of importers imposing such restrictions and the potential for emissions leakage could reduce their effectiveness. Moreover, they could result in negative economic implications for producers and consumers. We quantify future emissions and economic implications of oil palm and soybean import restrictions. Current EU restrictions are likely to have minimal impact due to the EU's otherwise small and declining share of global palm and soy demand. If extended beyond the EU, import restrictions could lead to reductions in cumulative land use change (LUC) emissions by 2050 in key oil crop exporting regions - up to 1.6% in Indonesia, 2.1% in the rest of Southeast Asia, 4.6% in Argentina, and 8.3% in Brazil compared to a no restrictions scenario. Globally, however, direct forest protection could be more effective than indirect protection through import restrictions due to emissions leakage. Meanwhile, import restrictions could cause major exporters to lose $0.1-$280 billion in cumulative agricultural production revenues by 2050. More broadly, our study highlights that the effectiveness of import restriction policies in reducing global emissions will likely depend on coordinated action across major oil crop producing and consuming regions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.