Tiara Fuller

Mighty Earth partners with Green Corps to Clean Up America’s Meat

Tyson Foods needs to step up and make a clear commitment to cleaning up pollution from its meat that is contaminating waters across the country. That’s the core message that Green Corps organizers will be bringing to communities most affected by this pollution as part of Mighty Earth’s campaign for cleaner meat.

 

Mighty Earth has partnered with Green Crops to place seven grassroots organizers in communities across the Midwest and Gulf, including Des Moines, Iowa; Chicago, Illinois; Kansas City, Missouri; Omaha, Nebraska; Fayetteville, Arkansas; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Dallas, Texas. Green Corps is the nation’s leading training program for environmental organizing, and partners with environmental campaigns across the country as part of a year-long training program.

 

“Green Corps gets the job done,” said Mighty Earth CEO Glenn Hurowitz, himself a graduate of Green Corps’ organizing fellowship. “With the nation’s most talented young environmental organizers on board, we’re building a powerful movement that will end the meat industry’s out-of-control pollution.”

 

The meat industry is the main source of water pollution in the United States. Pollution from raising meat is contaminating drinking water across the Midwest, and flows downstream along the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico where it causes a massive dead zone every summer- an area so polluted that marine life cannot survive. This year’s dead zone was the largest on record. The pollution comes primarily from producing the vast quantities of corn and soy required to raise meat, although manure is also a source.

 

An investigation by Mighty Earth into the specific companies responsible for this pollution found Tyson Foods to be at the forefront. Tyson Foods is America’s largest meat company, producing one out of every five pounds of meat in the country, and its vast footprint can be found driving the agricultural practices in all the regions experiencing the worst pollution from meat.

 

However, Tyson’s new CEO recently stated he wants to ‘place sustainability at the center of the company’s strategy’. Mighty Earth has partnered with Green Corps to make sure Tyson lives up to its word and adopts a clear commitment to cleaning up pollution from its vast meat supply chain. Green Corps organizers are taking the findings of our investigation to communities across the country most impacted by the meat industry’s pollution in order to build the call for Tyson to Clean It Up.

 

  • Care2

 

 


 

Interested in getting more involved? Click here to sign up to volunteer for the cause in your community.


Environmental group cries “fowl” over biodiesel event

Biodiesel not a “feel-good, hippie fuel”

 

Washington, DC-- The National Biodiesel Board offered Congressional members and staff free French fries today, but the group’s touting of used cooking oil misrepresents the real-world reality of biodiesel production.  Environmentalists and their animal ‘friends’ attended the event to share information about the strong links between biodiesel and deforestation.

 

“Biodiesel is not a feel-good, hippie fuel. Rather than Willie Nelson’s tour bus, the more accurate representation of biodiesel is a tropical rainforest which has just been bulldozed and cleared for an industrial-scale soy or palm plantation,” said Rose Garr of Mighty Earth.

 

The large majority of biodiesel is produced from virgin vegetable oils, not used cooking oil. And even recycled and “waste” oils and fats may not have the climate benefits long assumed.  Recent research show as that these oils and fats can be used in animal feed and consumer care products, and diverting them to fuel production drives demand for replacements and expands the global vegetable oil market. The cheapest replacement is often palm oil, which is a major driver of deforestation in Southeast Asia.

 

“We’re offering to buy that used fryer oil, take it off the Biodiesel Board’s hands, and give it to a Maryland farmer to use as feed. Continuing to ramp up biodiesel production and grow demand for vegetable oils around the globe will contribute to deforestation,” Garr added.

 

In 2017, significant quantities of biodiesel imports were imported from Argentina and Indonesia, two countries experiencing high levels of deforestation for agricultural production.

 

***


La destruction de parcs nationaux par l’industrie du chocolat révélée par une enquête

La destruction de parcs nationaux par l’industrie du chocolat révélée par une enquête

La culture du cacao en Côte d’Ivoire et au Ghana est responsable de la disparition de vastes étendues boisées, et met en péril l’habitat des chimpanzés et des éléphants

WASHINGTON DC. — Une nouvelle enquête menée par Mighty Earth et intitulée L’amère déforestation du chocolat, révèle qu’une quantité importante du cacao avec lequel Mars, Nestlé, Hershey, Godiva et d’autres grandes marques fabriquent leur chocolat est cultivée illégalement dans des parcs nationaux et des aires protégées en Côte d’Ivoire et au Ghana. Ces deux pays sont les plus grands producteurs de cacao au monde.

Ce rapport démontre que plusieurs parcs nationaux et aires protégées ont vu 90 % de leur surface, voire davantage, convertie en cultures de cacao, alors que les forêts denses ne recouvrent plus que 4 % de la Côte d’Ivoire. Le laxisme des chocolatiers en matière d’approvisionnement a également entraîné une déforestation massive au Ghana. En Côte d’Ivoire, la déforestation a chassé les chimpanzés qui vivent aujourd’hui dans des petites poches de forêts. Ce phénomène a aussi contribué à réduire drastiquement la population d’éléphants à 200-400 spécimens, quand ce pays pouvait s’enorgueillir jadis d’en compter plusieurs dizaines de milliers.

Trois sociétés, Cargill, Olam et Barry Callebaut, contrôlent à elles seules près de la moitié du marché mondial du cacao. L’enquête de Mighty Earth a remonté la filière du cacao, des cultivateurs installés dans les parcs nationaux aux intermédiaires et jusqu’aux négociants qui vendent ensuite ce cacao en Europe et aux États-Unis, là où les grandes sociétés de chocolaterie le transforment en tablettes, barres, pâtes à tartiner et autres en-cas.

« Le degré d’implication de marques célèbres de chocolat comme Mars dans la destruction des parcs nationaux et des aires protégées est choquant », a déclaré Etelle Higonnet, Directrice juridique et Directrice de campagne pour Mighty Earth. « Ces sociétés doivent immédiatement prendre des mesures fortes pour mettre un terme une bonne fois pour toutes à la déforestation, et remédier aux dégâts causés par le passé. »

Avec des forêts d’Afrique de l’Ouest au bord de l’épuisement, le secteur du chocolat a commencé à étendre son modèle non durable à d’autres régions tropicales humides comme l’Amazonie péruvienne, le bassin du Congo et les forêts paradisiaques d’Asie du Sud-Est.

 

« Nous espérons que ces autres pays prendront conscience des méfaits de l’industrie du chocolat en Côte d’Ivoire, et qu’ils empêcheront ses acteurs de répéter ailleurs leurs mauvaises pratiques », poursuit Etelle Higonnet. 

« Les anciennes forêts de notre nation étaient autrefois un paradis pour la faune comme les chimpanzés, les léopards, les hippopotames, et les éléphants. Aujourd’hui, elles sont fortement dégradées et déboisées, et sont sur le point de disparaître », a déclaré SIGNO Kouamé Soulago Fernand, Secrétaire général du ROSCIDET, un réseau d’ONG ivoiriennes spécialisées dans la protection de l’environnement et dans le développement durable.

« Cette déforestation est due principalement à la culture du cacao. Or, nous devons parvenir à développer une agriculture respectueuse des forêts et qui profite réellement aux communautés et à l’économie du pays. Les grands groupes chocolatiers doivent soutenir les actions du gouvernement en ce sens à la fois financièrement et sur un plan technologique. »

L’enquête a révélé que d’importants campements de cultivateurs de cacao, qui comptent parfois de dizaines de milliers d’habitants, se sont installés dans l’enceinte même d’aires protégées comme des parcs nationaux. Nous avons pu démontrer que des négociants achetaient ouvertement ces fèves cultivées illégalement pour les vendre ensuite aux plus grands chocolatiers du monde. Malgré les nombreuses initiatives publiques en matière de développement durable lancées par ces derniers, ces pratiques se sont perpétuées sans réel changement.

« L’industrie du cacao poursuit son exploitation des forêts et des communautés d’Afrique de l’Ouest pour un cacao vendu pour une bouchée de pain », a déclaré Sindou BAMBA, Coordinateur général de Regroupement des acteurs ivoiriens des droits humains (RAIDH). « Mais ce cacao bon marché coûte en revanche fort cher à la Côte d’Ivoire en matière de déforestation et d’abus des droits humains. Il est grand temps que ce secteur achète le cacao à un prix décent aux agriculteurs et qu’il mette en œuvre des pratiques de production durables afin d’assurer la résilience des écosystèmes locaux, car nous finirons tous par payer tôt ou tard le prix de la destruction de ces forêts. »

Les cultivateurs de cacao en Côte d’Ivoire et au Ghana gagnent en moyenne moins de 0,82 $ par jour et travaillent souvent de longues heures dans des conditions dangereuses. Le travail des enfants reste encore une pratique courante pour ce secteur, malgré les promesses de nombreux chocolatiers d’éliminer cette pratique.

Ce rapport arrive à point nommé pour le secteur du chocolat qui doit saisir cette occasion pour prendre de véritables mesures orientées vers un futur plus responsable sur le plan environnemental. Au début de cette année, le Prince Charles a convoqué les PDG et hauts dirigeants de 34 grandes entreprises du secteur du chocolat pour les exhorter à agir contre la déforestation. Ces entreprises ont promis de présenter un plan concret en novembre, à l’occasion du prochain sommet sur le climat à Bonn. 

« Ce rapport montre que le secteur du chocolat proclame depuis longtemps des engagements en matière de développement durable, mais que cela ne l’a pas empêché de se comporter de manière indigne, a déclaré Etelle Higonnet. Le Prince Charles est parvenu à réunir les acteurs de ce secteur autour d’une table afin qu’ils réfléchissent enfin à des actions concrètes, et a créé ainsi une occasion unique pour impulser un changement possible. »

 

À propos de Mighty Earth

 Migthy Earth est une organisation internationale de campagnes environnementales qui s’attache à la protection des forêts, à la conservation des océans, et se préoccupe du changement climatique. www.mightyearth.org. Nous travaillons en Afrique, en Asie du Sud-Est, en Amérique latine et en Amérique du Nord pour mener des actions à grande échelle en faveur d’une agriculture responsable qui respecte les écosystèmes naturels, la vie sauvage, l’eau et les droits des communautés locales. L’équipe mondiale de Mighty Earth a joué un rôle décisif en persuadant les plus grandes entreprises mondiales de l’agroalimentaire d’améliorer drastiquement leurs politiques et leurs pratiques environnementales et sociales.

Vous trouverez plus d’information au sujet de Mighty Earth sur : http://www.mightyearth.org/.

 

Read the full report here.


Investigation Links Chocolate to Destruction of National Parks

Investigation Links Chocolate to Destruction of National Parks

Cocoa production in Ivory Coast and Ghana responsible for the loss of extensive forested areas, endangered chimpanzee and elephant habitat

WASHINGTON D.C.– A new investigation by Mighty Earth, “Chocolate’s Dark Secret,” finds that a large amount of the cocoa used in chocolate produced by Mars, Nestle, Hershey’s, Godiva, and other major chocolate companies was grown illegally in national parks and other protected areas in Ivory Coast and Ghana. The countries are the world’s two largest cocoa producers.

The report documents how in several national parks and other protected areas, 90% or more of the land mass has been converted to cocoa. Less than four percent of Ivory Coast remains densely forested, and the chocolate companies’ laissez-faire approach to sourcing has driven extensive deforestation in Ghana as well. In Ivory Coast, deforestation has pushed chimpanzees into just a few small pockets, and reduced the country’s elephant population from several hundred thousand to about 200-400.

About half of the world cocoa market is controlled by just three companies: Cargill, Olam, and Barry Callebaut. The investigation traced how cocoa makes its way from growers in national parks, through middlemen, to these traders, who then sell it onto Europe and the United States where the world’s largest chocolate companies make it into truffles, bars, syrups, and myriad other chocolate treats.

“The extent to which big chocolate brands like Mars are linked to destruction of national parks and protected areas is shocking,” said Etelle Higonnet, Mighty Earth Campaign and Legal Director. “These companies need to take immediate action to end deforestation once and for all, and remediate past damage.”  

With West Africa’s forests nearing exhaustion, the chocolate industry has begun to bring its model to other rainforest regions like the Peruvian Amazon, the Congo Basin, and Southeast Asia’s Paradise Forests.

“The ancient forests of our nation, once a paradise for wildlife like chimpanzees, leopards, hippopotamus, and elephants, have been degraded and deforested to the point that they’re almost entirely gone. This deforestation is due principally to the cultivation of cocoa. Our country has become dependent on a cocoa industry that destroys forests and the whole range of ecosystem services they offer the country. We must achieve a sustainable cocoa industry that respects forests and that actually benefits communities and the country’s economy. The big chocolate companies must make financial and technical contributions to support the government’s conservation efforts,” said SIGNO Kouamé Soulago Fernand, General Secretary ROSCIDET, a network of Ivorian NGOs specializing in environmental protection and sustainable development.

Our investigators found large villages of cocoa growers, in some cases consisting of tens of thousands of inhabitants, inside protected areas like national parks. We documented traders openly purchasing cocoa beans grown illegally inside these areas, which would then go on to be sold to most of the world’s largest chocolate companies. Despite many chocolate companies’ public sustainability initiatives, these practices have continued without any real change.

“The cocoa industry continues to exploit both forests and communities of West Africa for cocoa that is sold for large quantities of cheap, environmentally unsustainable cocoa beans. The low price of cocoa is costing us dearly here in Côte d’Ivoire in terms of deforestation and abuses of human rights abuses. It is high time for the industry to start paying growers a living wage and to implement sustainable production practices to ensure the resilience of local ecosystems, because without forests we will all suffer and pay sooner or later,” said Sindou Bamba, General Coordinator of the Coalition of Ivorian Human Rights Actors (RAIDH).

On average, cocoa growers in Ivory Coast and Ghana are paid less than 80 cents (USD) per day and often work in dangerous conditions with long hours. Child labor is still prevalent throughout the industry, despite pledges by many chocolate companies to eliminate the practice.

The report comes at a time of unique opportunity for the chocolate industry to take real action for a more environmentally responsible future. Earlier this year, Prince Charles convened CEOs and senior leadership of 34 chocolate industry companies to begin to urge them to act on deforestation. The companies pledged to come up with a concrete plan by November’s climate summit in Bonn.

“This report shows that the chocolate industry’s long history of heralding their own commitment to sustainability hasn’t stopped them from engaging in egregious behavior,” said Higonnet. “Prince Charles has managed however to get the industry to finally start talking about doing something real, creating a unique moment in which change is possible.”

 

About Mighty Earth

Mighty Earth is a global environmental campaign organization that works to protect forests, conserve oceans, and address climate change. We work in Southeast Asia, Latin America, Africa, and North America to drive large-scale action towards environmentally responsible agriculture that protects native ecosystems, wildlife, and water, and respects local community rights. Mighty Earth’s global team has played a decisive role in persuading the world’s largest food and agriculture companies to dramatically improve their environmental and social policies and practices. More information on Mighty Earth can be found at http://www.mightyearth.org/.

Read the full report here.


Sources

    1. The Ivory Coast is the world’s largest producer of cocoa, Wessel, M., and Quist-Wessel, P.M.F.Cocoa production in West Africa, a review and analysis of recent developments.” NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences. 74-75 (2015): 1-7. Available here.
    2. Olam, Cargill, and Barry Callebaut control around half of global cocoa trade, Terazono, Emiko. “Welcome to the world of Big Chocolate.” Financial Times. 18 December 2014. Available here. See also "Market Concentration and Price Formation in the Global Cocoa Value Chain." SEO Amsterdam Economics. 15 November 2016. Available here.
    3. The chocolate industry has been the primary driver behind the destruction of forests, Kroeger, Alan, et al. “Eliminating Deforestation from the Cocoa Supply Chain.” The World Bank Group. March 2017. Available here. [hereinafter World Bank report, Eliminating Deforestation]. An even more precise calculation of the percentage of total Ivorian deforestation due to cocoa – determined to be approximately 27% - can be found in: BNETD, EtcTerra, RONGEAD, ONU-REDD (FAO/PNUD/PNUE). “Analyse qualitative des facteurs de déforestation et de dégradation des forêts en Côte d’Ivoire.” Rapport Final. 10 novembre 2016; and the Ministere De L’environnement et du Developpement Durable.
    4. 291,254 acres of protected areas have been cleared for cocoa growing operations, this calculation is based on Mighty Earth/MapHubs mapping.
    5. Approximately one quarter of deforestation in Ghana was connected to the chocolate industry, World Bank Report, Eliminating Deforestation.
    6. Only 200-400 elephants remain in the Ivory Coast from an original population of hundreds of thousands, Ivorian elephant numbers were reported to be declining at a rate of around 390 elephants killed per year between 1976 and 1984, leaving only “an estimated 4,840 elephants in 41 isolated groups in 1984…[which] declined to some 270 elephants in 20 isolated groups by the early 2000s.” See Van Kooten, G. “Protecting the African elephant: A dynamic bioeconomic model of ivory trade.” Biological Conservation. 141 (2008). Referencing: Fischer, F. “Elephants in Côte d’Ivoire – a warning for West African conservation.” Pachyderm. 38(2005). 64–75. Today there are an estimated 200 to 400 elephants left nationwide: see “Poaching contributes to forest elephant declines in Côte d’Ivoire, new numbers reveal.” WWF. 05 September 2011. Available  here. “An estimated 189 African forest elephants are now living in The Ivory Coast’s Taï National Park, according to the findings of a recent survey. The last reliable population estimate was conducted nearly 30 years ago and counted 800 elephants. The current population level was determined by counting dung piles throughout the park. Taking into account the estimate’s margin of error, the actual number of elephants in the area could range from 54 to 324… The elephant population survey was conducted by CITES’ Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants programme and WWF’s African Elephant Programme with cooperation from The Ivory Coast’s national park service.”
    7. The world’s largest chocolate companies have begun to acknowledge their responsibility to address deforestation. The initiative to embrace sustainability in the chocolate industry, led by Prince Charles, and coordinated also by the World Cocoa Foundation and the NGO IDH, is typically referred to as the “Cocoa and Forests Initiative.” See the Initiative page on the World Cocoa Foundation website.
    8. Leading chocolate companies have not provided details about their plan to end deforestation, The Cocoa and Forests Initiative’s plan can be found on their website.
    9. Previous cocoa sustainability initiatives have been too weak to produce significant industry-wide results, Barry Callebaut launched Cocoa Horizons Foundation and an Initiative for Sustainable Landscapes, available here, Cargill started its ‘Cocoa Promise' available here, Cémoi began ‘Transparence Cacao’ available here , Mondelēz International piloted ‘Cocoa Life’ available here. Olam joined with Rainforest Alliance to forge a ‘Climate Cocoa Partnership’ and REDD+ Pilot Project available here, Touton led its ‘Climate Smart Cocoa Program’ available here, and the industry platform the World Cocoa Foundation (WCF) provides an umbrella for various sustainability initiatives through CocoaAction.
    10. The global chocolate market was approximately $100 billion in 2015, Barnato, K. and Graham, L. "Future of the chocolate industry looks sticky.” CNBC. 24 March 2016. Available here. See also Clay, J. “Rainforest Crunch: Cocoa and Deforestation, It’s Time to Shift the Paradigm.” Chicago Council on Global Affairs. 7 July 2016. Available here.
    11. The world consumes close to 3 million tons of chocolate each year, Ibid.
    12. Demand for chocolate and other cocoa products goes up by 2-5% every year, Zhang, Y. “5 Facts About the Chocolate Industry.” Business Journalism. 13 October 2016. Available here; Petroff, A. “Paying more for chocolate? You will be.” CNN. 14 October 2013. Available here.
    13. Most of the world’s chocolate is manufactured and consumed in Europe and North America, McCarthy, Niall. “The World's Biggest Chocolate Consumers.” Forbes. 22 July 2015. Available here. Americans eat just over 9 lb. of chocolate a year. Western European eat an average of 10.3 lb. = 4.7 kg. The Swiss lead in global consumption, eating nearly 20 lb. of chocolate per year (approximately 9.2 kilos).
    14. The Majority of cocoa is grown in West Africa, Harris, N., Payne, O., Alix Mann, P. “How Much Rainforest Is in That Chocolate Bar?” World Resources Institute. 6 August 2015. Available here.
    15. Most Ivorian cocoa farmers have never tried chocolate, Barclay, E. “These Ivory Coast Cacao Farmers Had Never Tasted Chocolate.” NPR. 2014. Available here.
    16. The Ivory Coast once had the highest rates of biodiversity in Africa, Gockowski, J. and Sonwa, D. “Cocoa Intensification Scenarios and Their Predicted Impact on CO2 Emissions, Biodiversity Conservation, and Rural Livelihoods in the Guinea Rain Forest of West Africa.” Environmental Management. 48 (2011): 307–321. Available here; See also: Myers N. “The biodiversity challenge: expanded hot-spots analysis.” The Environmentalist. 10(1990): 243–256; Also citing: Myers, N. et al. “Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.” Nature. 403(2000): 853–858. Available here.
    17. Less than 11 percent of the Ivory Coast remains forested and less than four percent remains densely forested, this statistic is based on the government’s own maps, BNETD, EtcTerra, RONGEAD, ONU-REDD (FAO/PNUD/PNUE). “Analyse qualitative des facteurs de déforestation et de dégradation des forêts en Côte d’Ivoire.” Rapport Final. 10 November 2016; and the Ministere De L’environnement et du Developpement Durable. In arriving at this analysis, Mighty Earth used the maps in this report, and used the government’s own definitions of forest as well as its own data. Mighty Earth also conducted a separate mapping initiative, using different methodology and using maps from Dr. Hansen (et. al.) at the University of Maryland, full citation details are available here. Mighty Earth’s separate mapping arrived at virtually the same result as the BNETD government mapping (of 3.7%), with a finding that 3.4% of the country remained with dense forest cover (of a density over 67% forest canopy density). Some representatives of the Government of the Ivory Coast have claimed that 11% of the country remains forested, which corresponds to a definition of canopy density of around 30%.
    18. Seven of twenty-three protected areas in Ivory Coast have been almost entirely converted to cocoa, Bitty, A. E., Gonedele, S. B., Koffi Bene, J.C., Kouass, P.Q.I and McGraw, W. S. “Cocoa farming and primate extirpation inside The Ivory Coast’s protected areas.” Tropical Conservation Science. 8.1(2015): 95-113. Available here. [Hereinafter, Cocoa farming and primate extirpation].
    19. Chimpanzees are considered an endangered species in Ivory Coast, Covey, R. and McGraw, W. S. “Monkeys in a West African bushmeat market: implications for cercopithecid conservation in eastern Liberia.” Tropical Conservation Science. 7.1 (2014): 115-125. Available here; Marchesi, P., Marchesi, N., Fruth, B., and Boesch, C. “Census and Distribution of Chimpanzees in Cote D'Ivoire.” PRIMATES. 36.4(1995): 591-607. Available here.
    20. The Ohio Study: Thirteen of twenty-three Ivorian protected areas have lost their entire primate populations and half the primate species have disappeared in five areas, See also: Oates, J.F., Abedy-Lartey, M., McGraw, W.S., Struhsaker, T.T., and Whitesides, G.H. “Extinction of a Western African Red Colobus.” Conservation Biology. 14.5(2000): 1526-1532. Available here.
    21. Thirteen of twenty-three Ivorian protected areas have lost their entire primate populations and half the primate species have disappeared in five areas, See also: Oates, J.F., Abedy-Lartey, M., McGraw, W.S., Struhsaker, T.T., and Whitesides, G.H. “Extinction of a Western African Red Colobus.” Conservation Biology. 14.5(2000): 1526-1532. Available here; See also: Mittermeier, R.A., Wallis, J., Rylands, A.B., Ganzhorn, J.U., Oates, J.F., Williamson, E.A., Palacios, E., Heymann, E.W., Kierulff, M.C.M., Yongcheng, L., Supriatna, J., Roos, C., Walker, S., Cortes-Ortiz, L., and Schwitzer, C. “Primates in Peril: The World’s 25 Most Endangered Primates.” Primate Conservation. 24(2009): 1-57. Available here; See also: Bitty, A. E., Gonedele, S. B., Koffi Bene, J. C., Kouass, P. Q.i and McGraw, W. S. “Cocoa farming and primate extirpation inside The Ivory Coast’s protected areas.” Tropical Conservation Science. 8.1(2015): 95-113. Available here.
    22. Elephants are on the verge of total disappearance, See footnote 6 above regarding elephant disappearance.
    23. Olam, Cargill, and Barry Callebaut buy cocoa grown illegally and sell to the world’s largest chocolate companies like Mars, Hershey, Mondelez, Ferrero, and others, See Annex 1.
    24. Full description of chocolate making process, "From Bean to Bar.” Equal Exchange. Available here.
    25. Forty percent of Ivorian cocoa comes from protected areas, Interview by Mighty Earth in Abidjan, 22 May 2017.
    26. Seven cooperatives bought cocoa from protected areas and confirmed that they sold their cocoa to international traders Cargill, Olam, and Barry Callebaut, Mighty Earth identified seven cooperatives which bought cocoa from protected areas that we visited, and which confirmed that they sold their cocoa on to the major international traders Cargill, Olam, and Barry Callebaut: Mighty Earth identified seven cooperatives which bought cocoa from protected areas that we visited, and which confirmed that they sold their cocoa on to the major international traders Cargill, Olam, and Barry Callebaut: Guiglo: The town of Guiglo is a primary hub for dirty, illegal deforestation cocoa from the protected areas of Scio (especially the southern part) and Goin Débé. The town’s cocoa gets sold onwards to Abidjan or to the port of San Pedro. A leading pisteur with decades of experience explained that Guiglo cocoa is bought primarily by SACO, Cargill, and Touton – and to a lesser extent by Olam. In Guiglo, the following major cocoa stores are buying from forests, and most are selling to major traders: Mohammed – buys from Scio, sells to major traders; CAPUG – purchases from a pisteur/small warehouse owner operating right next to a protected area, sells to Olam; Nasa – buys from Gouin Débé, sells to Cargill; Chifousseini – buys from Gouin Débé, sells to Cargill; Hassan – buys from Scio, involved in SCOAGG, sells to Cargill; SCOAGG – buys from Paris which is a village with several small cocoa stores on the edge of Gouin Débé, where Gouin Débé meets a large road, and where Gouin Débé cocoa gets consolidated, sells to Cargill. Duékoué: The town of Duékoué is a major hub for dirty, illegal deforestation cocoa from the protected areas of Scio (particularly the NE), and Mount Péko. SAFSO SARL: Appears to belong to someone known as Mahmoud, buys cocoa from deep inside Scio park, in a town called Sada. We met a pisteur in Sada and then hours later met him again in this store, arranging a sale. Mahmoud’s store appears to be named SAFSO SARL. We also were shown a receipt from SAFSO from a cocoa store inside the park. SAFSO employees told us their cocoa goes to San Pedro to the port and there it is sold to most major companies, including Olam and Cargill which they named specifically.SABF: Buying from forests, selling to SACO(aka Barry Callebaut), Olam, Cargill according to the drivers outside in the courtyard. Porgo: Buys from the NE part of Scio park, sells especially to SACO (aka Barry Callebaut). He sells to both to San Pedro and Abidjan. Before, he sold to Cargill, and it was unclear if previously sold to Olam but he talked about how Olam refused to buy his cocoa beans under a certain size (‘grainage’) and implied that he had managed to sell the larger size beans to Olam. Small stores in the forest of Scio in the town of Caen and the NE part of Scio park sell to pisteurs from the following larger stores in town:Porgo (this is the same as above, someone known as Ali the Lebanese, SABF, and DAFCI. Québré: Previously, small cocoa stores in the National Park of Mount Péko sold to the big store in Duekoue owned by Québré. However, he has since been shut down, and now the farmers in Péko have had to find other traders to buy their cocoa.
    27. Olam likely sells to Godiva and Starbucks, "Olam to acquire global cocoa business of Archer Daniels Midland for $1.7 billion.” Straits Times. 16 December 2014. Available here.
    28. Quote from Cargill representative acknowledging need for further action, email from Cargill to Mighty Earth, 21 July 2017.
    29. If the same rate of destruction from 1990-2015 persists all Ivorian primary forests will disappear within a few decades, This calculation is based on Mighty Earth’s analysis of the government’s own maps, made by BNETD.
    30. Quote from farmer in Goin Débé, Interview by Mighty Earth of a farmer in Goin Débé, 12 May 2017.
    31. Evictions of cocoa farmers were carried out in violation of human rights standards, “Côte d’Ivoire: Arbitrary Evictions in Protected Forests Forestry Agency Implicated in Violence, Extortion.” Human Rights Watch. 13 June 2016. Available at here.Report by Rassemblement des Acteurs Ivoriens des Droits Humains, RAIDH.
    32. Demand for chocolate increases by two to five percent each year, Zhang, Yu. “5 Facts About the Chocolate Industry.” Business Journalism. 13 October 2016. Available here; Petroff, Alanna. “Paying more for chocolate? You will be.” CNN. 14 October 2013. Available here.
    33. One point seven million acres of Indonesian forest were cleared for cocoa production, FAOSTAT and European Commission. “The impact of EU consumption on deforestation: Comprehensive analysis of the impact EU consumption on deforestation.” Technical Report 063.
    34. Cacao expansion could lead to the loss of 176 to 395 square kilometers of forest in the next decade, especially in the Equatorial Province’s Mbandaka, Bikoro and Lukolela, De Beule, H., Jassogne, L., and van Asten, P. “Cocoa: Driver of Deforestation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?” CCAFS Working Paper no. 65. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). 2014. Available online here, or here, or here; “Taking up The Challenge of Cocoa.” World Bank Feature Story. 8 July 2017. Available here; Elsa M Ordway, et al. “Deforestation risk due to commodity crop expansion in sub-Saharan Africa.” Environmental Research Letters.2017. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa6509.
    35. Cocoa production in South America has increased nearly five-fold between 1990 and 2013, Harris, N., Payne, O., and Alix Mann, S. “How Much Rainforest is in That Chocolate Bar?” World Resources Institute. 6 August 2015. Available here. [hereinafter, WRI, “That Chocolate Bar”].
    36. United Cacao destroyed nearly 5,000 acres of land for a cocoa plantation encroaching on the Amazon rainforest, Satellite images in 2012 showed United Cacao destroying nearly 5000 acres of land for a cocoa plantation, encroaching on the carbon-rich, biodiverse Amazon rainforest in Peru. See: Payne, Octavia and Sarah Alix Mann. “Zooming In: ‘Sustainable’ Cocoa Producer Destroys Pristine Forest in Peru.” World Resources Institute. 9 June 2015. Available here; Cannon, J. “Company chops down rainforest to produce ‘sustainable’ chocolate.” Mongabay. 20 January 2015. Available here; For a source on how Matt Finer of the Amazon Conservation Association used Landsat imagery to chronicle the clearing month-by-month and prove that the area was previously primary forest, see “MAAP #9: Confirming Forest Clearing for Cacao in Tamshiyacu (Loreto, Peru) came from Primary Forest.” Monitoring of the Andean Amazon Project. 30 June 2015. Available here; WRI, “That Chocolate Bar”; See also the website of the Carnegie Airborne Observatory here, in Stanford University’s Carnegie Institution for Science, which mapped deforestation for cocoa in the Amazon cited in the WRI article above, using airborne LiDAR technology to estimate that the patch of forest contained an average of 122 metric tons of carbon per hectare (54.4 tons per acre).
    37. From 1990-2008 the 27 member states of the EU imported an estimated 1.48 million acres of deforestation embedded in cocoa production, World Bank Report, Eliminating Deforestation.
    38. A single dark chocolate bar made with cocoa from deforestation produces the same amount of carbon pollution as driving 4.9 miles in a car, WRI, “That Chocolate Bar”; Goswami, Urmi. “How making chocolate is adding up to deforestation, emissions & climate change.” The Economic Times. 22 August 2015. Available here.
    39. Shade-grown cocoa promotes nutrient cycling, erosion control, water regulation, nitrogen fixing, crop pollination, and reduced weed growth, Schroth, G. and Harvey, C. “Biodiversity conservation in cocoa production landscapes: an overview.” Biodiversity and Conservation. 16.8(2007): 2237-2244. DOI 10.1007/s10531-007-9195-1 (this article states: “Our results show that, contrary to common perceptions, profitability and cost-efficiency are higher for small-scale shaded systems.”); Jeezer, R.E. and Verweij, P.A. “Shade grown coffee – Double dividend for biodiversity and small-scale coffee farmers in Peru.” Hivos. The Hague, the Netherlands; and Jeezer, et al. “Shaded Coffee and Cocoa – Double Dividend for Biodiversity and Small-scale Farmers.” Ecological Economics. · 140(2017): 136–145.
    40. Shade grown systems can have higher average productivity over the full life cycle of a cocoa tree, Clough, Y., Barkmann, J., Juhrbandt, J., Kessler, M., Wanger, TC., Anshary, A., et al. “Combining high biodiversity with high yields in tropical agroforests.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science in the United States of America. 108.20(2011): 8311-8316. Available at here. This article states, “Moderate shade adequate, adequate labor, and input level can be combined with a complex habitat structure to provide high biodiversity as well as high yields. Although livelihood impacts are held up as a major obstacle for wildlife-friendly farming in the tropics, our results suggest that in some situations, agroforests can be designed to optimize both biodiversity and crop production benefits without adding pressure to convert natural habitat to farmland”; See also, Cassano, C., et al. “Landscape and farm scale management to enhance biodiversity conservation in the cocoa producing region of southern Bahia, Brazil.” Biodiversity Conservation. 18(2009): 577-603. Available here; Moreover, West African cocoa has some of the world’s lowest productivity and worst yields – not because farmers have too much shade or because shade reduces productivity – largely because West African cocoa has some of the industry’s worst agronomic practices worldwide. See “Cocoa Market Update.” World Cocoa Foundation. 1 April 2014. Available here; yields can increase for cocoa in West Africa and even worldwide, by rolling out shade-grown systems alongside agronomic best practices: "Whereas the average global yield is about 460 kilograms of cacao beans per hectare, crops tended using modern farming techniques could easily yield 1,500 kilograms or more per hectare." See: Schmitz, H. and Howard-Yana Shapiro. “The Race to Save Chocolate: Pests, fungal infections and a changing climate threaten cacao crops and the chocolate they produce; But researchers have strategies to rescue this favorite sweet.” Scientific American. 1 June 2015. Available here.
    41. There are more than 300 million acres of previously deforested lands across the tropics where crops like cocoa can be grown without threatening new deforestation, Campbell, J.E., Lobell, D.B, Genova, R.C, and Field, C.B. “The global potential of bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands.” Environmental Science and Technology. 42(2008): 5791-5794. Available here; Boucher, D., Elias, P., Lininger, K., May-Tobin, C., Roquemore, S., and Saxon, E. "The Root of the Problem: What's Driving Tropical Deforestation Today?" Union of Concerned Scientists. 2011. Available at here, noting “There are an estimated 385 million to 472 million hectares of abandoned agricultural land globally, with 97 million to 129 million hectares of it in the tropics, though not all of this is suitable for intensified agriculture (Campbell et al. 2008)”; Butler, R. “Degraded lands hold promise in feeding 9 billion, while preserving forests.” Mongabay. 29 March 2012. Available here.
    42. Cocoa and chocolate companies including Cargill, Olam, Nestle, Mondelez, Mars, Ferrero Rocher and Hershey already apply that criterion to their palm oil purchases, For a description of how Cargill has adopted a strict methodology, known as the High Carbon Stock Approach, to target development of palm oil onto degraded land, see here. For a description of Olam’s commitment to HCSA for its palm oil sourced in Asia from third parties, see here. For a citation noting how Unilever, Nestlé, and Kellogg’s, are all using the HCSA, see here. For a citation on Ferrero’s commitment to HCSA see here. For a citation noting Hershey’s commitment to HCS see here.
    43. Companies that shift to deforestation-free agricultural production identified significant efficiencies that allowed them to increase profitability, Levin, J. “Profitability and Sustainability in Palm Oil Production: Analysis of Incremental Financial Costs and Benefits of RSPO Compliance." WWF. May 2012. Available here. [Hereinafter WWF, Profitability and Sustainability in Palm Oil]. Soy companies that shifted to deforestation-free agricultural production also profited. After the Brazilian Amazon soy moratorium on all future deforestation, the soy industry saw the value of agriculture and ranching production doubling, even as deforestation plummeted. Soy expanded in the Amazon from 1.35 to 3.65 million ha (2008-2015) without need to deforest. A paper published in Science points out that deforestation rates have declined by 70% between 2005 and 2013, even as land-intensive beef and soy production has continued to grow in the country – See: Nepstad, D. et al., “Slowing Amazon Deforestation Through Public Policy and Interventions in Beef and Soy Supply Chains.” Science 344, no.6188 (6 June 2014): 1118-23. Available here.
    44. Many traders shifting to sustainable production attracted increased market share from manufacturers willing to pay for environmentally responsible raw material supplies, WWF, Profitability and Sustainability in Palm Oil. See also Whelan, T. and Fink, C. "The Comprehensive Business Case for Sustainability.” Harvard Business Review. 21 October 2016. Available here.
    45. Several chocolate companies have launched small-scale sustainability initiatives, See footnote 9.
    46. Even certification programs that chocolate companies use to promote their products as sustainable were found in 2016 to have mostly failed to make a significant difference on a national level, “La face cachée du chocolat.” Le Basic. 2016. Available here.
    47. Prince Charles launched an initiative with 34 of the world’s biggest chocolate and cocoa companies to end deforestation, “Collective Statement of Intent.” The Cocoa and Forests Initiative. 16 March 2017. Available here. See also (a) Varlet, Frederic, and Kouame, Geoerges. “Étude de la production de cacao en zone riveraine du Parc national de Taï.” Rapport Final. Published by GIZ with the Ivorian Ministry of Agriculture and the Cooperation Allemande. February 2013. This study found that Rainforest Alliance had certified cocoa from within protected areas, providing interviews, photographs, and maps. (b)Note that UTZ and Fairtrade protect primary forests but not secondary forests, and they are not deforestation-free – all the more troubling since overwhelmingly Ghanaian and Ivorian forests are not primary. For instance Mighty Earth mapping found only aroun 3.7% of Ivory Coast had dense primary forests. (c)For another assessment of problems with certification, see Ruf. “The Myth of Complex Agroforests: The Case of Ghana.” Human Ecology. 39.3(2011): 373-388, available here. (d) Incomes remain relatively low for smallholder cocoa farmers in certification schemes. See KPMG, 2012. Cocoa Certification. Study on the costs, advantages and disadvantages of cocoa certification commissioned by The International Cocoa Organization (ICCO). KPMG, The Netherlands, p. 48. (e) For another source on concerns about cocoa and certification schemes, see: “Analyse qualitative des facteurs de déforestation et de dégradation des forêts en Côte d’Ivoire, Rapport Final,” 10 novembre 2016. “Pour le moment, la fiabilité des systèmes de certification (type RFA, UTZ) est plutôt faible à l’image de ce que VARLET (2013) a bien démontré en soulignant l’existence de coopératives certifiées RFA ou UTZ dont les membres possèdent des parcelles au sein de forêts classées.” [“For the time being, the reliability of the certification systems (RFA, UTZ) is rather low, as demonstrated by VARLET (2013), highlighting the existence of RFA or UTZ certified cooperatives whose members own parcels within classified forests”]. (f) See also the World Bank report, stating that certification schemes “still contain limitations. Certification has limited impact on addressing the livelihood issue as farmers remain in poverty, the premiums remain unrealistically low, and all three standards lack equivalent criteria for forest protection which creates sourcing complications for companies that use certified cocoa purchases as their strategy to reduce deforestation.”
    48. The government has joined the United Nations program on reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (UN-REDD), See the UN-REDD website, Côte d’Ivoire page, available here; "Mapping the Landscape of REDD+ Finance in Côte d’Ivoire.” UN-REDD. 8 Jun 2017. Available here.
    49. The United Nations has also committed to produce zero deforestation cocoa as of 2017 through the Cocoa Carboneutre initiative, “Alassane Ouattara affiche les ambitions de la Côte d’Ivoire pour s’adapter au changement climatique.” AIP. 24 septembre 2014. Available here.
    50. The Ghanaian government has shown greater willingness to protect forests than in the past, Roth, M., Antwi, Y., and O’Sullivan, R. “Land and Natural Resource Governance and Tenure for Enabling Sustainable Cocoa Cultivation in Ghana.” USAID Tenure and Global Climate Change Program. February 2017. Available here; See also the Government of Ghana’s Cocoa Forest REDD+ Program, and Ghana’s participation in Cocoa Action which was launched in 2014.
    51. The chocolate industry should cease purchasing from suppliers who engage in future clearance of High Carbon Stock and High Conservation Value lands, The High Carbon Stock Approach (a resource site on the HCS Approach), available at highcarbonstock.org.
    52. There are still more than 20 protected areas that remain forested to some degree in Ivory Coast, Mighty Earth and MapHubs worked to create a ranking of all Ivorian protected areas, from best to worst, in terms of percentage of forest remaining and also in terms of volume of forest remaining. The full ranking is available in Annex 2. The ranking shows that there are well over 20 protected areas that remain forested to some degree, and which could be – as a matter of urgency – better protected so that they can thrive once more.
    53. Between five and six million people, largely smallholders, grow cocoa around the world, See "Cocoa Market Update.” World Cocoa Foundation. 1 April 2014. Available here.
    54. Cocoa farmers earn around 50 cents per day in Ivory Coast and around 84 cents per day in Ghana, in both The Ivory Coast and Ghana, anything under $1.25 per day constitutes ‘absolute poverty’. Anything under $2.00 per day constitutes ‘poverty’, according to the World Bank. Officially, the Ivorian minimum wage is around $3.50 per day.
    55. In the 1980s, farmers received an average of 16% of the value of a chocolate bar, see the following references regarding the higher percentages of profits that cocoa farmers got in the 1980s, at around 16%, and also references on the historic drop in farmers’ share of profits since that time: (a) Christopher, G. “Value chain analysis and market power in commodity processing with application to the cocoa and coffee sectors.” Commodity market review. 2007-2008. On page 23 you can find a Table named "Cocoa producer price as a share of the UK chocolate price, 10 year averages", which shows a decline of the producer share of the chocolate price over time (and where the share for the most important producing country, Côte d'Ivoire, from 1976-85 is indicated as 17.9 percent). Available here. (b) “In 1980 the international cocoa price was $3,750 a tonne -- equivalent to $10,000 a tonne in 2013. Nowadays it is considered high at roughly $2,800 a tonne. Over the same period, the value of cocoa within a chocolate bar has halved from 12% to just 6%, so although a farmer's cocoa is essential to a chocolate bar, its value is a small part of the ultimate cost of production. Most (70%) of a modern-day chocolate bar's value goes to the manufacturer because the majority of the costs are in marketing, research and development.” Citation from: Percival, M. “Cocoa-nomics: Why chocolate really doesn't grow on trees.” CNN. April 3, 2015. Available here. (c) Fair Trade: "growers are likely to receive around 6 percent of the final value of a chocolate bar containing their cocoa. This figure is down from 16 percent in the late 1980s," citation from “Fairtrade Cocoa Facts.” Fair Trade. Available at https://www.fairtrade.net/products/cocoa.html ; See also: “Growers in West Africa – many of whom have never tasted chocolate – are likely to receive just 3.5 to 6.4 per cent of the final value of a chocolate bar, depending on the percentage of cocoa content. This is compared with 16 per cent in the late 1980s. By contrast, the manufacturers’ share has increased from 56 to 70 per cent, and for retailers from 12 to 17 per cent, over the same period.” Citation from "Fairtrade and Cocoa - Commodity Briefing.” Fairtrade Foundation. August 2011. Available here.
    56. Thirty-five percent of revenue goes to chocolate companies and 44% goes to retailers like supermarkets,see the following references regarding the higher percentages of profits that cocoa farmers got in the 1980s, at around 16%, and also references on the historic drop in farmers’ share of profits since that time: (a) Christopher, G. “Value chain analysis and market power in commodity processing with application to the cocoa and coffee sectors.” Commodity market review. 2007-2008. On page 23 you can find a Table named "Cocoa producer price as a share of the UK chocolate price, 10 year averages", which shows a decline of the producer share of the chocolate price over time (and where the share for the most important producing country, Côte d'Ivoire, from 1976-85 is indicated as 17.9 percent). Available here. (b) “In 1980 the international cocoa price was $3,750 a tonne -- equivalent to $10,000 a tonne in 2013. Nowadays it is considered high at roughly $2,800 a tonne. Over the same period, the value of cocoa within a chocolate bar has halved from 12% to just 6%, so although a farmer's cocoa is essential to a chocolate bar, its value is a small part of the ultimate cost of production. Most (70%) of a modern-day chocolate bar's value goes to the manufacturer because the majority of the costs are in marketing, research and development.” Citation from: Percival, M. “Cocoa-nomics: Why chocolate really doesn't grow on trees.” CNN. April 3, 2015. Available here. (c) Fair Trade: "growers are likely to receive around 6 percent of the final value of a chocolate bar containing their cocoa. This figure is down from 16 percent in the late 1980s," citation from “Fairtrade Cocoa Facts.” Fair Trade. Available at https://www.fairtrade.net/products/cocoa.html ; See also: “Growers in West Africa – many of whom have never tasted chocolate – are likely to receive just 3.5 to 6.4 per cent of the final value of a chocolate bar, depending on the percentage of cocoa content. This is compared with 16 per cent in the late 1980s. By contrast, the manufacturers’ share has increased from 56 to 70 per cent, and for retailers from 12 to 17 per cent, over the same period.” Citation from "Fairtrade and Cocoa - Commodity Briefing.” Fairtrade Foundation. August 2011. Available here.
    57. The chocolate industry is notorious for labor rights abuses including slave labor, The CNN Freedom Project - Ending Modern-Day Slavery: "Cocoa-nomics: documentary 4” March 2014; and "Cocoa-nomics: Will the chocolate industry now end child labor and slavery?" 17 February 2014 in "Chocolate’s Child Slaves: Life In Slavery.” Available here.
    58. The chocolate industry is notorious for labor rights abuses including child labor, Biel, E. “A Story of Chocolate and Child Labor.” Huffington Post. 30 July 2015. Available here; See also "The chocolate industry has a century-long history of forced and child labor in the production of cocoa.” International Labor Rights Forum. Available here; and Haglage, A. “Dark Secret: Lawsuit - Your Candy Bar Was Made By Child Slaves.” The Daily Beas. September 2015. Available here.
    59. 21 percent more children are illegally laboring on cocoa farms in Ghana and The Ivory Coast than five years ago, For the Department of Labor's 2015 annual Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor, see "Child Labor and Forced Labor Reports Côte d'Ivoire." available here. See also "Child Labor in the Production of Cocoa." United States Department of Labor, available here. See also: Wernau, J. “Child Labor On The Rise in West Africa as Demand for Cocoa Grows.” Wall Street Journal. 30 July 2015. Available here.
    60. Rather than eliminate the problem, the industry has merely pledged to reduce child labor in Ivory Coast and Ghana by 70% by 2020, O’Keefe, B. “Big chocolate and child labor.” Fortune. 1 March 2016. Available here.

ANNEX: SUPPLY CHAIN REFERENCES

 

Cargill customers

  • Mondelez: For an article about Mondelez purchasing from Barry Callebaut and Cargill, see: “Mondelez International's Cocoa Life Partners with FLOCERT to Verify Supply Chain.” Mondelez press release. 3, 2015. Available here. For instance, a quote from this article: "As a cocoa and industrial chocolate supplier to Mondelez International, we have a key role implementing Cocoa Life, alongside non-profit and other partners," said Nicko Debenham, VP Global Cocoa Sustainability, Barry Callebaut. For an article about how Mondelez purchases from Cargill, see: "Mondelez launches new cocoa supply chain sustainability initiative." Edie Newsroom. 4 February 2015. Available here. A quote from this article: “Major cocoa processor Cargill, which is a cocoa and industrial chocolate supplier to Mondelez International.”
  • Hershey: For an article on how Hershey is buying cocoa from Cargill, see "Cargill/Hershey Collaboration to Benefit Côte d’Ivoire Cocoa Farmers," By Chuck Benda, Cargill, September 09, 2014, available here. See also “News & Analysis” by Crystal Lindell for BNP media, available here.
  • Mars: For an article from Cargill about visiting a Mars chocolate factory and referring to Mars as a “customer,” see “Young ‘Cargillians’ land among ‘Marsians’… and go home with new connections, great learnings and happy taste buds,” By Sacha Bongard, Government Relations Advisor, Cargill, October 06, 2016, available here.
  • Nestle: Nestle sold it’s chocolate manufacturing plant to Cargill so in turn Nestle vowed to buy cocoa from Cargill. “As a result of this transaction Nestlé will enter into a long-term agreement with Cargill for the supply of cocoa products to certain of its European confectionery businesses. Cargill is a major cocoa supplier in Europe from its facilities in the Netherlands, France and the Ivory Coast. Nestlé and Cargill have a long-lasting relationship and Cargill supplies Nestlé globally with a range of ingredients such as vegetable oils and speciality starches. The transaction is subject to regulatory approval.” See “Nestlé to Sell Cocoa Processing Activities in York and Hamburg to Cargill Inc.," Nestle press release. Jun 30, 2004. Available here.
  • Unilever: "Sustainable cocoa & sugar," Unilever, available here.
  • United Biscuits: "World’s best loved biscuit and confectionery brands unite to form new global business," United Biscuits/Pladis announcement, available here.
  • Yildiz Holding, CEEMEA’s largest food company, has brought together its core biscuit, chocolate, and confectionery businesses Godiva Chocolatier, United Biscuits, Ulker and DeMet’s Candy Company, to form a new global company, “pladis”, available here.
  • Thronton’s Corporate Social Responsibility website, available here.

 

Olam Customers:

  • Blommer: See "Olam Livelihood Charter 2016: Equipping smallholders to secure their future," Olam, 2016, available here.
  • Costco: ibid
  • Ferrero: ibid
  • General Mills: ibid
  • Lindt & Sprüngli: ibid
  • Mars Inc: ibid
  • Mondelēz: ibid
  • Nestlé: ibid
  • Hershey: ibid
  • Godiva: Olam acquired the global cocoa business of US-based Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) for US$1.3 billion (S$1.71 billion). ADM was one of the world's largest processors and suppliers of cocoa liquor, powder and butter with over 2,150 customers in more than 90 countries, including Nestle, Mars, Hersheys, Godiva, Lindt, Ferrero Rocher and Starbucks. See: "Olam to acquire global cocoa business of Archer Daniels Midland for $1.7 billion." Straits Times. 16 December 2014. Available here.
  • Lindt: ibid
  • Ferrero Rocher: ibid
  • Starbucks: ibid

 

Barry Callebaut Customers:

  • Nestle: Switzerland-based Barry Callebaut, the world's largest chocolate maker, produces chocolate for groups including Nestle NESN.VX and Hershey (HSY.N). See: “FACTBOX-Who's who in the cocoa market.” Reuters. July 7, 2010. Available here.
  • Hershey: Ibid
  • Cadbury: Barry Callebaut won three large supply contracts with Nestlé, Hershey and Cadbury. See: “Barry Callebaut expands its operations in Ivory Coast: Significant increase of cocoa processing capacities in Ivory Coast.” Barry Callebaut press release. July 24, 2007. Available here.
  • Guylian: See Depypere, Elisa. “10 Facts about Barry Callebaut: World’s Largest Chocolate Factory.” Belgian Smaak. 27 April 2015. Available here: Thirty to forty trucks come and go from the factory every day, each one of them containing liquid chocolate for a range of clients, including the large multinational brands such as Guylian, Leonidas and Neuhaus.
  • Leonidas: Ibid
  • Neuhaus: Ibid

 


Sources - Français

  1. Wessel, M., et Quist-Wessel, P.M. F., (2015), Cocoa production in West Africa, a review and analysis of recent developments, NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, Vol.74-75, pp. 1-7, disponible à l’adresse suivante : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1573521415000160
  2. Welcome to the world of Big Chocolate, par Emiko Terazono, Financial Times, 18 décembre 2014, disponible sur : https://www.ft.com/content/80e196cc-8538-11e4-ab4e-00144feabdc0. Voir également : Market Concentration and Price Formation in the Global Cocoa Value Chain, SEO Amsterdam Economics. Amsterdam, 15 novembre 2016, commandé par le Ministère des affaires étrangères, Pays-Bas. http://www.seo.nl/uploads/media/2016-79_Market_Concentration_and_Price_Formation_in_the_Global_Cocoa_Value_Chain.pdf
  3. Eliminating Deforestation from the Cocoa Supply Chain pour : le Groupe de la Banque mondiale. Auteurs : Alan Kroeger, Haseebullah Bakhtary, Franziska Haupt, Charlotte Streck. Climate Focus North America, Mars 2017 ; https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/26549/114812-5-5-2017-12-49-5-Cocoafinal.pdf?sequence=8&isAllowed=y%20. [rapport de la Banque mondiale ci-après]. Un calcul plus précis encore du pourcentage total de la déforestation ivoirienne liée à la culture du cacao - estimé à environ 27 % - peut être trouvé dans : Analyse qualitative des facteurs de déforestation et de dégradation des forêts en Côte d’Ivoire ; rapport final, 10 novembre 2016, “ co-écrit par le BNETD, EtcTerra, RONGEAD, ONU-REDD (FAO/PNUD/PNUE), et le Ministère de l’environnement et du développement durable.
  1. Notre propre cartographie fondée sur les cartes de Mighty Earth/MapHubs.
  2. Eliminating Deforestation from the Cocoa Supply Chain pour : le groupe de la Banque mondiale. Auteurs : Alan Kroeger, Haseebullah Bakhtary, Franziska Haupt, Charlotte Streck. Climate Focus North America. [ci-après le rapport de la Banque mondiale]
  3. Le nombre d'éléphants de Côte d'Ivoire a décliné au rythme de 390 éléphants tués chaque année entre 1976 et 1984, laissant une population estimée à 4 840 éléphants répartis en 41 groupes isolés en 1984. Cette population a encore décliné et a atteint le nombre de 270 éléphants répartis en 20 groupes au début des années 2000. Voir Van Kooten, G, 2008. Protecting the African elephant: A dynamic bioeconomic model of ivory trade. Biological Conservation 141 (2008) ; source : Fischer, F., 2005. Elephants in Côte d’Ivoire – a warning for West African conservation. Pachyderm 38 (janvier–juin), 64–75. On estime qu'il ne reste plus aujourd'hui qu'entre 200 et 400 éléphants sur l'ensemble du territoire de la Côte d'Ivoire. Voir : Poaching contributes to forest elephant declines in Côte d’Ivoire, new numbers reveal, WWF, 05 septembre 2011, http://wwf.panda.org/?201553/Poaching-contributes-to-forest-elephant-declines-in-Cte-dIvoire-new-numbers-reveal “Les conclusions d'une enquête récente estime à 189 la population d'éléphants de forêt vivant dans le parc national Taï en Côte d'Ivoire. Le dernier recensement le plus fiable a été mené il y a près de 30 ans et dénombrait 800 éléphants. Le niveau actuel de population a été déterminé en comptant les tas d'excréments disséminés dans le parc. En prenant en compte la marge d'erreur d'une telle estimation, le nombre actuel d'éléphants dans cette zone pourrait être compris entre 54 et 324. {…} Ce recensement a été mené par les programmes "Suivi de l'abattage illicite d'éléphants" du CITES et "Éléphant d'Afrique" du WWF, en coopération avec les services des parcs nationaux de Côte d'Ivoire."
  1. L'initiative du Prince Charles, coordonnée par la World Cocoa Foundation et l'ONG IDH qui orchestre les efforts du secteur du chocolat à adopter des pratiques durables est en règle générale appelé "Cocoa and Forests Initiative”. http://www.worldcocoafoundation.org/cocoa-forests-initiative/
  2. On peut trouver le plan d'action du "Cocoa and Forests Initiative" sur leur site Internet à l'adresse suivante : http://www.worldcocoafoundation.org/cocoa-forests-initiative-statement-of-intent/
  3. Barry Callebaut a créé Cocoa Horizons Foundation et une initiative pour les paysages durables, https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/uploaded/2017/03/Factsheet_Barry-Callebaut-ZG.pdf. Cargill a entamé son ‘Cocoa Promise’ https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/uploaded/2017/03/Factsheet_Cargill-ZG.pdf. Cémoi a débuté de son côté ‘Transparence Cacao’ https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/uploaded/2017/03/Factsheet_Cemoi-ZG.pdf . Mondelēz International a piloté ‘Cocoa Life’ https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/uploaded/2017/03/Factsheet_Mondelez-ZG.pdf. Olam s'est allié à Rainforest Alliance pour construire un "Partenariat Climat-Cacao" et le projet pilote REDD+ https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/uploaded/2017/03/Factsheet_Olam-ZG.pdf. Touton mène son "Climate Smart Cocoa Program" https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/uploaded/2017/03/Factsheet_Touton-ZG.pdf , et la plate-forme du secteur du cacao World Cocoa Foundation (WCF) chapeaute de nombreuses initiatives dans le domaine de la durabilité par le biais de CocoaAction.
  4. Future of the chocolate industry looks sticky, par Katy Barnato et Luke Graham, CNBC, 24 mars 2016, https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/blog/global-food-thought/cocoa-and-deforestation-jason-clay-wwf?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Council&_zs=MjmPb1&_zl=cUKC3 ; http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/24/future-of-the-chocolate-industry-looks-sticky.html; https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/blog/global-food-thought/cocoa-and-deforestation-jason-clay-wwf?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Council&_zs=MjmPb1&_zl=cUKC3
  5. Voir aussi Rainforest Crunch: Cocoa and Deforestation, It’s Time to Shift the Paradigm, article de Jason Clay, directeur exécutif du Markets Institute du World Wildlife Fund,pour le Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 7 juillet 2016, https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/blog/global-food-thought/cocoa-and-deforestation-jason-clay-wwf?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Council&_zs=MjmPb1&_zl=cUKC3
  6. La demande de chocolat affiche une croissance annuelle de 2 à 5%, expliquée en partie par les marchés émergents du chocolat comme la Chine et l'Inde. La "demande moyenne annuelle s'est accrue de plus de 3 % depuis 2008" d’après 5 Facts About the Chocolate Industry par Yu Zhang, 13 octobre 2016, Business Journalism, http://businessjournalism.org/2016/10/5-facts-about-the-chocolate-industry/ ; il existe également d'autres sources comme : Paying more for chocolate? You will be, par Alanna Petroff, CNN, 14 octobre 2013.http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/14/news/chocolate-prices-cocoa/index.html
  7. Dans le monde, la majorité du chocolat est produit et consommé en Europe et en Amérique du Nord. Les Américains consomment un peu plus de 4 kg de chocolat par an. La moyenne pour l'Europe occidentale est de 4,7 kg. Les Suisses sont les champions mondiaux avec près de 9,2 kg de chocolat par an et par habitant.
  8. L'Institut des ressources mondiales (WRI) fournit un classement des pays producteurs de chocolat dans How Much Rainforest Is in That Chocolate Bar?, par Nancy Harris, Octavia Payne et Sarah Alix Mann. 6 août 2015. Ce classement est disponible à l'adresse suivante : http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/08/how-much-rainforest-chocolate-bar

Rang    Pays    Production en 2013 (tonnes)

1          Côte d'Ivoire    1 488 992

2          Ghana              835 466

3          Indonésie            777 500

4          Nigéria              367 000

5          Cameroun            275 000

6          Brésil                   256 186

7          Équateur              128 446

8          Mexique                82 000

9          Pérou                     71 175

10        Rép dominicaine  68 021

Un classement plus récent des sociétés productrices de cacao a été publié dans Market Concentration and Price Formation in the Global Cocoa Value Chain, SEO Amsterdam Economics. Amsterdam, 15 novembre 2016, commandé par le Ministère des affaires étrangères des Pays-Bas. Il est consultable à l’adresse suivante : http://www.seo.nl/uploads/media/2016-79_Market_Concentration_and_Price_Formation_in_the_Global_Cocoa_Value_Chain.pdf

  1. These Ivory Coast Cacao Farmers Had Never Tasted Chocolate, par Eliza Barclay, NPR, npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/08/01/336919715/these-ivory-coast-cacao-farmers-had-never-tasted-chocolate
  2. C'est un ancien point chaud de la biodiversité mondiale, d'une grande richesse biologique. Voir : Gockowski, J. et Sonwa, D. (2011), Scénarios sur l'intensification de la culture du cacao et prédiction de son impact sur les émissions de CO2, la préservation de la biodiversité et la subsistance dans les zones rurales des forêts humides guinéennes d'Afrique de l’Ouest, Environmental Management [Gestion environnementale], 48:307–321, disponible ici : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21191791. Voir également : Myers N, The Biodiversity Challenge: Expanded Hot-spots Analysis, 1990, The Environmentalist 10:243–256. Autre citation : Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6772/full/403853a0.html?foxtrotcallback=true
  3. La présentation officielle du gouvernement ivoirien à l'Organisation des Nations unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture inclut les forêts dégradées dans sa définition de "forêt" et indique que 10,6 % du pays est encore couvert de forêts.
  4. Ces statistiques se fondent sur les cartes gouvernementales réalisées par le BNETD. Ces cartes ont été publiées dans un rapport intitulé Analyse qualitative des facteurs de déforestation et de dégradation des forêts en Côte d’Ivoire ; Rapport Final 10 novembre 2016, co-écrit par le BNETD, EtcTerra, RONGEAD, ONU-REDD (FAO/PNUD/PNUE), et le Ministère de l’environnement et du développement durable. Pour parvenir à cette analyse, Mighty Earth a utilisé les cartes publiées dans ce rapport et utilisé les définitions de “forêts” adoptées par le gouvernement ainsi que ses propres données. Mighty Earth a aussi réalisé sa propre cartographie, en utilisant une autre méthodologie et des cartes issues de Dr. Hansen (et. al.) de l’Université du Maryland, (des détails sont disponibles ici : http://earthenginepartners.appspot.com/science-2013-global-forest/download_v1.3.html. Cette cartographie obtient des résultats similaires à celle réalisée par le gouvernement. Elle conclut que 3,4 % du pays est encore couvert de forêts avec une densité de couvert forestier supérieure à 67 %. (Il faut noter cependant que des représentants du gouvernement ivoirien ont affirmé que la forêt couvrait environ11 % du territoire avec une définition de densité de canopée d’environ 30 %).
  1. Bitty, A. E., Gonedele, S. B., Koffi Bene, J. C., Kouass, P. Q.i and McGraw, W. S. 2015. Cocoa farming and primate extirpation inside The Ivory Coast’s protected areas. Tropical Conservation Science8 (1) : 95-113. Consultable en ligne : www.tropicalconservationscience.org [Ci-dessous, Cocoa farming and primate extirpation]
  2. Les populations de chimpanzés ont considérablement décliné en Côte d’Ivoire et au Ghana. Il existait auparavant une population importante ; mais un recensement récent a conclu qu’elle avait disparu à 90 % au cours des 20 dernières années. En Côte d'Ivoire et au Ghana, de petites populations de chimpanzés vivent principalement dans les reliquats de forêts protégées et de parc nationaux, minés par l’empiètement des cultures de cacao mais aussi de caoutchouc et d’autres cultures, les exploitations forestières et minières mais aussi le braconnage (on estime que plus de 9 000 primates sont tués pour leur viande chaque année en Afrique de l’Ouest, et une étude détaille le massacre largement répandu des chimpanzés près du Parc national Taï, le long de la rivière Cavally : Covey, R et McGraw, W. S. 2014. Monkeys in a West African bushmeat market: implications for cercopithecid conservation in eastern Liberia. Tropical Conservation Science7 (1):115-125. Consultable en ligne : www.tropicalconservationscience.org).
  3. La culture du cacao et la disparition des primates.
  4. La culture du cacao et la disparition des primates. L'étude a pu montrer que 13 des 23 aires protégées de Côte d'Ivoire avaient perdu l'intégralité de leur populations de primates, et que 5 avaient perdu la moitié des espèces. Quatre espèces de singes Colobus et de Procolobus se sont tout simplement évaporées. Deux autres espèces de singes de Côte d'Ivoire figurent parmi les primates les plus menacés au monde. Voir également : Oates, J.F., Abedy-Lartey, M., McGraw, W.S., Struhsaker, T.T., Whitesides, G.H. 2000. Extinction of a Western African Red Colobus. Conservation Biology 14 (5): 1526-1532. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99230.x/full. Voir également : Mittermeier, R.A., Wallis, J., Rylands, A.B., Ganzhorn, J.U., Oates, J.F., Williamson, E.A., Palacios, E., Heymann, E.W., Kierulff, M.C.M., Yongcheng, L., Supriatna, J., Roos, C., Walker, S., Cortes-Ortiz, L., Schwitzer, C. Primates in Peril : The World’s 25 Most Endangered Primates. 2009. Primate Conservation 24:1-57. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297379367_Primates_in_Peril_The_World's_25_Most_Endangered_Primates_2014-2016. Voir également : Bitty, A. E., Gonedele, S. B., Koffi Bene, J. C., Kouass, P. Q.i et McGraw, W. S. 2015. Cocoa farming and primate extirpation inside The Ivory Coast’s protected areas. Tropical Conservation Science Vol.8 (1): 95-113. Consultable en ligne : www.tropicalconservationscience.org
  1. Voir ci-dessus la note 6 au sujet du déclin des éléphants.
  2. Pour une explication concernant la responsabilité des négociants dans la vente de cacao aux plus grands chocolatiers du monde comme Mars, Hershey, Mondelēz, Ferrero, et d'autres, voir l'annexe 1.
  3. Remarque importante : au cours de notre enquête, une rébellion armée a éclaté et a entrainé la fermeture de certaines routes. Notre équipe de terrain n'a donc pu atteindre certaines zones clés de culture du cacao où opèrent d'autres négociants. Leurs activités n'ont donc pu être complètement examinées au cours de cette enquête.
  4. Pour une description sur les étapes fabrication du chocolat, de la culture du cacao à la chocolaterie, voir : "From Bean to Bar," Equal Exchange, disponible ici : equalexchange.coop/products/chocolate/steps
  5. Interview à Abidjan - 22 mai 2017.
  6. Pour les seules 23 aires protégées analysées, les chercheurs estiment qu'environ 195 600 tonnes de cacao ont été produites en 2015. Il existe au total 244 aires protégées en Côte d'Ivoire, ce qui laisse imaginer que le volume de cacao cultivé illégalement est bien plus important.
  7. Un pseudonyme.
  8. Nous avons recensé sept coopératives ayant acheté du cacao provenant des aires protégées que nous avons visitées. Ces coopératives ont confirmé l’avoir ensuite vendu à d'importants négociants internationaux comme Cargill, Olam et Barry Callebaut : Guiglo : La ville de Guiglo est une importante plaque tournante du cacao illégal de déforestation en provenance des aires protégées de Scio (et plus spécifiquement la partie sud) et de Goin Débé. Ce cacao est ensuite vendu à Abidjan ou dans le port de San Pedro. Un pisteur chevronné, avec plusieurs décennies d'expérience, nous a expliqué que le cacao de Guiglo est acheté principalement par ACO, Cargill et Touton - et dans une moindre mesure par Olam. À Guiglo, les principaux magasins de cacao mentionnés ci-dessous achètent leur marchandise dans les forêts, et la majorité d'entre eux le revendent à d'importants négociants :
  • Mohammed — achète à Scio, vend à d'importants négociants.
  • CAPUG — Achète à un pisteur et propriétaire d'un petit entrepôt en activité juste à côté d'une aire protégée, vend à Olam.
  • Nasa – Achète à Gouin Débé, vend à Cargill.
  • Chifousseini – Achète à Gouin Débé, vend à Cargill.
  • Hassan – Achète à Scio, impliqué dans la SCOAGG, vend à Cargill.
  • SCOAGG — Achète à Paris, un village carrefour, situé en bordure de la forêt classée de Gouin Débé, où se trouvent plusieurs petits magasins de cacao. C'est là que le cacao de Gouin Débé est rassemblé. SCOAGG vend à Cargill.

Duékoué : La ville de Duékoué est une importante plaque tournante du cacao illégal de déforestation en provenance des aires protégées de Scio (et plus spécifiquement la partie nord-est) et du mont Péko.

  • SAFSO SARL : semble appartenir à quelqu'un de connu sous le nom de Mahmoud, achète du cacao provenant du cœur du parc de Scio, dans la ville de Sada. À Sada, nous avons rencontré un pisteur que nous avons retrouvé quelques heures plus tard dans un magasin, en train de négocier une vente. Il semblerait que le magasin de Mahmoud s'appelle SAFSO SARL. On nous a aussi montré un reçu de la SAFSO provenant d'un magasin de cacao situé à l'intérieur du parc. Les employés de la SAFSO nous ont rapporté que le cacao était acheminé vers le port de San Pedro où il était vendu aux plus grands négociants, dont Olam et Cargill qu'ils ont nommés.
  • SABF : achète dans les forêts, vend ensuite à SACO (alias Barry Callebaut), Olam et Cargill, d'après les chauffeurs qui étaient garés dehors dans la cour.
  • Porgo : achète dans la partie nord-est du parc de Scio, vend notamment à SACO (alias Barry Callebaut). Le cacao est vendu à San Pedro et Abidjan. Il était auparavant vendu à Cargill, mais il n'est pas clair s'il était également vendu à Olam. Néanmoins, il a raconté comment Olam avait refusé d'acheter ses fèves en dessous d'un certain calibre (grainage) et sous-entendait qu'il vendait les fèves plus grosses à Olam.
  • Les petits magasins situés dans la forêt de Scio au nord-est du parc dans la ville de Caen vendent à des pisteurs opérant pour des magasins plus importants installés en ville :
    • Porgo (même chose que ci-dessus)
    • Quelqu'un de connu sous le nom d'Ali le Libanais
    • SABF
    • DAFCI
    • Québré : Les petits magasins implantés dans le parc national du mont Péko, vendaient auparavant au grand magasin de Duékoué appartenant à Québré. Mais ce dernier a été fermé depuis et les cultivateurs du mont Péko ont dû trouver d'autres négociants pour écouler leur production.
  1. Olam a racheté pour 1,3 milliard de dollars (1,71 milliard de S$) les activités cacao de la société américaine Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). ADM était une des plus importantes société de transformation de cacao et fournissait de la masse, de la poudre et du beurre de cacao à plus de 2 150 clients dans plus de 90 pays, dont Nestlé, Mars, Hershey’s, Godiva, Lindt, Ferrero Rocher et Starbucks. Olam to acquire global cocoa business of Archer Daniels Midland for $1.7 billion, Straits Times, 16 décembre 2014 http://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/olam-to-acquire-global-cocoa-business-of-archer-daniels-midland-for-17
  2. Email de Cargill à Mighty Earth, 21 juillet 2017.
  3. Ces calculs se fondent sur les analyses de Mighty Earth et sur les cartes gouvernementales réalisées par le BNETD. Voir la note 17 citant les cartes du BNETD.
  4. Entretien mené par Mighty Earth avec un fermier de Goin Débé, 12 mai 2017.
  5. Human Rights Watch, Côte d’Ivoire : Côte d’Ivoire : Expulsions arbitraires d’habitants de forêts classées. L’agence forestière serait impliquée dans des actes de violence et d’extorsion. 13 juin 2016. https://www.hrw.org/fr/news/2016/06/13/cote-divoire-expulsions-arbitraires-dhabitants-de-forets-classees. Ajouter également le rapport par le Rassemblement des acteurs ivoiriens des droits humains, RAIDH)
  6. Voir la note ci-dessus concernant les 2-6 % de croissance annuelle de la demande de chocolat.
  7. FAOSTAT et Commission européenne. The impact of EU consumption on deforestation: Comprehensive analysis of the impact EU consumption on deforestation. 2013. Rapport technique 063.
  8. Pour une étude sur le cacao en RDC, voir : De Beule H, Jassogne L, van Asten P., Cocoa: Driver of Deforestation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?, CCAFS document de travail no CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Copenhague, Danemark, 2014. Consultable en ligne à l'adresse suivante : www.ccafs.cgiar.org. Ou bien ici :http://doczz.net/doc/614482/cocoa--driver-of-deforestation-in-the-democratic-republic...ou https://cgspace.cgiar.org/rest/bitstreams/31839/retrieve . Voir également : Taking up The Challenge of Cocoa, World Bank Feature Story, 8 juillet 2017, disponible ici : http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/07/08/taking-up-the-challenge-of-cocoa. Voir également : Elsa M Ordway et al., Deforestation risk due to commodity crop expansion in sub-Saharan Africa,  Environmental Research Letters(2017). DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa6509. Et https://cgspace.cgiar.org/rest/bitstreams/31839/retrieve
  1. How Much Rainforest is in That Chocolate Bar?, par Nancy Harris, Octavia Payne et Sarah Alix Mann, World Resources Institute, 6 août 2015, disponible ici :http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/08/how-much-rainforest-chocolate-bar. [ci-après, WRI, “That Chocolate Bar”].
  2. Des images satellites de 2012 ont donné à voir la destruction par United Cacao d’un terrain de 2000 hectares pour le convertir en plantations de cacao, mordant sur la forêt amazonienne du Pérou, riche en biodiversité et en carbone : Zooming In: ‘Sustainable’ Cocoa Producer Destroys Pristine Forest in Peru, par Octavia Payne et Sarah Alix Mann, World Resources Institute, 9 juin 2015, http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/06/zooming-%E2%80%9Csustainable%E2%80%9D-cocoa-producer-destroys-pristine-forest-peru. Voir également : Company chops down rainforest to produce ‘sustainable’ chocolate, par John C. Cannon, Mongabay, 20 janvier 2015, https://news.mongabay.com/2015/01/company-chops-down-rainforest-to-produce-sustainable-chocolate/ et http://maaproject.org/2015/image-9-cacao-tamshiyacu/. Cette référence montre comment Matt Finer de l’Amazon Conservation Association a utilisé des images Landsat pour rapporter en détail, mois après mois, le défrichage d'une zone et démontré qu'il s'agissait auparavant d'une forêt primaire. Voir, MAAP #9: Confirming Forest Clearing for Cacao in Tamshiyacu (Loreto, Peru) came from Primary Forest, suivi du Andean Amazon Project, 30 juin 2015, disponible ici : http://maaproject.org/2015/image-9-cacao-tamshiyacu/. Au même moment, Greg Asner de la Carnegie Institution for Science de l'université de Stanford (voir le site web de Carnegie Airborne Observatory https://cao.carnegiescience.edu/) a utilisé la technologie aérienne LiDAR pour estimer que ces parcelles de forêt contenaient un moyenne de 122 tonnes métriques de CO2par hectare." (WRI : http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/08/how-much-rainforest-chocolate-bar et https://cao.carnegiescience.edu/).
  1. Rapport de la Banque mondiale
  2. Harris, Nancy. World Resources Institute. How Much Rainforest is in That Chocolate Bar?, 26 août 2015. http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/08/how-much-rainforest-chocolate-bar. How making chocolate is adding up to deforestation, emissions & climate change, par Urmi A Goswami, The Economic Times, 22 août 2015, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/how-making-chocolate-is-adding-up-to-deforestation-emissions-climate-change/articleshow/48598695.cms
  3. L'agroforesterie sous couvert forestier est une méthode agricole qui favorise le cycle des nutriments, améliore le régime des précipitations, contrôle l'érosion, la régulation en eau, la fixation de l'azote, la pollinisation des culture et la réduction des adventices, un meilleur potentiel d'adaptation au changement climatique, et la diversification des moyens de subsistance, ainsi que d'autres avantages. Voir : Biodiversity and Conservation, Volume 16, No 8, juillet 2007, Special issue: Biodiversity Conservation in Cocoa Production Landscapes. Une vue d’ensemble est publiée dans ce numéro : Schroth G., et Harvey C., Biodiversity conservation in cocoa production landscapes: an overview, Biodiversity and Conservation (2007) 16:2237–2244 DOI 10.1007/s10531-007-9195-1 (cet article indique : "Nos conclusions montrent que, contrairement aux idées reçues, la rentabilité est plus élevée pour des petites exploitations cultivées sous couvert forestier."). Pour en savoir plus sur les avantages prouvés de la culture du café en agroforesterie, et ce qu'elle peut nous enseigner sur la culture du cacao, voir : Jeezer, R.E. et Verweij, P.A. (2015) Shade grown coffee – Double dividend for biodiversity and small-scale coffee farmers in Peru. Hivos, La Haye, Pays-Bas ; et Jeezer et al, Shaded Coffee and Cocoa – Double Dividend for Biodiversity and Small-scale Farmers, in Ecological Economics. 140 (2017) 136–145.
  1. Pour des informations sur les systèmes de culture sous couvert forestier et l’amélioration de la productivité sur l'ensemble du cycle du cacaoyer, voir Clough Y, Barkmann J, Juhrbandt J, Kessler M, Wanger TC, Anshary A, et al. Combining high biodiversity with high yields in tropical agroforests. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(20):8311–6. Consultable à l'adresse suivante : pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1016799108. Cet article indique : "une ombre modérée, un travail adéquat, et un niveau d'entrée peuvent être associés à une structure d'habitat complexe pour stimuler une riche biodiversité comme de hauts rendements. Bien que l'impact sur les revenus soit considéré comme un obstacle majeur pour une agriculture tropicale respectueuse de la faune sauvage, nos conclusions indiquent que dans certains cas, les agroforêts peuvent se révéler avantageuses pour la biodiversité comme pour la production agricole sans pression environnementale supplémentaire causée par la conversion des habitats naturels en terres agraires." Voir également : Cassano, C. et al, (2009), Landscape and farm scale management to enhance biodiversity conservation in the cocoa-producing region of southern Bahia, Brazil, Biodiversity and Conservation 18:577–603, consultable à l'adresse suivante : https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-008-9526-x. De plus, le cacao d'Afrique de l'Ouest est connu pour avoir les plus faibles productivités et rendements au monde, non parce que les cultivateurs ont trop d'ombre ou parce que l'ombre réduit la productivité, mais principalement parce que les fermiers appliquent quelques-unes des pires pratiques agricoles du secteur. Voir : Cocoa Market Update, World Cocoa Foundation, 1er avril 2014, disponible ici : www.worldcocoafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Cocoa-Market-Update-as-of-4-1-2014.pdf. "Le rendement d'un hectare en Afrique est de 300 à 400 kilos de fèves quand il est de 500 kilos en Asie. Les exploitations de cacao en Amérique ont tendance à être plus grandes et ont un rendement de 500 à 600 kilos à l'hectare."Les rendements peuvent augmenter en Afrique de l'Ouest et même dans le reste du monde, en passant à des méthodes de culture sous couvert forestier associées à de bonnes pratiques agricoles : "Alors que le rendement moyen mondial est de 460 kilos de fèves par hectare, en utilisant des méthodes modernes d'agriculture, il pourrait facilement s'élever à 1 500 kilos ou plus par hectare." Voir : The Race to Save Chocolate: Pests, fungal infections and a changing climate threaten cacao crops and the chocolate they produce; But researchers have strategies to rescue this favorite sweet, par Harold Schmitz, Howard-Yana Shapiro, Scientific American, 1er juin 2015, disponible ici : https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-race-to-save-chocolate/.
  1. Campbell, J.E., D.B. Lobell, R.C. Genova, et C.B. Field. (2008). The global potential of bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands. Environmental Science and Technology 42: 5791-5794, consultable à l'adresse suivante : http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es800052w. Voir aussi : The Root of the Problem: What's Driving Tropical Deforestation Today?, Doug Boucher, Pipa Elias, Katherine Lininger, Calen May-Tobin, Sarah Roquemore, et Earl Saxon, Union of Concerned Scientists, 2011, disponible à l'adresse suivante : http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/UCS_RootoftheProblem_DriversofDeforestation_FullReport.pdf, relevant “On estime qu'il existe entre 385 et 472 millions d'hectares de terrains agricoles abandonnés dans le monde. Entre 97 et 129 millions d'hectares de ces terres se situent dans les tropiques, bien que tous ne soient pas adaptés à l'agriculture intensive (Campbell et al. 2008).” Voir aussi : Degraded lands hold promise in feeding 9 billion, while preserving forests, par Rhett A. Butler, Mongabay, 29 mars 2012, disponible ici : https://news.mongabay.com/2012/03/degraded-lands-hold-promise-in-feeding-9-billion-while-preserving-forests/.
  2. Pour une description de la méthode stricte adoptée par Cargill, connue sous le nom de “Approche à haut stock de carbone" (HCSA), orientant les plantations de palmiers à huile vers les terres dégradées, voir : https://www.cargill.com/sustainability/palm-oil/palm-partnership-collaboration. Pour une description de l'engagement d'Olam à adopter la HCSA pour son approvisionnement asiatique en huile de palme auprès de tiers, voir : http://olamgroup.com/news/olam-mighty-earth-agree-collaborate-forest-conservation-sustainable-agriculture-highly-forested-countries/#sthash.Cdtwua6x.dpbs. Source indiquant l'adoption de la HCSA par Unilever, Nestlé et Kellog's, voir : greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/briefings/forests/2014/HCS%20Approach_Breifer_March2014.pdf. Source indiquant l'adoption de la HCSA par Ferrero, voir : https://www.ferrero.com/group-news/Ferreros-sixth-palm-oil-progress-report?lang=EN. Pour l'engagement de Hershey's à adopter la méthode HCA, voir : http://www.confectionerynews.com/Commodities/Hershey-ups-palm-oil-pledge-but-Greenpeace-wants-more
  3. En effet, les producteurs d’huile de palme qui se sont tournées vers une production agricole n’entraînant pas de déforestation ont souvent amélioré leur efficacité, leur permettant d’accroître leur rentabilité. Voir : Profitability and Sustainability in Palm Oil Production: Analysis of Incremental Financial Costs and Benefits of RSPO Compliance, un rapport publié par le WWF, FMO et CD ; auteur principal : Joshua Levin, mai 2012, consultable à l'adresse suivante : wwf.panda.org/?204548/Profitability-and-Sustainability-in-Palm-Oil-Production. [Ci-après WWF, Profitability and Sustainability in Palm Oil] Les producteurs de soja qui ont basculé vers une culture sans déforestation en ont aussi tiré profit. Après le Moratoire du Brésil amazonien sur le soja cessant toute déforestation ultérieure, le secteur du soja est parvenu à doubler la valeur agricole du soja et de l'élevage, alors que les pratiques de déforestation se sont effondrées. L'occupation du soja en Amazonie est passée de 1,35 à 3,65 millions d'hectares (2008-2015) sans recourir à la déforestation. Un article publié dans Science souligne que les taux de déforestation ont baissé de 70 % entre 2005 et 2013, alors que l'élevage bovin intensif et la culture du soja ont poursuivi leur croissance dans le pays - voir : Nepstad D. et al., Slowing Amazon Deforestation Through Public Policy and Interventions in Beef and Soy Supply Chains, Science 344, No. 6188 (6 juin 2014):1118-23, disponible ici :https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24904156.
  1. WWF, Profitability and Sustainability in Palm Oil. Voir également : The Comprehensive Business Case for Sustainability, par Tensie Whelan et Carly Fink, Harvard Business Review, 21 octobre 2016. disponible ici : https://hbr.org/2016/10/the-comprehensive-business-case-for-sustainability.
  2. Pour une liste des initiatives en matière de développement durable des grands chocolatiers, voir note 9.
  3. “La face cachée du chocolat,” Le Basic, 2016, disponible ici :http://lebasic.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Etude-Cacao-PFCE_Version-finale-FR_Mai-2016.pdf .

Voir également :

  1. Étude de la production de cacao en zone riveraine du Parc national de Taï, février 2013, Rapport Final. Auteurs : Frédéric Varlet et Georges Kouame, publication du GIZ en collaboration avec le Ministère ivoirien de l'Agriculture et la Coopération allemande. Cette étude démontre grâce à des entretiens, des photographies et des cartes, que Rainforest Alliance a certifié du cacao provenant d'aires protégées.
  2. Remarquons que UTZA et Fairtrade protègent les forêts primaires, mais pas les forêts secondaires et qu'ils ne garantissent pas un cacao sans déforestation. Ceci est d'autant plus troublant que l'écrasante majorité des forêts ghanéennes et ivoiriennes ne sont pas primaires. Mighty Earth a par exemple démontré grâce à la cartographie établie par l'équipe que seulement 3,7 % du territoire de la Côte d'Ivoire possédait des forêts primaires.
  3. Pour une autre analyse de ces problèmes de certification, voir Ruf (2011). The Myth of Complex Agroforests: The Case of Ghana. Human Ecology June; 39(3): 373-388, consultable ici :https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3109247/.
  4. Les revenus des petits cultivateurs de cacao restent relativement faibles dans le cadre des programmes de certification. Voir KPMG, 2012. Cocoa Certification. Study on the costs, advantages and disadvantages of cocoa certification, commissioned by The International Cocoa Organization (ICCO). KPMG, Pays-Bas, p. 48.
  5. Pour des informations supplémentaires sur les préoccupations relatives au cacao et aux programmes de certification, voir : Analyse qualitative des facteurs de déforestation et de dégradation des forêts en Côte d’Ivoire, Rapport Final, 10 novembre 2016. “Pour le moment, la fiabilité des systèmes de certification (type RFA, UTZ) est plutôt faible à l’image de ce que VARLET (2013) a bien démontré en soulignant l’existence de coopératives certifiées RFA ou UTZ dont les membres possèdent des parcelles au sein de forêts classées.”

Voir également le rapport de la Banque mondiale indiquant que les programmes de certification "connaissent encore certaines limites. La certification a un impact limité sur la question des moyens de subsistance, car les agriculteurs restent dans la pauvreté, les primes restent peu réalistes et les trois normes n'ont pas harmonisé leurs critères de protection des forêts, ce qui crée des complications d'approvisionnement pour les entreprises qui utilisent des achats de cacao certifiés comme stratégie pour réduire la déforestation ".

  1. Collective Statement of Intent, par The Cocoa and Forests Initiative, 16 mars 2017, https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/uploaded/2017/03/Collective-Statement-of-Intent-on-Cocoa-and-Forests.pdf
  2. Olam, Cargill, and Barry Callebaut control around half of global cocoa trade, “Welcome to the world of Big Chocolate,” by: Emiko Terazono, Financial Times, 18 December 2014, available at https://www.ft.com/content/80e196cc-8538-11e4-ab4e-00144feabdc0. See also "Market Concentration and Price Formation in the Global Cocoa Value Chain," SEO Amsterdam Economics. Amsterdam, 15 November 2016 Commissioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands. Available at http://www.seo.nl/uploads/media/2016-79_Market_Concentration_and_Price_Formation_in_the_Global_Cocoa_Value_Chain.pdf
  3. Voir le site Internet de l'UN-REDD, page de la Côte d’Ivoire, consultable à l'adresse suivante : unredd.net/regions-and-countries/africa/cote-d-ivoire.html. Voir aussi, "Mapping the Landscape of REDD+ Finance in Côte d’Ivoire," UN-REDD, 8 juin 2017, disponible ici :www.un-redd.org/single-post/2017/06/08/Mapping-the-Landscape-of-REDD-Finance-in-Côte-d’Ivoire
  4. Le gouvernement ivoirien a également signé la Déclaration de New York sur les forêts, et annoncé de nombreux autres engagements pour protéger les forêts.
  5. Alassane Ouattara affiche les ambitions de la Côte d’Ivoire pour sadapter au changement climatique, AIP, 24 septembre 2014, disponible ici : news.abidjan.net/h/511320.html
  6. Roth, M., Antwi, Y., & O’Sullivan, R. (2017). Land and Natural Resource Governance and Tenure for Enabling Sustainable Cocoa Cultivation in Ghana. Washington, DC: USAID Tenure and Global Climate Change Program, disponible ici : http://ledsgp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/USAID_Land_Tenure_TGCC_Cocoa_Tenure_Assessment.pdf . "La contribution du Ghana (INDC ou Intended Nationally Determined Contribution) aux accords de Paris sur le changement climatique, inclut une réduction de 45 % des émissions liées spécifiquement à la culture du cacao"..."le gouvernement a tenté d'introduire un certain nombre d'innovations afin d'encourager la participation des communautés à la gestion et au partage des bienfaits de la forêt. Ces innovations comprennent une gestion communautaire des ressources naturelles, une gestion forestière participative et communautaire, un système Taungya modifié (une forme de culture en agroforesterie qui comprend un partage convenu au préalable des bénéfices), des forêts dédiées, et une zone de gestion communautaire des ressources (CREMA)." Voir également le Programme REDD+ du gouvernement du Ghana concernant le cacao de forêt, et la participation du Ghana à l'initiative Cocoa Action inaugurée en 2014.
  7. L'Approche haut stock de carbone (un site ressource sur l'approche HC) consultable à l'adresse suivante : highcarbonstock.org.
  8. Avec le Moratoire du Brésil sur le soja amazonien, les plus grands négociants de soja ont mis en commun leurs ressources afin de contrôler le phénomène de déforestation, améliorant ainsi l'exactitude des connaissances et réduisant sensiblement les coûts pour chaque société. Les entreprises de l'agroalimentaire ont accepté de cesser immédiatement tout achat auprès de fermiers qui se seraient rendus coupables de défrichage. La déforestation liée au soja en Amazonie brésilienne s'est alors effondrée en moins de trois ans pour devenir presque nulle - et s'est maintenue ainsi pendant une décennie. Au cours de cette même période, des fermiers ont pu étendre leur production de soja sur plus de 2,4 millions d'hectares en orientant leur expansion sur les terres dégradées.
  9. Mighty Earth et MapHubs ont créé ensemble un classement de toutes les aires protégées de Côte d'Ivoire, de la meilleure à la pire, en termes de pourcentage de forêt restantes mais aussi de volume restant de forêts. Le classement complet est disponible en Annexe 2. Ce classement montre que plus de 20 aires protégées sont encore boisées dans une certaine mesure, et qu'elles devraient être mieux protégées - dans les meilleurs délais- de manière à prospérer à nouveau.
  10. La priorité pour la restauration des écosystèmes doit inclure Abouderessou, Adzopé, le Parc national Azagny, le Parc national Banco, Bandama-Blanc, Bandama Rouge, Beki Bossé Matié, Besso, Boa, Bolo, le Parc national Comoe, Dassieko, Go Bodienou, Gouari, Haute Dodo, Hein*, le Parc national des Îles Éhotilé, Irobo, Kinkéné, Krozalié*, Mabi/Yaya, le mont Nimba*, le Parc national du mont Péko*, le Parc national du mont Sangbé, le mont Sassandra, N. Zodji, la réserve de faune N'Zo*, Nangbyon*, Nguechié*, Nibi Hana, Niegré, Orumbo Boka, Port Gautier, Scio, Suitoro, Songan/Tamin, le Parc national de Taï*, Tiapleu, et Yarani. Les territoires portant une astérisque possèdent encore un couvert forestier important et pourraient figurer parmi les priorités des efforts de restauration.
  11. "À la différence des vastes cultures industrialisées, 80 à 90 % du cacao provient de petites exploitations familiales. On compte entre cinq et six millions de cultivateurs de cacao dans le monde. En Afrique et en Asie, une exploitation type s'étend sur deux à quatre hectares." Voir : Cocoa Market Update, World Cocoa Foundation, 1er avril 2014, disponible ici : worldcocoafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Cocoa-Market-Update-as-of-4-1-2014.pdf.
  12. Selon la Banque mondiale, le seuil de pauvreté absolue en Côte d'Ivoire et au Ghana s'élève à 1,25 $ par jour. 2 $ par jour constitue le seuil de pauvreté pour ces pays. Officiellement, le salaire minimum en Côte d'Ivoire est d'environ 3,5 $ par jour.
  13. Voir note ci-dessous, #65.
  14. Il y a eu une chute historique du profit réalisé par les cultivateurs et les pourcentages plus élevés qu'ils obtenaient auparavant, environ 16 % dans les années 1980 :
  • Christopher, G. (2008) : Value chain analysis and market power in commodity processing with application to the cocoa and coffee sectors. Dans : Commodity market review, 2007-2008. Un tableau publié en page 23 et intitulé “Cocoa producer price as a share of the UK chocolate price, 10 year averages”, met en évidence le déclin de la part du producteur dans le prix du chocolat au fil du temps (la part revenant au plus grand producteur, la Côte d'Ivoire, s'élevait à 17,9 % pour la période 1976-85). http://web.unitn.it/files/5_06_gilbert.pdf
  • “En 1980 le prix international du cacao se chiffrait à 3 750 $ la tonne -- l'équivalent de 10 000 $ la tonne en 2013. Aujourd'hui, on considère que 2 800 $ la tonne est un prix élevé. Sur cette même période, la valeur du cacao dans une barre chocolatée a été divisée en deux, passant de 12 % à seulement 6 %. Par conséquent, bien que le cacao du cultivateur soit essentiel pour fabriquer une barre de chocolat, sa valeur ne représente qu'une faible part dans le coût final de production. La majorité des bénéfices (70%) d'une barre chocolatée revient aujourd’hui au fabricant car la plupart des coûts se répartissent entre le marketing et la recherche et développement." Citation: Cocoa-nomics: Why chocolate really doesn't grow on trees, par Matt Percival, CNN, 3 avril 2015 cnn.com/2014/02/13/world/africa/cocoa-nomics-does-chocolate-grow-on-trees/index.html
  • Commerce équitable : "les cultivateurs sont susceptibles de recevoir environ 6 % de la valeur finale d'une barre chocolatée fabriquée avec leur cacao. Ce chiffre affiche un recul de 16 % par rapport à la fin des années 1980" https://www.fairtrade.net/products/cocoa.html ; voir aussi : "les cultivateurs d'Afrique de l'Ouest qui pour la plupart n'ont jamais goûté de chocolat de leur vie, reçoivent entre 3,5 et 6,4 % seulement de la valeur finale d'une barre chocolatée, selon le pourcentage de cacao entrant dans la composition. Ce chiffre doit être comparé aux 16 % de la fin des années 1980. En revanche, la part des fabricants est passée de 56 à 70 %, et pour les détaillants, de 12 à 17 % pour la même période." Citation: Fairtrade Foundation, Fairtrade and Cocoa - Commodity Briefing, aout 2011, https://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/resources/2011_Fairtrade_and_cocoa_briefing.pdf ; citant : § Agritrade, Executive Brief: Cocoa, May 2008, p.5. Un chiffre de 5 % est cité dans une étude sur les ventes de chocolat en France en 2002. Dans une analyse de Christopher Gilbert (Value chain analysis and market power in commodity processing with application to the cocoa and coffee sectors, Commodity market review, 2007-2008, FAO, pp.8, 23), la part revenant aux producteurs de cacao entrant dans la composition du chocolat au lait britannique s’élevait en 2004 à 3,5 % du prix de vente, mais on estime que la part moyenne pour la période 1996-2005 s’élevait plutôt à de 5,7 % pour la Côte d'Ivoire et 6,4 % pour le Ghana.
  1. The CNN Freedom Project - Ending Modern-Day Slavery: Cocoa-nomics, documentaire du 4 mars 2014 ; et "Cocoa-nomics: Will the chocolate industry now end child labor and slavery?" 17 février 2014 dans : Chocolate’s Child Slaves: Life In Slavery. http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/category/chocolates-child-slaves/
  2. A Story of Chocolate and Child Labor, par Eric R. Biel, Huffington Post, 30/07/2015, disponible ici : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-r-biel/a-story-of-chocolate-and_b_7899998.html ; voir également : The chocolate industry has a century-long history of forced and child labor in the production of cocoa, International Labor Rights Forum, consultable en ligne : http://www.laborrights.org/industries/cocoa et Dark Secret: Lawsuit - Your Candy Bar Was Made By Child Slaves par Abby Haglage, The Daily Beas, septembre 2015, disponible ici : http://www.thedailybeast.com/lawsuit-your-candy-bar-was-made-by-child-slaves.
  3. Pour les conclusions annuelles 2015 du Département du travail sur les pires formes de travail des enfants, voir : Child Labor and Forced Labor Reports Côte d'Ivoire. Disponible ici : https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/côte-dIvoire. Voir également : Child Labor in the Production of Cocoa, Département du travail des États-Unis, dol.gov/ilab/issues/child-labor/cocoa/. Voir aussi : Child Labor On The Rise in West Africa as Demand for Cocoa Grows, par Julie Wernau, Wall Street Journal, 30 juillet 2015. https://blogs.wsj.com/frontiers/2015/07/30/child-labor-on-the-rise-in-west-africa-as-demand-for-cocoa-grows/
  4. Big chocolate and child labor, par Brian O'Keefe, Fortune, 1er mars 2016, fortune.com/big-chocolate-child-labor/

 

 

 

 

ANNEXE : RÉFÉRENCES POUR LES CHAÎNES D'APPROVISIONNEMENT

 

 

 

Les clients de Cargill

For instance, a quote from this article:

"En tant que fournisseur de cacao et de chocolat industriel pour Mondelēz International, nous occupons un poste clé pour la mise en œuvre de Cocoa Life, aux côtés d'autres partenaires et associations", a déclaré Nicko Debenham, VP de Global Cocoa Sustainability, Barry Callebaut.

For an article about how Mondelez purchases from Cargill, see: "Mondelez launches new cocoa supply chain sustainability initiative," Edie Newsroom, 4 February 2015, available at https://www.edie.net/news/5/Mondelez-launches-new-cocoa-supply-chain-sustainability-initiative/ A quote from this article: “Major cocoa processor Cargill, which is a cocoa and industrial chocolate supplier to Mondelez International.”

 

 

 

Clients d'Olam :

 

 

Clients de Barry Callebaut

 

 

 


Samsung Breaks Business Ties with Notorious Indonesian Rainforest Destroyer Korindo

Move follows Galaxy Note 8 Online campaign by Mighty Earth and SumOfUs

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 12, 2017

Washington DC--- Environmental NGO Mighty Earth and consumer group SumOfUs announced victory today as Samsung declared that it has no plans to pursue a joint venture or any business with the Korean-Indonesian conglomerate, Korindo. The announcement comes on the heels of a two-month intensive online campaign by Mighty Earth and SumOfUs, calling on Samsung to drop the joint venture it had announced or any business partnership with Korindo due to Korindo’s egregious rainforest destruction on its palm oil plantations in Papua and North Maluku, Indonesia, which was documented by Mighty Earth in a report and field investigation last year (1).  

 

The campaign was launched in response to widespread news coverage in Korean media outlets in June that a Samsung IT subsidiary, Samsung SDS, and Korindo were pursuing a joint venture related to logistics in Indonesia. One of the articles in the Korea Times featured a photo of executives from both companies shaking hands in front of a banner showcasing their corporate logos (2).

 

“Samsung is doing the right thing by dropping ties with the notorious deforester Korindo,” said Deborah Lapidus, Campaign Director with Mighty Earth. “Korindo’s deforestation has put its business at risk in many different sectors, not just palm oil. We hope Korindo wakes up to the reality that even from a business perspective, it can’t continue to allow deforestation.”

 

In July, more than 73,000 people, including 15,000 Samsung customers, signed a petition to Samsung launched by SumOfUs.org (3). The petition signatures were hand delivered by Mighty Earth to Samsung’s main office in Seoul, where Mighty Earth met with executives from Samsung’s Corporate Social Responsibility team. The number of petition signatures to Samsung has since grown to over 188,500 due to a petition launched by Rainforest Rescue (4).

 

Last month, Mighty Earth and SumOfUs carried out a week of action (5) surrounding the August 23rd launch of Samsung’s Galaxy Note 8, in which over 2,000 Samsung customers sent emails to Samsung from their Samsung devices, over 10,000 people took action online, and nearly one million people viewed online ads about Samsung’s connection to rainforest destruction (6).   

 

“I own two of your TVs and recently switched my Galaxy back to Apple because of your Korindo involvement,” said one of the many personalized emails to Samsung.  “As long as you continue to have an environmentally irresponsible ethos I will not be a customer, and I will share that with my friends and on social media.”

 

Samsung SDS’s CEO informed Mighty Earth in a letter dated August 31st, “that we [Samsung SDS] do not have any plans to develop a business between the two companies”.

 

“We are glad that Samsung took the messages from its customers to heart,” said Fatah Sadaoui, Campaign Manager with SumOfUs.  “It was clear from the overwhelming response to our petition that people expect a company with as big a brand name and global reach as Samsung to maintain high standards of environmental and social responsibility for its own business and its business partners. I think Samsung was smart to work to boost its global reputation by severing ties with Korindo.”

 

While Samsung has dropped its business with Korindo, Mighty Earth and SumOfUs call on the company to clean up its own palm oil operations. Samsung owns two palm oil plantations in Sumatra, Indonesia as part of a joint venture with an Indonesian palm oil company called Ganda Group. In December 2016, a group of Korean human rights lawyers with the organization Advocates for Public Interest Law (APIL) conducted a field investigation into Samsung’s palm oil plantations and documented egregious labor and community rights violations (7). In addition, Ganda Group is infamous for using violence against villagers (8), and is currently driving massive deforestation in Papua, Indonesia (9).  

 

“Samsung has taken the first step to delink its business from rainforest destruction. Now it must go all the way,” explained Lapidus. “Samsung needs to remedy its human rights abuses on its own palm oil plantations and require its joint venture partner, Ganda Group, to adopt a strict forest conservation policy aligned with the industry standard for responsible production.”  

 

“Fixing its palm oil problem would be a great way for Samsung to begin to restore trust in its brand,” remarked Sadaoui.

###

 

Mighty Earth is a global environmental campaign organization that works to protect forests, conserve oceans, and address climate change. We work in Southeast Asia, Latin America, Africa, and North America to drive large-scale action towards environmentally responsible agriculture that protects native ecosystems, wildlife, and water, and respects local community rights.  Mighty Earth’s global team has played a decisive role in persuading the world’s largest food and agriculture companies to dramatically improve their environmental and social policies and practices. More information on Mighty Earth can be found at http://www.mightyearth.org/.

 

SumOfUs.org is a global movement of consumers, investors, and workers all around the world, standing together to hold corporations accountable for their actions and forge a new, sustainable and just path for our global economy.

 

CONTACTS:

Marisa Bellantonio, [email protected], 203-479-2026

Yasmina Dardari, [email protected], 407-922-8149

 

 

Sample social media and google search ads that ran during the August week of action:

 

 

Notes to the editor:

  1. Mighty Earth, Burning Paradise: Palm Oil in the Land of the Tree Kangaroo, September 2016. www.MightyEarth.org/BurningParadise
  2. Herh, Michael, “Samsung SDS Accelerates Logistic BPO Business In Indonesia”, Business Korea, June 20, 2017: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/english/news/industry/18403-business-process-outsourcing-samsung-sds-accelerates-logistic-bpo-business; Seung-woo, Kang, “Samsung SDS Joins Hands With Korindo”, Korea Times, June 19, 2017: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2017/06/133_231536.html
  3. SumOfUs, “Samsung, get out of conflict palm oil”. https://actions.sumofus.org/a/samsung-get-out-of-conflict-palm-oil
  4. Rainforest Rescue, "Samsung, get out of Papua's rainforests,"
    www.rainforest-rescue.org/petitions/1105/samsung-get-out-of-papuas-rainforests#letter
  5. www.MightyEarth.org/Samsung
  6. View examples of the social media and google search ads at
    www.MightyEarth.org/SamsungHangsUpOnKorindo
  7. Korea Transnational Corporations Watch, Interim Report on Negative Human Rights Impact of Samsung C&T in Palm Oil Plantations In Indonesia, Field Investigation Report, December 28, 2016.  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By8pRnkpzbHXa01NR09RVkkzUzQ/view
  8. Parker, Diana, “Indonesian palm oil company demolishes homes and evicts villagers in week long raid,” Mongabay, December 14, 2013. https://news.mongabay.com/2013/12/indonesian-palm-oil-company-demolishes-homes-and-evicts-villagers-in-week-long-raid/
  9. Forest Hints, “Papua HCS Forests Remain Source of Palm Oil Expansion”, September 12, 2017, http://www.foresthints.news/papua-hcs-forests-remain-source-of-palm-oil-expansion

Image Credit: Bustar Maitar/Mighty

 


Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp Found Using Paper Linked to Rainforest Destruction

The Australian NGO Markets for Change and Mighty Earth launched a campaign this week targeting News Corp Australia over its ties with rainforest destroyer Korindo. The organizations distributed parody newspapers of News Corp’s Australian newspapers, The Courier Mail (“The Courier Fail”) and The Australian ("The Not Australian"), outside News Corp offices in Sydney and Brisbane.

 

Investigations by Mighty Earth and Markets for Change found that The Australian and The Courier Mail are being printed in the Australian state of Queensland on newsprint produced by Aspex. Aspex is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Korean-Indonesian conglomerate Korindo, which Mighty Earth exposed for causing massive rainforest destruction for palm oil and timber products in Indonesia. Our groups informed News Corp of the connection in a letter and an in-person meeting, but so far no concrete action has been taken by the company.  

 

The activists handed out parody newspapers dubbed the “Not Australian” and “The Courier Fail” to News Corp employees and passersby which, while satirical, expose the serious ways in which News Corp’s purchases of newsprint from Korindo helps finance the company’s rainforest destruction in Indonesia, and urge News Corp to switch to a responsible supplier. In fact, News Corp already uses a different supplier for the bulk of its papers, so a switch is entirely feasible. In addition, the newspaper company NZME, owner of the New Zealand Herald and other papers in New Zealand, recently made the switch away from Aspex and is now sourcing from alternative recycled newsprint suppliers.  

 

Pressure from customers has convinced Korindo to enact a moratorium on new forest clearing, but it’s only temporary, and the forest remains at risk.  If News Corp acts to sever ties with Korindo, it could force Korindo to stop the bulldozers once and for all. Click here to send a letter to News Corp.

You can get your own copies of the Not Australian and the Courier Fail here!

Here are some of our favorite photos from the actions in Sydney and Brisbane over the past week.


Video release: “Burning Paradise” One Year Later

Today, Mighty Earth and KFEM released a new video showing Korindo’s forest destruction for palm oil and highlighting the developments since the campaign launch. This video marks the one-year anniversary of the release of the Burning Paradise report and urges continued action to save the precious, ancient rainforests of Papua and North Maluku from Korindo’s destruction.  

In the past year, following the release of Burning Paradise and global media exposure of its deforestation, Korindo lost many of its largest customers, which determined that Korindo’s practices violated their No Deforestation policies. These include the global palm oil traders Wilmar, Musim Mas, ADM, and IOI, the pulp and paper giant APRIL, and dozens of major brands around the world such as Kellogg’s, Nestle, and Unilever, which demanded that Korindo remain excluded from their supply chains. Siemens Gamesa, Iberdrola, Nordex, and other companies that have purchased wind towers from Korindo have urged Korindo to clean up it act.  In addition, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), a sustainability certification body for the forestry sector, announced that, following a complaint filed by Mighty, it is investigating whether Korindo violated FSC criteria.  In response to customer concerns, Korindo announced a moratorium on land development on its palm oil concessions and agreed to conducting sustainability assessments. However, this isn’t enough to ensure the forest remains protected.

A forest the size of New York City (75,000 hectares) remains in Korindo’s concession areas and is at immediate risk of destruction. Korindo still refuses to announce a strong group-wide No Deforestation policy, has already breached its moratorium, and has hired sustainability assessors whose assessments have been rejected by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil for being of “poor quality”.  Korindo has agreed to maintain its moratorium until its sustainability assessments have been approved by the industry’s quality review panels (the HCV Resource Network’s Assessor Licensing Scheme and the High Carbon Stock Approach’s Quality Review Panel), yet has paradoxically been angling in recent weeks to begin clearing forest again.  

Papua is a rainforest paradise--the third largest intact rainforest in the world--but Korindo is at the forefront of a move by large agribusiness to convert these thriving forests into vast monoculture industrial plantations.  Until recently, it was able to operate without much scrutiny due to the remoteness of the location and its inaccessibility for civil society and journalists. We hope this video provides a glimpse of what is at stake, and compels significant action around the world to save this rainforest paradise.   

Citizens around the world can join our effort by sharing the video, and signing the petition to Korindo.


Henry Waxman, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club and Others Urge EPA and Congress to Reduce Biofuel Mandates

To download the full recording of the tele-conference, click here.

Washington, DC—A growing coalition of environmental and anti-hunger groups, including former Congressman Henry Waxman, now chairman of Mighty Earth, urged the EPA today to reconsider and reduce mandates for conventional, food-based biofuels. Over 40,000 individuals also commented to EPA in support of reducing volume levels.

These comments come as the environmental benefits of biofuels are facing intense scrutiny. In 2011 and 2016, the National Research Council and the Government Accountability Office, respectively, concluded that the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is unlikely or failing to meet its climate mitigation goals. Recent research has also found that 7 million acres of native habitat in the U.S. were converted in to crop production during the biofuel ramp-up in the years following the passage of the current RFS.

“We’re concerned that most biofuels are a cure worse than the disease,” said Congressman Waxman. “We’d like to have second-generation, ultra-low carbon fuels, but what we actually have is corn ethanol and soy and palm biodiesel. These food-based fuels offer no climate emissions advantages and contribute to the conversion of native habitats for agricultural production.”

Mighty Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club and others are also asking Congress to reform the RFS. Desired reforms include reducing mandated levels of food-based biofuels, maintaining supports for second-generation biofuels, and committing funding to restore lost wildlife habitat.

“The corn ethanol mandate has had massive unintended consequences on our public health, wildlife, and drinking water – and it’s time for our elected officials to make long-overdue reforms to the Renewable Fuel Standard,” said Collin O’Mara, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. “Congress can put in place common-sense, bipartisan reforms that advance sustainable fuels the right way – solutions that work for family farmers while protecting our water, wildlife, and economy.”

Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune added, "The increase in ethanol production has resulted in the destruction of local land and water resources all while producing the same amount of dirty emissions as fossil fuels. It's obvious that corn ethanol is not a solution to the climate crisis. Communities and families across the country deserve truly clean fuel options that won't wreak havoc on their health and communities. It's high time the EPA stop subsidizing the ethanol industry and eliminate the use of ethanol in our fuels once and for all."


Papuan Community Leaders Call For Protection of Indigenous Rights; Also Hit Back at Korindo Group’s Manipulation of Stakeholder Meeting

On August 9th, leaders from Papuan indigenous communities hosted a press conference in Merauke in honor of the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples and timed with the first Papuan Film Festival which focused on the theme of indigenous rights and environmental sustainability.  

Their press release describes the situation faced by many indigenous communities in Papua whose lands have been permitted for monoculture commodity agriculture:

“Currently, permits for large scale commercial investment in the natural resource industries, including mining, plantations and logging, as well as infrastructure, have been issued across the majority of the lands and forests which make up the homelands of the indigenous peoples of Papua.

This subject is depicted in some of the films in the Papuan Film Festival currently taking place in Merauke. In Merauke and Boven Digoel Regencies, the government has issued permits for plantations and industrial timber estates covering a vast area.

Policy and investment activity is only based on private capital-intensive investment, technology and modern organisation, a model which has been seen in practice to disregard the rights of indigenous Papuans, limit or eliminate entirely indigenous people's access to the land which provides their livelihoods, result in horizontal conflict or disharmony, violence and human rights violations, as well as widespread environmental destruction."

Hitting Back at Korindo Group’s Manipulation

The press conference was also a community effort to set the record straight regarding a recent stakeholder meeting on palm oil development in Papua, held in Jakarta, with the local governments and the palm oil company Korindo Group, that the indigenous leaders felt was manipulated to appear as if their views were represented:  

“The head of Nakias village, Mr Melkior Wayoken, suspected that manipulation had taken place to produce statements supporting the company, and that certain individuals had claimed to represent the indigenous community and village governments of Nakias, Tagaepe and Yalhak villages. According to Melkior, one individual was masquerading as the village head and signed a statement, and then used the village government stamp. ‘The statement was made without my knowledge, even though I am the village head, and then they joined the Bupatis of Merauke and Boven Digoel on their trip to the meeting in Jakarta. It was only afterwards that I heard they had signed a letter claiming to be the village government. I was shocked, and so I want to say that I, speaking to you now, am the real village head, and I clearly don't accept this. If they knew I was here then why didn't they call on me, as the leader of the village administration in the area the company is working? I've been elected by the people of Nakias village and they knew I was in Merauke, so why didn't they ask me?’, Melkior explained.”

Calling For Action

Y.L. Franky, the Director of Yayasan Pusaka in Jakarta, spoke at the press conference about the underlying problems facing indigenous people in Papua. According to Franky, the serious problems indigenous people have to face include the loss of their rights and sovereignty, a lack of participation in development to determine its direction, the loss of a sense of security and the limits on the right to free expression, and the loss of autonomy to develop productive economic enterprises.

The leaders called for the following actions:

  1. Local government must oversee investment activities to make sure they are legal, and do not violate the rights of indigenous people or destroy the environment.
  2. Local governments should issue policy and develop programmes which respect the rights of indigenous Papuans and protect the land which provides their livelihood.
  3. Local government should carry out an audit of all plantation companies present in the area, review any permits or contracts which violate indigenous people's basic rights or disadvantage indigenous people.
  4. We urge companies to respect the basic rights of indigenous Papuans, to avoid causing horizontal conflict within indigenous communities, not to use state security forces to protect their investment, to respect any community decisions not to surrender their lands and forests for business purposes, to protect important sites for the community and to provide adequate economic empowerment for the community and for company workers, without discrimination.

Here is an English translation of the full press release:

Press Release

Indigenous people from Nakias Tagaepe and Ihalik villages, Wambon Tekamerob Indigenous Community, SKP KAMe, Sawit Watch, Yayasan PUSAKA, Papuan Voices, Belantara Papua, SKPKC Fransiskan Papua, Garda Papua, Suara Papua, Tabloid Jubi, Yayasan Teratai Hati Papua (YHTP), Papuan Independent Students Forum, PMKRI Merauke Branch.

Hormati Hak Orang Asli Papua dan Lindungi Ruang Hidup Masyarakat Adat

Respect Indigenous Papuans' Rights and Protect the Spaces which Provide Indigenous Livelihoods.

Today we are commemorating the International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples. This date was established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1994. The indigenous peoples' struggle at the international level has already resulted in the UN General Assembly adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on the 13th September 2007. This historic event for indigenous peoples deserves serious attention, a sign of respect for those who are still fighting for the rights of indigenous peoples.

Currently, permits for large scale commercial investment in the natural resource industries, including mining, plantations and logging, as well as infrastructure, have been issued across the majority of the lands and forests which make up the homelands of the indigenous peoples of Papua.

This subject is depicted in some of the films in the Papuan Film Festival currently taking place in Merauke. In Merauke and Boven Digoel Regencies, the government has issued permits for plantations and industrial timber estates covering a vast area.

Policy and investment activity is only based on private capital-intensive investment, technology and modern organisation, a model which has been seen in practice to disregard the rights of indigenous Papuans, limit or eliminate entirely indigenous people's access to the land which provides their livelihoods, result in horizontal conflict or disharmony, violence and human rights violations, as well as widespread environmental destruction.

Recently a stakeholder meeting took place in Jakarta, attended by the governments of Merauke and Boven Digoel, the Korindo Group, and individuals who described themselves as representatives of indigenous communities in Merauke and Boven Digoel. A topic discussed in the meeting was that land could not be cleared for a community smallholding scheme, because NGOs had issued a moratorium.

The head of Nakias village, Mr Melkior Wayoken, suspected that manipulation had taken place to produce statements supporting the company, and that certain individuals had claimed to represent the indigenous community and village governments of Nakias, Tagaepe and Yalhak villages. According to Melkior, one individual was masquerading as the village head and signed a statement, and then used the village government stamp. "The statement was made without my knowledge, even though I am the village head, and then they joined the Bupatis of Merauke and Boven Digoel on their trip to the meeting in Jakarta. It was only afterwards that I heard  they had signed a letter claiming to be the village government. I was shocked, and so I want to say that I, speaking to you now, am the real village head, and I clearly don't accept this. If they knew I was here then why didn't they call on me, as the leader of the village administration in the area the company is working? I've been elected by the people of Nakias village and they knew I was in Merauke, so why didn't they ask me?", Melkior explained.

Father Anselmus Amo, MSC, the director of SKP KAMe (the Justice and Peace Secretariat of Merauke Catholic Archdiocese), stated his opinion, that a moratorium is not issued by an NGO. This is a misleading statement, and it is irresponsible to make such claims. A moratorium places obligations on a company to abide by regulations issued by government. Recently the Indonesian Government's moratorium on new permits in primary forests and peatlands was renewed, via a presidential directive. So what's all this about NGOs placing a moratorium on a company, Amo underlined.

Father Amo also said that one of the NGOs' complaints about the companies' activities was that they had used fire to clear land. This accusation was brought because companies had clearly been burning land, which is forbidden by central government. It is a great shame if local government appears to be closing its eyes to this matter. Disregard from local government has already become systematic, meaning that even when the Bupati speaks about developments which would be positive for local people, it is not  guaranteed whether his technical staff will follow them up. NGOs make accusations about companies because human rights violations and environmental destruction have taken place in their concessions. If companies cared about human rights and the environment, then there is no way that NGOs would make such complaints.

A similar point was made by Inda Fatinaware, Executive Director of Sawit Watch, who said that community should not be misled by talk of moratoriums. The moratorium issued by the government was to call a temporary halt to new permits in primary natural forest. There is no relation whatsoever to the issue of smallholder schemes. Companies have to provide smallholdings for local people, this is obligatory and clearly stated in the 2014 Plantation Law (UU39/2014). Therefore there is no reason why a company shouldn't develop such a smallholder scheme.  What's more, a company such as Korindo, which has already been operating in Merauke and Boven Digoel for many years, should already have provided smallholdings for the community. The question should be what has the company been doing all this time, and why hasn't it still not developed community smallholding schemes? Don't use the moratorium as an excuse not to develop smallholding schemes.

Y.L. Franky, the Director of Yayasan Pusaka in Jakarta, wanted to take this opportunity to draw attention to the underlying problems facing indigenous people. According to Franky, the serious problems indigenous people have to face include the loss of their rights and sovereignty, a lack of participation in development to determine its direction, the loss of a sense of security and the limits on the right to free expression, and the loss of autonomy to develop productive economic enterprises based on the knowledge of local indigenous people.

This situation has occurred because the state has neglected to respect and protect indigenous Papuan's rights, which makes it impossible to achieve a good standard of community welfare and to uphold the law, as laid down in the constitution and subsequent laws, such as the Special Autonomy Law (articles 42 and 43), Franky explained.

In consideration of this situation, we believe the following actions are necessary:

  1. Local government must oversee investment activities to make sure they are legal, and do not violate the rights of indigenous people or destroy the environment.
  2. Local governments should issue policy and develop programmes which respect the rights of indigenous Papuans and protect the land which provides their livelihood.
  3. Local government should carry out an audit of all plantation companies present in the area, review any permits or contracts which violate indigenous people's basic rights or disadvantage indigenous people.
  4. We urge companies to respect the basic rights of indigenous Papuans, to avoid causing horizontal conflict within indigenous communities, not to use state security forces to protect their investment, to respect any community decisions not to surrender their lands and forests for business purposes, to protect important sites for the community and to provide adequate economic empowerment for the community and for company workers, without discrimination.

Contact Person

  1.     Pastor Anselmus Amo MSC, SKP KAMe Director (081287778974)
  2.     Mario, Sawit Watch (085228066649)
  3.     Y.L. Franky, Yayasan Pusaka (081317286019)

Activists in South Korea Rally Against Indonesian Rainforest Destruction by Korean Conglomerate POSCO Daewoo

Mighty Earth joined with The Korea Federation for Environmental Movements (KFEM), Korea’s largest environmental NGO, at a rally in Gwanghwamun North Square in Seoul, South Korea on Monday, July 31st, to demand that the Korean conglomerate POSCO Daewoo stop destroying Indonesian rainforest on its palm oil plantation in Papua.

Over a dozen activists participated in a street performance, in which they linked arms to defend the forest against a masked man holding a chainsaw representing POSCO Daewoo.  The activists held a banner that read, in both Korean and English, “POSCO Daewoo, Stop Destroying Indonesian Rainforest,” against a giant backdrop of palm oil-driven deforestation in Papua, Indonesia taken from Mighty Earth’s field investigation into Korindo and POSCO Daewoo in June 2016.

The rally followed a meeting between Mighty, KFEM and representatives from POSCO Daewoo that took place the previous business day.  At the meeting, Mighty and KFEM asked POSCO Daewoo to immediately stop their deforestation of pristine rainforest. POSCO Daewoo failed to make any specific commitments and instead said it needed to “study” the matter further despite several years of stakeholders urging an end to its deforestation.  

“POSCO Daewoo is trying to buy itself time to finish its forest clearing,” said Deborah Lapidus, Campaign Director at Mighty Earth.  “At the rate they are clearing, there will be no forest left by the time the company is done studying--and that’s surely their strategy.” Already, POSCO Daewoo’s bulldozers have cleared over 26,500 hectares of forest–half the size of Seoul, South Korea–in its 34,195 hectare concession.  What’s more, the pace of clearing has been accelerating; the company cleared 2,400 ha in the first four months of this year alone and over 10,000 ha since September 2015. Unconscionably, the international consulting firm PWC has given POSCO Daewoo’s deforestation a green stamp of approval. 

The land POSCO Daewoo is clearing to make way for its palm oil plantation, called PT Bio Inti Agrindo (PT BIA), is home to indigenous communities, as well as threatened and endangered species including tree kangaroos and birds of paradise.  According to BIA’s original business plans, obtained by Mighty, the entire area was covered by virgin rainforests prior to clearing.  The company estimated that it would make US$162 million just from selling the high value timber it cleared in the process of setting up the plantation.  The ancient rainforests being bulldozed by POSCO Daewoo are also incredibly carbon rich and essential to curbing global climate change.   

“Unfortunately, two Korean companies have established sprawling palm oil operations in Papua and are clearing forests at a vast scale,” said Ms. Lapidus to an assembled crowd of newspaper photographers and participants at Monday’s rally. “You might recall when we were here last year to expose Korindo’s forest destruction.  Right next to Korindo’s plantations is an immense zone of destruction that is owned by POSCO Daewoo, one of Korea’s premier companies. Despite the enormous ecological value of these areas, POSCO decided that it was happy to destroy them to create a giant monoculture plantation.  We are not seeing many companies act in such an egregious manner anymore but POSCO’s bulldozers are still operating.”  

Rally participants called on POSCO Daewoo to declare an immediate moratorium on all new forest clearing, to commit to a No Deforestation and No Exploitation policy aligned with the industry standard High Carbon Stock Approach, and to invest in restoration to repair its past damage.  

“POSCO Daewoo has done an incredible amount of damage in a short amount of time. It is undermining other companies’ progress on forest conservation and damaging its own brand and reputation around the world across its diverse businesses,” commented Glenn Hurowitz, Mighty Earth’s CEO, at the rally.  “All this deforestation is bad for its business.”

Just as POSCO Daewoo’s mill has become operational in the first quarter of 2017, the world’s largest palm oil buyers have stated they will exclude POSCO Daewoo and BIA’s palm oil from their supply chains because it violates their own No Deforestation and No Exploitation commitments.  

Investors are also pulling away from POSCO Daewoo over its deforestation.  The Norwegian Pension Fund, the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, with more than $1 trillion in assets, commissioned an in-depth study into POSCO Daewoo’s activities, and found that the company’s practices were so egregious that they withdrew their investments in August 2015.  Hermes Investment has encouraged POSCO Daewoo to work with stakeholders to rapidly address this issue.  And POSCO Daewoo risks losing financing from several of its financial backers, including HSBC and BNP Paribas, which have both have announced No Deforestation financing policies.

Speaking at the rally, Choony Kim, Vice Executive Director of KFEM said, "Almost 7,700 hectares of tropical forests still remain on the site of POSCO Daewoo. In order for POSCO Daewoo to clean past mistakes and to compete fairly in the global market, it is necessary to immediately declare a moratorium on new land development in the remaining tropical forests. Also, efforts should be made to restore damaged forests and ecosystems.”


Mystery Meat II

New Investigation Identifies Companies Responsible for Massive Dead Zone in Gulf of Mexico

Tyson Foods, America’s Largest Meat Company, Leads Those Found to be driving massive Manure and Fertilizer Pollution

Read the Report

Mapping data links top meat companies to regions experiencing worst pollution from meat

Washington, D.C. — A new report, released by Mighty Earth, identifies the companies responsible for the widespread manure and fertilizer pollution contaminating water from the Heartland to the Gulf. Much of this pollution comes from the vast quantities of corn and soy used to raise meat animals, and has caused one of the largest Dead Zones on record in the Gulf of Mexico this year.

To identify the companies responsible, the investigation maps the supply chains of the top meat and feed companies, and overlays it with data showing elevated nitrate concentrations in waterways that are experiencing high levels of fertilizer pollution. The report also mapped where these supply chains are driving destruction of natural grasslands, including native prairies, putting new regions at risk for fertilizer pollution.

America’s largest meat company, Tyson Foods, stood out for its expansive footprint in all the regions suffering the worst pollution impacts from industrial meat and feed production. Tyson produces one out of every five pounds of meat produced in the United States, and owns brands like Jimmy Dean, Hillshire Farm, Ball Park, and Sara Lee, in addition to selling to fast food retailers like McDonalds. The company is consistently ranked among the top polluters in America, although Tyson’s new CEO has declared that a focus on sustainability will be at the center of the company’s future plans. The report found:

    • Tyson is the only meat company with major processing facilities in each of the states listed by the USGS as contributing the highest levels of pollution to the Gulf;
    • Tyson and Smithfield have the heaviest concentration of meat facilities in those regions of the country with the highest levels of nitrate contamination;
Map of nitrate levels by watersheds, 2016 overlaid with Tyson and top feed supplier facilities (View Larger Map)
    • Tyson’s top feed suppliers are behind the bulk of grassland prairie clearance, which dramatically magnifies the impacts of fertilizer pollution, with Cargill and ADM clearly dominating the market for corn and soy with their network of grain elevators and feed silos in all the states with the highest losses.
Map of grassland conversion by county, 2016 overlaid with Tyson and top feed supplier facilities (View Larger Map)

 

“Americans should not have to choose between producing food and having healthy clean water”, says Mighty Earth campaign director Lucia von Reusner. “Big meat companies like Tyson have left a trail of pollution across the country, and have a responsibility to their customers and the public to clean it up.”

“As the public has gained awareness of the major impacts of industrial meat production, many consumers have been trying to find more sustainable options,” said von Reusner. “This report shows that our nation’s largest meat companies shape our food system on a massive scale, and can implement the solutions needed to make meat less polluting.”

A recent analysis from the Environmental Working Group of 2015 public water utility data found that 7 million Americans are exposed to unhealthy levels of nitrate contamination in their drinking water. The Tap Water Database “provides information on the most widespread and potentially harmful contaminants and their sources – including agriculture, a leading source of pollution in the U.S. that is largely exempt from federal laws designed to protect drinking water,” according to the Environmental Working Group.

Researchers recently announced that so much pollution has run into the Gulf of Mexico this year that is has created one of the largest dead zones on record. Fertilizer pollution flowing down the Mississippi River from the American heartland is the cause of this dead zone, by causing toxic algae blooms where marine life cannot survive. This fertilizer pollution comes mostly from industrial corn and soy fields. Last year the USGS reported that around 1.15 million metric tons of nitrogen pollution flowed into the Gulf of Mexico. As comparison, the BP oil spill was 670,800 metric tons, and is not an annually occurring event.

*The report was amended to clarify the proportion of U.S. soy that goes toward animal feed. The rest of the report remains unchanged.

Take action! Sign the petition below calling on Tyson’s CEO to clean up this pollution from meat.

  • Care2

About Mighty Earth

Mighty Earth is a global environmental campaign organization that works to protect forests, conserve oceans, and address climate change. We work in Southeast Asia, Latin America, Africa, and North America to drive large-scale action towards environmentally responsible agriculture that protects native ecosystems, wildlife, and water, and respects local community rights.  Mighty Earth’s global team has played a decisive role in persuading the world’s largest food and agriculture companies to dramatically improve their environmental and social policies and practices. More information on Mighty Earth can be found at http://www.mightyearth.org/.

 

###


Chocolate's Dark Secret: Behind the Scenes in Côte D'Ivoire

 An “Open Secret:” Illegal Ivorian Cocoa

Mighty Earth’s field investigation in Côte d’Ivoire reveals how cocoa is driving illegal deforestation in the nation’s protected areas. Our findings expose how environmental destruction is an “open secret” throughout the Ivorian cocoa supply chain, from growers through traders, chocolate companies and the Ivorian government.


In the early morning light, as we headed into Scio, we found a recently cleared plot of land, with just a handful of beautiful old trees left, towering along the perimeter and evoking the majestic forest that once flourished here. More than 80% of the country’s forests disappeared from 1960-2010, according to the EU and Ivorian Forestry Ministry.

A

Ivorian protected areas we visited- like this one, Scio – had little original forest left. Cocoa farmers systematically encroach on parks, clear underbrush, plant cocoa, and light fires at the roots of ancient giants to kill them so that the denuded canopy no longer blocks sun for cocoa plantations. What’s left behind are giant skeleton trees in a sea of cocoa.

Cocoa production has endangered wildlife by taking over many of the rainforests of Côte d’Ivoire, a country once internationally known as a biodiversity gem in West Africa’s Guinean Forest Region and a nation of great biological richness, species diversity, and endemism. Former poachers that Mighty interviewed in one protected area said that they had virtually stopped poaching, since there were hardly any animals left to kill.

Red Colobus Monkey, Cote D'Ivoire, Scott McGraw

A
A

Deforestation is happening in the largest remaining chimpanzee habitats in Côte d’Ivoire. A recent study on the impact of cocoa production for primate populations in protected areas found that 13 of 23 protected areas surveyed had lost their entire primate populations.

Several interviewees in the protected area of Goin Debe explained that the road in the forest used to be better during the logging boom days, as the loggers kept the road in good condition. Road maintenance declined because nearly all the trees were cleared, so there was hardly any logging left to do and the loggers stopped taking care of the roads.

Farmers burn large trees to make room for cocoa, leaving “skeleton” forests behind of just the trunks. However, when one of the few remaining hardwood trees is deemed large and valuable enough, and is close enough to a road that a truck can come and get it out, farmers will sometimes strike deals with loggers. These massive logs by the side of the road are waiting for a truck to remove them.

Predatory logging companies go into decimated protected forests and harvest the last few remaining large hardwoods. This truck is driving alongside the edge of Goin Debe forest reserve, which Mighty Earth visited and found to be almost entirely destroyed for cocoa.

Loggers bring scavenged timber to a facility in the nearby town of Duekoue, where the logs are cut into lumber and stacked alongside the road.

The problem of deforestation cocoa is a massive one for Côte d’Ivoire. Cocoa is believed to be the number one driver of deforestation in the country. Much of the cocoa exported out of Côte d’Ivoire comes from inside national parks and forest reserves.

We came across this Cargill sign at dawn, showing Rainforest Alliance and Utz Certification, at the edge of the Scio forest reserve in Western Cote d’Ivoire.  Ten minutes away, inside Scio, we found complete environmental devastation. Cocoa had replaced what was once a lush tropical rainforest.


While top chocolate companies and their executives and investors make sizable profits, they pay very low wages and rely on extensive child labor. 


Mighty Earth visited Mount Peko National Park – which means “mountain of hyenas” in the local Gueré language. Forest destruction there was largely driven by cocoa expansion, with 10,000 tonnes worth over $28 million produced annually from the park and an estimated 30,000 illegal inhabitants. The Ivorian government recently cracked down against cocoa-driven deforestation by expelling cocoa farmers, but groups like Human Rights Watch documented extortion and physical abuse by forest conservation authorities in forest evictions. Mighty Earth saw that after the recent crackdown, the park had once again filled back up with cocoa smallholders, like the men in this video.


A

A

Mighty’s satellite mapping shows how deforestation, largely driven by cocoa production, has expanded across Western Cote d’Ivoire. In this map, you can see how cocoa production is expanding into protected areas, as the rest of the nation’s forest has largely been cleared already.


Agricultural production inside protected areas is illegal. Yet, cocoa cultivation and drying, which you see in this video, was happening in broad daylight, even meters from the main roads through the forests.

Cocoa production has grown so out of control that entire towns and villages have sprung up in protected areas. Marahoué Park and Mont Péko Park each contain an illegal population of around 30,000 people. Their presence is an open secret, with homes and even public schools, official health centers, and occasionally cell phone towers, in plain sight of government authorities who have turned a blind eye to or encouraged encroachment into protected areas for decades.

 

 

We met cocoa farmers who spoke of their suffering and explained the economic hardships they’ve faced since cocoa prices plummeted by over 30% this past year. Many told us that it has been the worst financial year for them in living memory.

 

Ian Jones Photography

After a meeting convened by Prince Charles, 34 of the world’s biggest chocolate companies committed to ending deforestation for chocolate. However, it remains to be seen if these companies will take true leadership in putting an end to this destruction. Africa’s forests cannot wait much longer for these commitments to turn into action.

 

 

 

The Ivorian government has made many commitments at the highest level around ending deforestation. Although promises on paper have yet to translate into a reality of forest protection, there is room for optimism that the Ivorian government would support robust industry action this year to save forests. Far beyond Côte d’Ivoire, from the Americas to Asia, there are other forests which can also be saved if the cocoa industry shifts now towards zero deforestation.

 

Diana Monkey, Cote D'Ivoire, Scott McGraw


Mighty Earth and Olam Joint Statement Following Visit to Gabon

London, July 24, 2017 – Conservation NGO Mighty Earth and Olam International have completed a 5 day series of meetings and visits in Gabon as part of their agreement, announced in February 2017, to move forward on models for responsible agricultural development in highly forested countries.

Mighty Earth’s CEO Glenn Hurowitz and Olam’s Global Head of Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability, Dr Christopher Stewart, participated in a series of intensive and constructive meetings with key decision-makers in the Gabon central and provincial governments, facilitated by Mighty’s local partner NGO Brainforest and by Olam Gabon, as well as a round-table of Gabonese NGOs belonging to the environmental and human rights civil society platform: “Gabon, Ma Terre, Mon Droit “ (Gabon, My Lands, My Rights).

Glenn Hurowitz, CEO of Mighty Earth, said, “Thank you to Olam for organising an eye-opening, worthwhile, and inclusive visit to Gabon. We appreciated the opportunity to join Brainforest, WWF, TFT and other groups to see Olam’s Mouila plantations, conservation activities, and discuss sustainable development with local communities and government officials. The visit was a valuable input into our ongoing discussions with Olam and many other stakeholders around the world to refine an enduring conservation standard for high forest cover countries. In Mouila, we saw evidence that while there remain important issues to resolve, Olam has created jobs, and is taking efforts to protect those conservation areas it has set aside, and also working to resolve important community concerns. However, the visit also raises serious questions about whether large-scale plantation agriculture is a good model for heavily forested landscapes and other biodiverse, carbon rich ecosystems. We look forward to exploring this question further with Olam, the High Carbon Stock Approach group, other companies operating in Africa and elsewhere, and a range of environmental and community groups, including the upcoming Forest Dialogue in Gabon.”

Christopher Stewart, Olam’s Global Head of Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability, said “I would like to thank Glenn Hurowitz for visiting our palm plantations in Gabon, and for his positive and helpful contributions to the fundamentally important debates about responsible agriculture. It was also a rare and extremely valuable opportunity for us and the conservation NGOs to participate together in high-level political discussions on Gabon’s long term economic and land use strategy. I do not underestimate the evolving market demands and expectations surrounding sustainable agriculture in developing tropical countries like Gabon or the local challenges that are created by the development of our plantations and the GRAINE project. We are already looking to a series of further technical and policy discussions with the multi-stakeholder group and I expect that a mutually reciprocated spirit of openness and respectful dialogue will help us to converge on solutions, that serve both the urgent developmental needs of Gabon and the imperative to conserve its globally critical forest landscapes and wildlife for future generations.”

The meetings with senior officials included the Minister of Agriculture, the Parliamentary Sustainable Development Commission, the Secretary-General of the National Parks Agency, the Head of the National Climate Council, the Minister in Charge of Presidential Affairs, and the Director General of the Environment. The Ministers, parliamentarians and Agency Heads welcomed Mighty’s visit to Gabon and Olam’s proactive effort to understand and respond to their concerns, encouraging the local NGOs to embrace the challenges raised by the revitalisation of Gabon’s agricultural sector, and enter into monitoring partnerships with Olam.

Over the course of 2 days of substantive discussions, they also laid out the history of land and natural resource use in Gabon, the urgent and inevitable need to diversify Gabon’s economy away from fossil fuels, the social dangers of dependency on oil, Gabon’s significant (and regionally unmatched) commitments to long-term conservation of its forests and reduction of its greenhouse gas emissions, and the primary importance of agriculture (both large and small-scale) in Gabon’s National Strategic Plan. The tone of these meetings was both constructive and cordial, despite many differences of opinion that still need to be resolved.

Olam Gabon, Mighty Earth and its local partner Brainforest convened a round table including additional members of the “Ma Terre Mon Droit” platform, WWF Gabon, FENSED, IDRC Africa and Croissance Saine-Environnement. The key environmental and social impacts of plantation agriculture were debated at length and NGOS expressed both strong support for the social development benefits of export crop plantations, and strong reservations about the biodiversity and climate impacts, and potential human rights impacts, of large scale plantation agriculture as a basis for the renewal of Gabon’s rural economy. NGOs demanded transparency and better participation in decision-making, as well as capacity building initiatives, strengthening partnerships for monitoring the plantation impacts and improving local livelihoods.

Olam’s Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability team agreed on these points and the need to continually improve its outreach processes, including communicating technical documentation in a way that is more accessible to all stakeholders. Olam also set out the many opportunities for NGO involvement that are in place, not least the systematic local and national consultation processes on social and environmental impacts, open-access publications on all its plantation operations, the joint elaboration with national NGOs of the Gabonese RSPO National Standard, and its national-scale GRAINE support programme for cooperative farming, in which most of the NGOs present had played a framing role.

A large NGO delegation including Mighty, The Forest Trust (TFT), and local NGOs Brainforest, WWF-Gabon, FENSED, and Muyissi Environnement also spent 2 days visiting Olam’s palm oil plantations and the landscape and communities of Ngounie Province, southern Gabon. They were given an overview of the plantation operations and progress to date by the General Manager of Olam Palm Gabon, and visited operations including the planting area, mechanically assisted harvesting teams, an innovative drip fertigation project, and the 90-tonne Mouila Mill, which was inaugurated in 2016. They also visited a small part of the 18,000 ha conservation set-aside within Lot 1, and learned about Olam’s environmental action plan since 2013 to restore the logged forests of the set-asides, including prevention and monitoring of illegal logging and hunting of protected species (both of which are a continuing threat to forests and wildlife in this area).

A highlight of the field visit was the exploration of Olam Palm Gabon’s Mouila Lot 3, where Olam has established a 14,000 ha savannah plantation compliant with the requirements RSPO’s New Plantings Procedures, on a strict zero-deforestation basis . This also includes the first High Conservation Value savannah ecosystem mosaic under active management in the RSPO system, and Olam’s pioneering research in this under-appreciated ecosystem (in partnership with Missouri Botanical Gardens) has already laid the groundwork for a new National Park in the area, under the leadership of the National Parks Agency.

The NGO delegation also held village meetings in 3 villages chosen and organised by Brainforest, which are among a total of 87 villages which have Free Prior and Informed Consent procedures and Social Contracts with Olam. The villagers expressed themselves without reservation on both positive and negative social impacts of the plantation developments: on the one hand they largely welcomed the employment opportunities and investment in social infrastructure provided by Olam, whilst expressing their strong need for better access to essential services including schooling, healthcare, clean water provision, electrification, building materials and opportunities for promotion within the Olam structure.

A recurring theme was the concern on the impact of plantations on natural streams and lakes, which are a key source of water – villages in this region suffer from annual water shortages in the dry season as seasonal streams and artesian wells dry up. The NGO delegation urged Olam to act on these concerns and provide better solutions for water provision, more transparency in its water quality monitoring process, and rehabilitation in the case of accidental damage to natural water bodies. However, they were satisfied to observe that Olam’s social team has strong connections to the villages and has previously addressed and documented both the grievances expressed and the solutions proposed. Olam agreed immediately to investigate renewed concerns expressed in the village of Ferra relative to the Rembo river, a key dry-season drinking water source, which villagers feared might be impacted by a nursery upstream from their village.


For more information on the investigation into Olam’s plantations and the issues related to industrial agriculture at large, check out this article by Mighty Earth’s Glenn Hurowitz.

 

 


France announces new five-year climate plan that puts end to “imported deforestation” of products like palm oil and soy

Last week, Ecology Minister Nicolas Hulot laid out France’s new “climate plan” which includes greater efforts to protect the world’s tropical rainforests in the Amazon, West Africa, and Southeast Asia. Hulot noted that the climate plan intends to put an end to “imported deforestation.”

The French government's commitment to end the importation of products like palm and soy linked to deforestation is hopeful. Especially now with this action, France is leading the way in supporting zero-deforestation commodity production. "This is a new step toward a full implementation of the Paris agreement,” said Sebastien Mabile, Lawyer at the Paris Bar leading Mighty's campaign against deforestation in France. “It's a major change for the food industry supply chain."

Mighty is encouraged by the recent news, which sends a clear message that rainforest destruction is not acceptable.

“Companies have shown that it is possible to produce agricultural products without deforesting,” said Etelle Higonnet, Legal and Campaign Director at Mighty. “The Brazilian Soy Moratorium reduced deforestation caused by soy from nearly 30% of new soy expansion in the Brazilian Amazon to less than 1% in just three years.  Now, it is important these solutions are implemented in other parts of Latin America and in places like South East Asia and West and Central Africa, to ensure economic development is truly sustainable and equitable, and that benefits local communities and protects the world’s remaining tropical forests.”

France’s new plan, intended to meet the ambitious targets of the Paris climate accord and make the country carbon neutral by 2050, also includes stopping the sale of diesel and petrol vehicles by 2040 and coal produced electricity by 2022. The announcement comes months after France adopted “le Devoir De Vigilance” law in February 2017. The new law establishes obligations toward large companies to prevent serious violations of human rights and environmental damages, with the aim of restoring respect for human and ecological rights by multinational corporations.


Mighty Earth Calls Out EPA on Dirty Biofuels Proposal

A proposal released last week by the EPA includes troubling news for tropical forests and other ecosystems threatened by encroaching industrial agriculture. The proposal mandates record production levels for biodiesel and corn ethanol. These biofuels, once thought to be ‘green’, are now known to drive the conversion of forests, grasslands and other native ecosystems into crop production, and to rival if not exceed fossil fuels for climate emissions.

Take action and send a comment to the EPA here.

“Biofuels like corn ethanol and soy biodiesel are a cure worse than the disease,” said Mighty Earth Chairperson Henry Waxman. “Supporting environmentally unfriendly biofuels worsens our climate crisis and drives deforestation and habitat loss at home and abroad.”

Only a small fraction of biodiesel is made from waste or recycled sources, like used cooking oil. Most biodiesel used in the U.S. is produced using soy oil, and much of the biodiesel on the global market is palm oil based.

As the U.S. and other governments ratchet up demand for these types of biofuels, agri-businesses meet production by carving new farms out of virgin forests in places like Brazil, Bolivia and Indonesia, as the New York Times, YaleEnvironment360 and our own reports have documented. The forests of Latin America and Southeast Asia are hotspots of biodiversity and critical habitat for threatened species like the tree kangaroo, orangutan, jaguar and giant anteater.

When land conversion is fully considered, soy and palm biodiesel don’t provide any climate benefits, and those of corn ethanol are negligible. In fact, a recent analysis based on a European Union report found that soy and palm biodiesel are worse for the climate than fossil diesel.

Growing corn for ethanol has similar problems, and its effects are seen here in the U.S. The dramatic increase in corn production and has contributed to the conversion of more than 7 million acres of native ecosystems into agricultural land since 2008, according a National Wildlife Federation report based on a University of Wisconsin analysis.

Under the law that governs production of biofuels, the Renewable Fuel Standard, biodiesel production has skyrocketed, from under 10 million gallons in 2001 to 2.0 billion gallons in 2017. Corn ethanol has also seen enormous growth under this misguided government policy.

Mighty Earth urges the EPA to reconsider its biofuels proposal, and reduce mandated levels of biofuels linked to land conversion and climate emissions.

Take action and send a comment to the EPA here.


UPDATE: UNESCO urges Poland to stop logging the ancient Białowieża forest

The UNESCO-protected Białowieża forest, on the border of Poland and Belarus, is one of the last remaining parts of a vast ancient forest that once spread across Europe. In March 2016, the Polish Government decided to increase intensive logging in the region threefold, despite concerns from environmentalists and scientists regarding the impact on protected areas. Between January and May 2017 over 30,000 trees have been cut down in the old-growth forest by the Polish Government’s State-owned logging company.

This past June, Mighty stood in solidarity with protestors around the world to support the protection of the Białowieża forest, days before

Protestors gathered outside the 41st Session of the World Heritage Committee in Kraków, Poland on July 4th. CREDIT: Ireneusz Graff, Pracownia na rzecz Wszystkich Istot

Only days into the session, the World Heritage Committee said in a statement that UNESCO “strongly urges (Poland) to immediately halt all logging and wood extraction in old-growth forests.”

In response to UNESCO, the Polish government denied they made the decision to open up the forest to logging. Environmentalists and scientist continue protests as logging continues. “We've won an important battle but it is not over yet,” said Diana Maciaga, Climate Coordinator for Pracownia, a Polish NGO that has been fighting to save the forest.  “Still, this is a symbolic, moral victory and it is huge!”

Click here for more photos of protestors in Kraków.


Samsung partnership with Korindo ignites another fire scandal

Banner Photo Credit: Business Korea
Smoke rising from burning wood rows on a palm oil plantation owned by Korindo, Samsung’s joint venture partner ©Ardiles Rante/Greenpeace; 26 March 2013

Samsung’s phones are not the only thing in their business catching on fire.  Samsung IT subsidiary, Samsung SDS, announced on June 19 that it has entered into a partnership with the notorious forest destroyer, Korindo Group, to form a joint venture in the logistics sector in Indonesia.

As we documented in our Burning Paradise report, Korean-Indonesian agribusiness Korindo has cleared 30,000 hectares of rainforest and had nearly 900 fire hotspots on its palm oil concessions in Papua and North Maluku, Indonesia since 2013. We also found that Korindo has taken land from indigenous communities without their consent. Yet, just as Korindo has been losing more and more major global customers over its bad track record and is now being investigated by the Forest Stewardship Council, Samsung decided to proudly announce a new partnership with the company.

Samsung is no stranger to these types of allegations itself.  A report released in December 2016 by a group of Korean human rights lawyers called Korean Transnational Corporations Watch (KTNC Watch) documents deplorable human rights violations that they observed on their field investigation to Samsung palm oil plantations in Riau province of Sumatra, Indonesia.  The Samsung plantation companies are called PT Inecda and PT Gandaerah, and are part of a joint venture with the Indonesian Ganda Group.  Ganda Group has a well documented history of human rights abuses, including coming under scrutiny in 2013 for forcibly evicting villagers from their homes and destroying them.

The report describes how the indigenous communities who have lived on this land for centuries have seen it snatched by Samsung’s plantations, with important ancestral and cultural sites taken over by the plantation. The company has diverted the rivers to irrigate the palm oil plantation, leaving the rest of the surrounding area with a severe water shortage. In addition, the pesticides and other toxic chemicals used on the plantation are polluting the waterways.  Local communities can no longer get the clean water they need to drink, clean, or wash. The plantations are also resulting in a major loss of biodiversity, which threatens the food and livelihood of the indigenous communities. Samsung has been found offering bribes to discourage efforts to claim communal rights to the land, paying certain community members to spy on their neighbors and report back.

A former well site near the plantation dormitories, now abandoned because the water dried up.
Photo Credit: Advocates for Public Interest Law

The report also documents extensive human rights violations of workers on Samsung’s plantations. There are frequent instances of child labor identified on the plantations and many workers report bringing their children or spouses to work to help them meet the high daily quotas set by Samsung. Workers are expected to handle toxic chemicals and work in a setting with inadequate safety conditions. There are no formal contracts, very low wages, high daily quotas, and long hours. Workers that live on the plantations are also subject to very poor, unhealthy living conditions.

An elementary school child is taking a break on top of heavy equipment while working with his father at the PT Ghandaera plantation, picking, bagging, and moving grains of palm oil fruits (November 12, 2016). Photo Credit: Advocates for Public Interest Law

 

Worker’s housing inside the Samsung plantation. Photo Credit: Advocates for Public Interest Law

Given the unsavory operations of both Korindo and Samsung in Indonesia, it is no surprise that these companies would see eye to eye on how to conduct business in the country.  But just as this new partnership brings new opportunities for growth to both companies, it also brings new opportunities for Samsung’s millions of consumers around the globe to take action to end both companies’ abuses in Indonesia.

Samsung can’t afford another PR nightmare right now, as it’s working to build back its reputation following the recall of 2.5 million phones and as its Vice Chairman is on trial for massive corruption scandals in South Korea. The last thing Samsung needs is to be caught up in a scandal over forest destruction and species extinction. If enough Samsung customers take action, we can convince them to drop the partnership with Korindo, sending a clear message to Korindo that forest destruction is bad for business.


Mighty Earth stands in solidarity with the historic fight to save the primeval Białowieża Forest

Between January and May 2017 over 30,000 trees have been cut down in the UNESCO World Heritage Site, one of Europe’s largest remaining old-growth forests, by the Polish Government’s State-owned logging company

On Monday, June 26th, Mighty Earth organized a photo-petition outside the Polish Embassy in Washington, D.C. in response to large-scale logging in the Białowieża, an old-growth forest on Poland’s eastern border with Belarus.

The UNESCO-protected Białowieża forest is home to many threatened and diverse species including wolves, woodpeckers and a herd of 800 European bison.  Białowieża is one of the last remaining parts of a vast ancient forest that once spread across Europe. “We wanted to let the Polish Government know that the world is watching. When we learned that this unique and ancient forest was on its way to becoming a ‘world heritage site in danger,’ we decided to organize in front of the Polish Embassy,” said Mighty Campaign Director Deborah Lapidus.

Mighty calls on the Polish government to protect of one of the last and largest remaining parts of the primeval forest ecosystem in Europe, in solidarity with Pracownia, a Polish environmental organization, Greenpeace Poland, and the hundreds of activists who are putting their bodies on the line and risking arrest to stand in the way of the bulldozers and protect this ancient forest for future generations.

The loggers are going deeper into the forest every day, but resistance in Poland, across Europe, and around the world is growing.  Join the fight now.  Sign the petition to stop the destruction of one of Europe’s last old-growth forests.

For more information, and to get involved, visit http://save-bialowieza.net/