Alex Armstrong

Cocoa Agroforestry Conference

Effective agroforestry in cocoa landscapes can restore forests, improve biodiversity, minimize the use of harmful agrochemicals, improve pest management, and improve farmers' income. Join us from May 18th to the 20th, 2021 in our 3-day cocoa agroforestry Conference to explore cocoa agroforestry. For more information about the event, the speakers, and registration, click here.

Statement in Response to Tragic Mudslide in Batang Toru, Indonesia

Responding to the tragic news that at least 13 people have been killed or are missing in a mudslide on the site of the controversial Batang Toru hydroelectric dam project in Indonesia, Mighty Earth Campaign Director Amanda Hurowitz issued the following statement:

“Our hearts go out to the families of the people who have been killed or injured in this tragic disaster – both local community members and the Chinese workers at the site, far from home. We urge PT North Sumatra Hydro Energy (NSHE) and government authorities at all levels to provide immediate assistance and relief to those impacted and take action to prevent further damage and harm.

“Sadly, this disaster was likely an avoidable one. Scientists, environmental advocates and even reports received by the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry have all warned that the terrain surrounding the proposed site for the Batang Toru dam was at medium to high risk of landslides because of high rainfall, hilly terrain and poor drainage. The project also sits near a fault line in an area prone to earthquakes and is being built, seemingly, without an adequate plan in place to mitigate the effects of development in this sensitive area. In fact, just five months ago, another landslide killed a Chinese dam worker, foreshadowing today’s tragedy.

“Our allies, the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (WALHI) have filed a lawsuit against the project in Indonesian court, claiming NSHE’s environmental impact assessment failed to consider endangered species, communities downstream, and the potential for ecological disasters. Additionally, WALHI has called for development to stop in this ecologically important, high risk area."

Roy Lumban Gaol, Deputy for Advocacy and Campaigns with WALHI North Sumatera, added:

"This incident is just another example of why this destructive project needs to be halted once and for all. There should be a moratorium on further development of the site. The Indonesian government should suspend the AMDAL for the project and conduct an urgent review of the project’s viability in terms of risk to worker safety, structural integrity linked to flooding and earthquake risk and the existential threat the dam construction poses to biodiversity, including the world’s most endangered great ape: the Tapanuli orangutan."



  1. This ill-conceived Chinese backed Indonesian dam project came to worldwide attention in 2017 when scientists made the stunning announcement that they had identified a new species of great ape living in the forests of Batang Toru. The Tapanuli Orangutan, numbering only 800, is the most endangered species of ape in the world. The dam and associated infrastructure by bisecting their habitat threatens their very existence.[i]
  2. Analysis of predicted electricity demand in the region has shown that the electricity that would be produced by the dam may not even be needed.[ii]
  3. This project has become a risky bet for major financiers. Multilateral development banks such as the International Finance Corporation (IFC) have also pulled out of the project[iii], as have private investment banks like Goldman Sachs.[iv] The Asian Infrastructure Development Bank has reportedly declined to finance the project. And, the Bank of China appears to have suspended its involvement pending a ‘review’.[v]
  4. The Tapanuli orangutan faces other threats associated with habitat loss, including land clearing associated with the Martabe gold mine, owned and operated by companies linked with to Astra Agro Lestari and British conglomerate Jardines Matheson.[vi]


  2. Dam that threatens orangutan habitat is ‘wholly unnecessary’: Report (
  3. Bank of China’s Notes on the Hydroelectric Dam Project in Batang Toru of Indonesia (
  4. Dam that threatens orangutan habitat faces three-year delay (
  5. Dam threatening world’s rarest great ape faces delays | Science | AAAS (

Poll: 88% of Tesco Customers Believe Supermarkets Shouldn't Do Business with Deforesters

Poll: 88% of Tesco Customers Believe Supermarkets Shouldn't Do Business with Deforesters

Poll: 88% of Tesco Customers Believe Supermarkets Shouldn’t Do Business with Deforesters

Consumer concern high as new data shows deforestation linked to supermarket meat is accelerating

NGOs Mighty Earth and Greenpeace UK have joined forces in a campaign against Tesco urging the retailer to cut ties with supplier companies that are driving the destruction of Brazil’s Amazon and Cerrado.

An overwhelming majority of Tesco customers in the UK (88%) agree that supermarkets should not do business with companies that are driving the destruction of forests in Brazil, a new YouGov poll conducted for Mighty Earth shows [1].

Despite this, the supermarket giant keeps sourcing from the companies most responsible for driving deforestation in Brazil – including subsidiaries of JBS, the world’s largest beef company, and Cargill and Bunge, the two biggest soy traders globally – which manufacture animal feed ingredients.

New data from Mighty Earth’s Soy and Cattle Deforestation Tracker, published today, finds twice as much deforestation in the supply chains of these soy traders and meatpackers in the past year compared to the year before [2].

The monitoring covers the period March 2019-March 2021 and shows that the two largest European importers of soy, Bunge and Cargill, are the worst performing soy traders. Cargill is linked to more than 66,000 hectares of clearance, while Bunge is connected to almost 60,000 hectares of deforestation in just two years – an area larger than the New Forest.

Despite this spiral of deforestation, in only one case has a company ever cut ties with a supplier found to have cleared land, out of the 235 recorded and reported by Mighty Earth’s Deforestation Tracker.

The worsening trend in deforestation driven by soy and meat traders correlates with the overall increase in forest loss in Brazil. Last year, deforestation in Brazil was greater than the next six countries combined, according to data from the University of Maryland and the digital monitoring platform Global Forest Watch [3].

Industrial meat production includes wiping out forests to raise cattle and to grow soy to feed chickens and pigs. Soy and beef are two of the three commodities imported into the EU that caused the most deforestation between 2005 and 2017.

Robin Willoughby, UK Director of Mighty Earth, said:

Forest destruction in Brazil driven by supermarket meat is getting worse every year. This is accelerating climate change and wiping out the home of the jaguar. Tesco customers are crystal clear, they do not want their supermarket to do business with the companies involved in this destruction. It’s high time Tesco listens to its customers and drop the worst performing companies driving the destruction of Brazilian forests – JBS, Cargill and Bunge.

Tesco PLC is the largest supermarket in the UK holding some 27% of the market in March 2021. In the face of the Coronavirus pandemic, the company increased group sales by 7.1% to over £53.4 billion from 2020-2021. Operating profits in the UK and the Republic of Ireland increased by 11.4% over the same period. [4]

In 2010, Tesco pledged to achieve net zero deforestation in its soya and beef supply chains by 2020 as part of the Consumer Goods Forum [5].  However, in 2018 the company changed its deforestation goal related to soya to 2025 and still has not published a credible plan to show how it will be achieved. Instead of tracing soya back to the farm, it buys credits to offset the impact of deforestation in its supply chain.

In October 2020, Tesco led an industry initiative of 160 of the world’s leading food companies calling on companies in Brazil to end the association between soy and deforestation in the Cerrado Savannah. Despite threatening commercial consequences in the face of non-compliance from large Brazilian traders, Tesco has, so far – failed to act.

Anna Jones, Head of Forests at Greenpeace UK, said:

“By buying from companies involved in deforestation, Tesco is driving destruction of our natural world. Forests are our life support system. Without them, the risk of future pandemics will soar, precious wildlife will be lost forever, communities and Indigenous Peoples will lose their homes and livelihoods and the climate crisis will continue to accelerate.

“By ignoring the problem, Tesco itself is playing with fire. Its customers are watching and unless it takes meaningful action to ensure its suppliers have deforestation-free supply chains they will begin to turn away.”

Other supermarkets and fast-food companies in the UK are also guilty of selling industrial meat that is feeding deforestation – including Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, ASDA, Aldi and Lidl. But as the biggest food retailer headquartered in the UK and a perceived global leader on these issues, Tesco has a responsibility to lead the way.

Every year, between June and September, the world’s biggest soy traders such as Cargill and Bunge sit down with soy producers in Brazil to negotiate purchase contracts for the coming year. This is the time of the year when businesses agree contractual requirements such as a clause not to purchase soy grown on land deforested after 2020, also known as cut-off date.

Agriculture is the main driver of deforestation worldwide. 80% of global forest loss is due to converting forests to farmland to produce agricultural commodities, such as beef, soy and palm oil [6].


Notes to the Editor:

[1] YouGov poll results based on a UK sample of 2093, with 835 respondents indicating that they are Tesco shoppers. Research undertaken from March 5-9 2021.

a. UK shoppers demand deforestation-free meat and are willing to move to more sustainable brands:

56% of those surveyed and 57% of Tesco shoppers would be somewhat or very likely to buy deforestation-free meat, if offered, next time they visit the supermarket.

51% of those surveyed and 53% of Tesco shoppers indicated that they would be somewhat or very likely to shop at another supermarket if that other store did more to protect consumers from consuming ‘deforesting’ chicken, pork, beef, or offered a wider range of deforestation-free meat products.

b. Lack of trust in UK supermarkets when it comes to deforestation:

54% of those surveyed and 54% of Tesco shoppers indicated that they did not feel that their supermarket was honest or transparent on the origins of their meat and links to deforestation.

62% of those surveyed and 65% of Tesco shoppers said that they do not trust supermarkets very much or at all in dealing with deforestation. 

c. Overwhelming sentiment that supermarkets should not do business with companies that are driving the destruction of forests in Brazil:  

87% of those surveyed, and 88% of Tesco shoppers indicated that supermarkets should not do business with companies that are driving deforestation in Brazil.

83% of those surveyed and 83% of Tesco shoppers said that that they believe that supermarkets should have an obligation to act on deforestation.

[2] Each month, Mighty Earth and research organization Aidenvironment use satellite-based deforestation alerts from Brazilian government agencies, property imagery, investigations by the local team and engagement with the companies to establish the links between soy traders, beef processors and forest destruction in Brazil. Mighty Earth’s Soy & Cattle Deforestation Tracker connects instances of large-scale land clearance in the Amazon and Cerrado to soy traders and meatpackers. It does not capture all deforestation in Brazil, which is many times larger. The full dataset and methodology are available at

[3] Global Deforestation Rates & Statistics by Country | GFW ( According to Brazil’s space agency (INPE) deforestation of the Amazon rainforest in the country has surged to a 12-year high.

[4] Market share analysis, Kantar, 21.03.21 – Financial results –

[5] Consumer Goods Forum, Resolutions and Commitment]

[6] According to Mighty Earth’s Soy and Cattle Deforestation Tracker published today, Bunge and Cargill are the worst performing soy traders assessed, despite their recent sustainability reports touting their nearly deforestation-free supply chains. Cargill is linked to more than 66,000 hectares of clearance – the largest amount out of any other soy trader. Meanwhile, Bunge is linked to almost 60,000 hectares of clearance, of which more than a third took place in protected areas. More on

[7] FERN, ‘What are the Causes of Deforestation?’

Peiling: 85% Albert Heijn-klanten Vindt dat Supermarkten Geen Zaken Moeten Doen met Aanjagers Ontbossing

Peiling: 85% Albert Heijn-klanten Vindt dat Supermarkten Geen Zaken Moeten Doen met Aanjagers Ontbossing

Nieuw onderzoek laat zien dat ontbossing gelinkt aan supermarktvlees toeneemt

Een overweldigende meerderheid van de Albert Heijn klanten in Nederland (85%) vindt dat supermarkten geen zaken moeten doen met bedrijven die vernietiging van bossen in Brazilië aanjagen. Dit blijkt uit een nieuwe YouGov-enquête voor Mighty Earth [1]. 

Terwijl de gedetecteerde ontbossing in de soja- en vlees aanvoerketens toeneemt, blijft de supermarktgigant zakendoen met bedrijven, zoals agro-multinationals JBS, Cargill en Bunge die het meest verantwoordelijk zijn voor het aanjagen van ontbossing. 

Nieuwe gegevens in de vandaag gepubliceerde Ontbossing Monitor voor Soja en Vlees van Mighty Earth laten zien dat er tweemaal zoveel ontbossing gelinkt aan soja-leveranciers aan Nederland is gedetecteerd.[2]

De Ontbossing Monitor bestrijkt de periode maart 2019-maart 2021 en toont aan dat de twee grootste Europese importeurs van soja, Bunge en Cargill, de slechtst presterende sojahandelaren zijn. Cargill is verbonden aan meer dan 66.000 hectare ontbossing, terwijl Bunge verbonden is met bijna 60.000 hectare ontbossing, in beide gevallen een gebied van drie keer de oppervlakte van Amsterdam. [3] 

Wouter Kolk, Directeur Nederland van Mighty Earth: Ontbossing in Brazilië, gedreven door soja voor supermarktvlees, wordt elk jaar erger. Dit voedt de klimaatcrisis en draagt bij aan de verwoesting van het leefgebied van kwetsbare diersoorten zoals de jaguar. Hoog tijd dat Albert Heijn luistert naar haar klanten en bedrijven die ontbossing aanjagen, zoals Cargill en Bunge, uitsluit. 

Uit onderzoek van Greenpeace Nederland blijkt dat Albert Heijn, van alle bedrijven in de sojaketen, het meeste verdient aan deze handel.  

Sigrid Deters, campagneleider bij Greenpeace zegt daarover: “Het is van de zotte dat bedrijven zoals Albert Heijn wel de lusten, maar niet de lasten willen dragen van de sojahandel. Als je je medeverantwoordelijkheid voor misstanden niet kunt uitsluiten, dan moet je zo’n grondstof niet meer gebruiken. Om bedrijven te verplichten om ontbossing uit hun keten te weren, pleiten wij voor een stevige EU-bossenwet.” 

Albert Heijn lijkt de kritiek inmiddels ter harte te nemen. In een vandaag gepubliceerde verklaring op haar website doet de supermarkt een belangrijke nieuwe ontbossingvrij belofte: “Albert Heijn accepteert daarom geen soja voor gebruik in onze (in)directe toeleveringsketens die in verband gebracht kan worden met ontbossing of landconversie die na 1 augustus 2020 heeft plaatsgevonden. Wij gaan samen met onze leveranciers en alle schakels in onze toeleveringsketen werken om een aanpak te implementeren om dit te kunnen borgen.”  

Wouter Kolk:Dit is een belangrijke stap van Albert Heijn, die gevolgd moet worden door Lidl, Aldi, Jumbo en andere supermarkten. Het is echter essentieel dat Albert Heijn deze ontbossingvrij belofte nu ook waarmaakt met concrete acties, waaronder het uitsluiten van sojaleveranciers die weigeren mee te werken.” 

Andere supermarkten en fastfoodbedrijven in Nederland verkopen ook industrieel vlees dat ontbossing voedt, waaronder Jumbo, Lidl en Aldi. Albert Heijn is marktleider in Nederland en onderdeel van Ahold Delhaize, een van de tien grootste supermarktketens ter wereld. Ahold kwam recent als een van de slechtst scorende supermarkten uit de bus in een onderzoek naar de aanpak van ontbossing in de vleesproductieketen. Het moederbedrijf van Albert Heijn boekte vorig jaar, tijdens de pandemie, een recordwinst 74,7 miljard euro (een stijging van 18%).

Wouter Kolk: “Meer dan 10 jaar geleden beloofde Albert Heijn en andere supermarkten plechtig dat ze ontbossing uit hun aanvoerketens in 2020 zouden verbannen. Het is hoog tijd dat Albert Heijn en ander supermarkten die gebroken belofte alsnog inlossen.” 

NGO Mighty Earth lanceert de #StopFeedingDeforestation campagne om ervoor te zorgen dat Albert Heijn en andere supermarkten nu doorpakken en geen zaken meer doen met bedrijven die, in de soja- en vleesproductieketen van de supermarkten, de verwoesting van het Braziliaanse Amazonegebied en de Cerrado-savanne aanjagen. 

75% van de Nederlandse supermarktklanten vindt volgens de YouGov-enquête dat supermarkten moeten worden verplicht om actie te ondernemen tegen ontbossing.  

Industriële vleesproductie is een belangrijke oorzaak van het verwoesten van bossen door vee- en sojateelt om kippen en varkens te voeren. Een recent rapport van het Wereld Natuurfonds (WWF) toont aan dat soja (nr.1) en rundvlees (nr. 3) twee van de drie grondstoffen zijn die in de EU worden ingevoerd en die tussen 2005 en 2017 de meeste ontbossing veroorzaakte. Nederland komt uit hetzelfde onderzoek per hoofd van de bevolking naar voren als meest gelinkte Europese land aan ontbossing. Volgens het CBS importeerde Nederland in eerste helft van 2020 40% meer Braziliaanse sojabonen (1,6 miljard kilogram) dan het jaar ervoor. 

De toenemende ontbossing, gedreven door soja- en vleeshandelaren, past binnen de algehele stijging van ontbossing in Brazilië. Vorig jaar steeg de ontbossing in Brazilië met 25% tot 1,7 miljoen hectare, blijkt uit onderzoek van de Universiteit van Maryland en het digitale monitoringplatform Global Forest Watch [4]. 

De Ontbossing Monitor van Mighty Earth heeft 235 specifieke gevallen van ontbossing en landconversie geregistreerd en gerapporteerd aan bedrijven als JBS, Cargill en Bunge. In slechts één van die gevallen heeft een bedrijf de banden verbroken met een soja-boerderij die land heeft ontbost. 

Landbouw is wereldwijd de belangrijkste aanjager van ontbossing. 80% van het wereldwijde bosverlies is toe te schrijven aan het kappen van bossen voor landbouwgrond om landbouwproducten te produceren, zoals rundvlees, soja en palmolie [5]. 


Opmerkingen voor de redactie:

[1]YouGov-enquête resultaten:

  1. Nederlanders willen ontbossingsvrij vlees en zijn bereid om over te stappen op duurzamere merken
    1. Meer dan de helft (56%) van de Nederlandse supermarktklanten zouden (zeer/enigszins) waarschijnlijk ontbossingsvrij vlees kopen.
    2. Een meerderheid van Albert Heijn’s klanten (55%) zou naar een andere supermarkt verhuizen als die meer zouden doen om klanten te beschermen tegen het consumeren van ‘ontbossende’ kip-, rund en varkensvlees.
  1. Gebrek aan vertrouwen in supermarkten als het gaat om ontbossing
    1. Meer dan de helft (53%) van de supermarktklanten denkt dat supermarkten niet erg, of helemaal niet transparant/eerlijk zijn over de link tussen supermarktvlees en ontbossing.
    2. Iets meed dan de helft (51%) van de supermarktklanten vertrouwt supermarkten niet erg, of helemaal niet om ontbossing aan te pakken.
  1. Klanten willen niet dat supermarkten zakendoen met bedrijven die de vernietiging van bossen in Brazilië aanjagen.
    1. Meer dan vier op de 5 Nederlanders vindt dat supermarkten geen zaken moeten doen met bedrijven die betrokken zijn bij ontbossing in Brazilië. (85% van de Albert Heijn klanten)
    2. Drie van de vier (75%) van de Albert Heijn-klanten vindt dat supermarkten moeten worden verplicht om actie te ondernemen tegen ontbossing.

Dieetgewoonten van meer dan 1000 ondervraagden in Nederland: 54% zijn vleeseters; 19% Flexitariër; 8% Vegetariërs + Pescetariër + Plantaardige diëten; 1% Veganisten.

De totale steekproefgrootte in Nederland was 1004 volwassenen (555 Albert Heijn klanten). Veldwerk werd uitgevoerd tussen 10 – 12 maart 2021. De enquête is online uitgevoerd. De cijfers zijn gewogen en zijn representatief voor alle Nederlandse volwassenen (18+).

[2] Er is slechts één geval van ontbossing ooit opgelost van de 235 die zijn geregistreerd. Elke maand gebruiken MightyEarth en onderzoeksorganisatie Aidenvironment op satellietbeelden gebaseerde ontbossingswaarschuwingen van Braziliaanse overheidsinstanties, eigendomsbeelden, onderzoeken door het lokale team en engagement met bedrijven om de banden tussen sojahandelaren, rundvleesverwerkers en bosvernietiging in Brazilië vast te stellen. Mighty Earth’s Soy&Cattle Deforestation Tracker(Ontbossing Monitor) concrete cases van grootschalige ontbossing en landconversie in de Amazone en Cerrado aan sojahandelaren en vleesverwerkers. Het legt niet alle ontbossing in Brazilië vast. Die is vele malen groter. De volledige dataset en methodologie zijn beschikbaar op

[3] Volgens Mighty Earth’s Ontbossing Monitor voor Soja en Vlees die vandaag is gepubliceerd, zijn Bunge en Cargill de slechtst presterende sojahandelaren, ondanks hun recente duurzaamheidsrapporten die hun bijna ontbossingsvrije toeleveringsketens aanprijzen. Cargill is verbonden met meer dan 66.000 hectare ontbossing en landconversie – het grootste aantal van alle sojahandelaren Inmiddels is Bunge gekoppeld aan bijna 60.000 hectare ontruiming, waarvan ruim een derde in beschermde gebieden. Meer over

[4]Wereldwijde ontbossingspercentages en statistieken per land | GFW ( Volgens de Braziliaanse ruimtevaartorganisatie (INPE) is de ontbossing van het Amazoneregenwoud in het land gestegen tot een hoogtepunt in 12 jaar. Ten opzichte van het vorige jaar was er een stijging van 25%


French- Sondage : Neuf clients de Carrefour sur dix conviennent que les supermarchés ne devraient pas faire affaire avec les déforesteurs

Sondage : Neuf clients de Carrefour sur dix conviennent que les supermarchés ne devraient pas faire affaire avec les déforesteurs

Sondage : Neuf clients de Carrefour sur dix conviennent que les supermarchés ne devraient pas faire affaire avec les déforesteurs.

French- Sondage : Neuf clients de Carrefour sur dix conviennent que les supermarchés ne devraient pas faire affaire avec les déforesteurs

L’inquiétude des consommateurs est forte alors que de nouvelles données montrent que la déforestation liée à la viande de supermarché s’accélère

Les ONGs Mighty Earth et SumOfUs exhortent Carrefour à cesser de s’approvisionner auprès des entreprises impliquées dans la destruction de l’Amazonie et du Cerrado au Brésil.

Une écrasante majorité de clients de Carrefour en France (89%) pense que les supermarchés ne devraient pas commercer avec les entreprises responsables de déforestation au Brésil, comme le montre un nouveau sondage YouGov réalisé pour Mighty Earth [1]. Malgré cela, le géant de la grande distribution continue de s’approvisionner auprès des entreprises les plus impliquées dans la déforestation, notamment Cargill et Bunge, les deux plus grands négociants en soja du monde, et JBS, leader mondial de la viande bovine.

De nouvelles données du Tracker de la déforestation liée au soja et à l’élevage de Mighty Earth, publiées aujourd’hui, ont trouvé deux fois plus de déforestation dans les chaînes d’approvisionnement de ces négociants en soja et de ces transformateurs de viande au cours de l’année écoulée par rapport à l’année précédente [2].

Le suivi couvre la période de mars 2019 à mars 2021 et montre que les deux plus grands importateurs européens de soja, Bunge et Cargill, sont les négociants en soja les moins performants. Cargill est lié au défrichement de plus de 66 000 hectares, tandis que Bunge est lié au défrichement de près de 60 000 hectares. Au total, c’est une superficie équivalant à plus de douze fois celle de Paris qui a été défrichée.

Malgré cette spirale de déforestation, une seule entreprise sur les 235 enregistrées dans le rapport de Mighty Earth’s a définitivement rompu tout lien avec un fournisseur responsable de déforestation.

La tendance à l’aggravation de la déforestation causée par les négociants en soja et en viande est corrélée à l’augmentation globale de la disparition de la forêt brésilienne. L’année dernière, la déforestation au Brésil était supérieure à celle des six pays suivants réunis, selon les données de l’Université du Maryland et de la plate-forme de surveillance numérique Global Forest Watch [3].

La production industrielle de viande implique l’élimination de surfaces forestières pour élever du bétail et pour la culture du soja destiné à la nourriture des poulets, des porcs et des vaches laitières. Le soja et le bœuf sont deux des trois produits importés dans l’UE qui ont entrainé le plus de déforestation entre 2005 et 2017.

Nico Muzi, directeur de la branche Europe de Mighty Earthdéclare: « La destruction des forêts au Brésil due à la vente de viande dans les supermarchés s’aggrave chaque année. Cela accélère le changement climatique et détruit l’habitat du jaguar. De plus, les clients de Carrefour sont clairs : ils demandent à leur supermarché de cesser tout commerce avec les entreprises impliquées dans cette destruction. Il est grand temps que Carrefour écoute ses clients et abandonne tout commerce avec les pires destructeurs des forêts brésiliennes que sont Cargill et Bunge. » 

Carrefour est le plus grand distributeur du Brésil, suite à l’acquisition du détaillant brésilien BIG il y a un mois, et le deuxième plus grand distributeur de France. L’année dernière, et malgré la pandémie, Carrefour a enregistré une croissance record de ses ventes de + 7,8%, réalisant sa meilleure performance en 20 ans [4].

En novembre 2020, Carrefour a mené une campagne volontaire dans ce secteur qui a entraîné tous les grands supermarchés français à s’engager à n’utiliser que du soja sans déforestation dans leurs chaînes d’approvisionnement. Au bout de six mois, Carrefour n’a pas fait de progrès significatifs dans la réduction de ses liens avec les négociants en soja les moins performants Cargill et Bunge, et ne parvient pas à susciter un réel changement sur le terrain [5].

D’autres supermarchés et entreprises de restauration rapide en France comme Leclerc, Casino, Auchan, Lidl, Burger King et Quick sont également coupables de vendre de la viande industrielle qui alimente la déforestation. Mais en tant que plus grand distributeur mondial basé en France et face à l’urgence climatique Carrefour doit montrer la voie, selon Mighty Earth et SumOfUs.

Chaque année, entre juin et septembre, les plus grands négociants en soja du monde s’associent aux grands producteurs brésiliens de soja dans le but de négocier des contrats d’achat pour l’année à venir. C’est la période de l’année où les entreprises se mettent d’accord sur les exigences contractuelles telles que des normes sans OGM ou les clauses empêchant l’achat de soja cultivé sur des terres déboisées après la date butoir de 2020.

Fatah Sadaoui, responsable des campagnes de SumOfUs, déclare : « La savane brésilienne du Cerrado est en grand danger et il faut agir pour la sauver tant qu’il est encore temps. Carrefour, leader français de la grande distribution sur le plan international, a une responsabilité envers notre planète et un devoir envers ses clients : réduire son impact sur les écosystèmes les plus précieux. Le message est limpide, les consommateurs sont inquiets et ils veulent un changement. Seulement, ni le Cerrado ni les 11 000 espèces qu’il abrite ne peuvent attendre davantage. En somme, ce que l’on attend de Carrefour, c’est d’agir au plus vite pour aider à sauver ce bijou de biodiversité ». 

L’agriculture est le principal moteur de la déforestation dans le monde. 80% de la disparition mondiale de forêts est due à la conversion des forêts en terres agricoles pour produire des denrées telles que le bœuf, le soja et l’huile de palme [6].


Notes à l’éditeur:

[1] Résultats du sondage YouGov:

  1. Les Français soutiennent la viande sans déforestation et sont prêts à passer à des marques plus durables
    a. Quatre citoyens français sur cinq (et 81% des clients de Carrefour) achèteraient très probablement de la viande sans déforestation la prochaine fois qu’ils se rendraient au supermarché si on leur en offrait
    b. Les deux tiers (66% pour tous et 69% des clients de Carrefour) changeraient de supermarché si celui-ci agissait davantage contre la consommation de poulet et de porc «déforestants».
  2. Manque de confiance dans les supermarchés en matière de déforestation.
    a. Les deux tiers (66%) ne font pas confiance aux supermarchés pour lutter contre la déforestation
    b. 86% pensent que les supermarchés ont l’obligation d’agir contre la déforestation.
  3. Rejet massif des supermarchés qui commercent avec des entreprises qui sont à l’origine de la destruction des forêts brésiliennes.
    a. Neuf Français sur 10 (89%) ont déclaré que les supermarchés ne devraient pas commercer avec des entreprises à l’origine de la destruction des forêts brésiliennes.
    b. 85% pensent que les gouvernements devraient obliger les supermarchés à agir contre la déforestation.

Habitudes alimentaires de plus de 2000 personnes interrogées en France: 66% consomment de la viande; 14% sont flexitariens; 5% sont végétariens + pescatariens + régimes à base de plantes; 1% sont végétaliens.

La taille totale de l’échantillon en France était de 2031 adultes. Le travail de terrain a été réalisé du 10 au 12 mars 2021. L’enquête a été réalisée en ligne. Les chiffres ont été pondérés et sont représentatifs de l’ensemble des adultes en France (18 ans et plus)

[2] Chaque mois, Mighty Earth et l’organisation de recherche Aidenvironment utilisent les alertes de déforestation par satellite des agences gouvernementales brésiliennes, des images de propriété, des enquêtes menées par l’équipe locale et un engagement avec les entreprises pour établir les liens entre les commerçants de soja, les transformateurs de bœuf et la destruction des forêts en Brésil. Le suivi de la déforestation du soja et du bétail de Mighty Earth relie les cas de défrichement à grande échelle en Amazonie et au Cerrado aux commerçants de soja et aux transformateurs de viande. Il ne rend pas compte de toute la déforestation au Brésil, qui est beaucoup  plus importante.

La totalité des données et la méthodologie sont disponibles sur :

[3] Taux et statistiques de déforestation dans le monde par pays / GFW ( Selon l’agence spatiale brésilienne (INPE), la déforestation de la forêt amazonienne dans le pays a atteint un niveau record en 12 ans.

[4] Carrefour a réalisé de solides performances en 2020, notamment dans ses pays clés: la France, l’Espagne et le Brésil. En France, les ventes ont progressé de 3,6%; L’Espagne a enregistré une augmentation de  +7,1% tandis que le Brésil a enregistré une croissance record de + 18,2%, avant l’achat de BIG. Tous les résultats financiers sont ici.

[5] Selon l’enquête de  Mighty Earth’s Soy and Cattle Deforestation Tracker publiée aujourd’hui, Bunge et Cargill sont les négociants de soja les moins performants, malgré leurs récents rapports en matière de développement durable  vantant leurs chaînes d’approvisionnement presque sans déforestation. Cargill est liée à plus de 66 000 hectares de défrichement – la plus grande surface parmi tous les autres négociants en soja. Parallèlement, Bunge est lié à près de 60 000 hectares de défrichement, dont plus d’un tiers dans des aires protégées.

Plus d’informations sur :

[6] Les causes de la déforestation – FERN :

German- Umfrage: 89% der EDEKA-Kunden sind der Meinung, dass Supermärkte keine Geschäfte mit Abholzern machen sollten

Umfrage: 89% der EDEKA-Kunden sind der Meinung, dass Supermärkte keine Geschäfte mit Abholzern machen sollten

Umfrage: 89% der EDEKA-Kunden sind der Meinung, dass Supermärkte keine Geschäfte mit Abholzern machen sollten

German- Umfrage: 89% der EDEKA-Kunden sind der Meinung, dass Supermärkte keine Geschäfte mit Abholzern machen sollten

Die Besorgnis der Verbraucher ist groß, da neue Daten zeigen, dass die Abholzung von Wäldern in Verbindung mit Supermarktfleisch zunimmt

Die NGO Mighty Earth drängt EDEKA, die Beziehungen zu Lieferanten, die die Zerstörung von Brasiliens Amazonas und Cerrado vorantreiben, aufzukündigen.

Eine überwältigende Mehrheit der Kunden von EDEKA in Deutschland (89 %) ist der Meinung, dass Supermärkte keine Geschäfte mit den Unternehmen, die die Zerstörung der Wälder in Brasilien vorantreiben, tätigen sollten, wie eine neue YouGov-Umfrage im Auftrag von Mighty Earth zeigt [1]. Dennoch bezieht der Supermarktriese weiterhin Güter von den Unternehmen, die am stärksten für die Abholzung der Wälder verantwortlich sind, wie beispielsweise JBS, einem der weltweit größten Rindfleischunternehmen, sowie Cargill und Bunge, den beiden größten Sojahändlern der Welt.

Neue, heute vom Mighty Earth’s Soy and Cattle Deforestation Tracker publizierte Daten, zeigen, dass in den Lieferketten dieser Sojahändler und Fleischverpacker im vergangenen Jahr doppelt so viel Wald abgeholzt wurde wie im Vorjahr [2].

Das Gutachten schließt den Zeitraum von März 2019 bis März 2021 ein und zeigt, dass die beiden größten europäischen Importeure von Soja, nämlich die Unternehmen Bunge und Cargill, die am schlechtesten abschneidenden Sojahändler sind. Cargill steht mit mehr als 66.000 Hektar Rodung – einer Fläche sechsmal so groß wie Paris – in Verbindung, während Bunge mit fast 60.000 Hektar Abholzung in Verbindung steht.

Doch trotz dieser Abholzungsspirale hat nur in einem einzigen Fall – von 235 Fällen, die vom Mighty Earth’s Deforestation Tracker erfasst und gemeldet wurden – ein Unternehmen die Verbindung zu einem Lieferanten, der nachweislich Land gerodet hat, aufgekündigt.

Der Verschlechterungstrend bei der Abholzung, der von Soja- und Fleischhändlern vorangetrieben wird, korreliert mit dem allgemeinen Anstieg des Waldschwunds in Brasilien. Im vergangenen Jahr war die Abholzung in Brasilien den Daten der University of Maryland und der digitalen Überwachungsplattform Global Forest Watch zufolge größer als in den nachfolgenden sechs Ländern zusammen [3].

Die industrielle Fleischproduktion beinhaltet die Abholzung von Wäldern, um Rinder zu züchten und Soja als Futter für Hühner, Schweine und Milchkühe anzubauen. Soja und Rindfleisch waren von 2005 bis 2017 zwei der drei in die EU importierten Güter, die die meiste Abholzung verursachten.

Martin Caldwell, der deutsche Direktor von Mighty Earth, sagt: „Die Waldzerstörung in Brasilien, angetrieben durch das Supermarktfleisch, wird von Jahr zu Jahr schlimmer. Dies beschleunigt den Klimawandel und vernichtet die Heimat des Jaguars. Außerdem sagen die Kunden von EDEKA es ganz deutlich – sie fordern von ihrem Supermarkt, keine Geschäfte mehr mit den Unternehmen zu machen, die an dieser Zerstörung beteiligt sind. Es wird höchste Zeit, dass EDEKA auf seine Kunden hört und mit den am schlechtesten abschneidenden Unternehmen, die die Zerstörung der brasilianischen Wälder vorantreiben – JBS, Cargill and Bunge ­– nicht mehr zusammenarbeitet.“ 

EDEKA ist Deutschlands größte Supermarktgruppe mit einem Marktanteil von 24 % und mehr als 4300 Filialen. EDEKA bewirbt sein Nachhaltigkeitskonzept mit der aktuellen TV-Werbekampagne „Wir & Jetzt für mehr Nachhaltigkeit” – ebenso online und in den Geschäften. [4]

EDEKA hat sich ausdrücklich verpflichtet, die Abholzung von Wäldern in all seinen Lieferketten zu unterbinden. Im Nachhaltigkeitsbericht von EDEKA aus dem Jahr 2019 gibt das Unternehmen zu, dass es nur wenig Fortschritte bei der Verbesserung der Nachhaltigkeit seiner Lieferketten im Hinblick auf Fleisch aus Sojafütterung gemacht hat. [5] Allerdings hat es sich noch nicht dazu verpflichtet, die schlechtesten Sojahändler, Cargill und Bunge, auszuschließen, und somit versäumt, Veränderungen vor Ort voranzutreiben. [6]

Laut der YouGov-Umfrage glauben fast zwei Drittel der deutschen Käufer nicht, dass sich die Supermärkte mit der Abholzung von Wäldern befassen.

Auch andere Supermärkte in Deutschland, darunter die Rewe-Gruppe, Aldi Nord, Aldi Süd, Lidl, Kaufland und Metro, sind schuld am Verkauf des Industriefleisches, das die Abholzung der Wälder vorantreibt. Aber als größter deutscher Einzelhändler und angesichts der Dringlichkeit des Klimanotstands muss EDEKA eine Vorreiterrolle übernehmen, sagt Mighty Earth.

Martin Caldwell fügt hinzu: „Es ist jetzt an der Zeit, den Wandel in Brasilien voranzutreiben. EDEKA muss nun den Worten Taten folgen lassen und die Bezugsquellen für Soja weg von den schlimmsten Unternehmen, die die Abholzung vorantreiben, hin zu sauberen Lieferanten verlagern.“

Die Landwirtschaft ist weltweit der Hauptverursacher der Abholzung von Wäldern. 80 % des globalen Waldverlustes ist der Umwandlung von Wäldern in Ackerland zur Produktion von Agrarrohstoffen wie Rindfleisch, Soja und Palmöl zuzuschreiben [7].

Hinweise für die Redaktion:

[1] Ergebnisse der YouGov-Umfrage:

  1. Die Deutschen fordern Fleisch, das frei von Abholzung ist, und sind bereit, auf nachhaltigere Marken umzusteigen
    1. Mehr als zwei Drittel (68 %) der Deutschen und 70 % der Kunden von EDEKA (80 %) würden beim nächsten Besuch im Supermarkt wahrscheinlich Fleisch kaufen, das frei von Abholzung ist, wenn es angeboten würde.
    2. Fast zwei Drittel (62 % von allen – 66 % der Kunden von EDEKA) würden zu einem anderen Supermarkt wechseln, wenn dieser die Kunden stärker vor dem Konsum von „abholzendem“ Hühner- und Schweinefleisch schützen würde.
  1. Mangelndes Vertrauen in Supermärkte, wenn es um die Abholzung von Wäldern geht
    1. 60 % der Deutschen bringen ihrem Supermarkt kein Vertrauen in den Umgang mit Abholzung entgegen – bei den Kunden von EDEKA sind es sogar 63 %.
    2. 79 % sind der Meinung, dass die Supermärkte verpflichtet sind, etwas gegen die Abholzung zu tun.
  1. Die Ablehnung von Supermärkten, die mit Unternehmen Geschäfte machen, die die Zerstörung der Wälder in Brasilien vorantreiben, ist überwältigend
    1. Neun von zehn Personen (87 % von allen und 89 % der Kunden von EDEKA) sagten, dass Supermärkte mit den Unternehmen, die die Zerstörung der Wälder in Brasilien vorantreiben, keine Geschäfte machen sollten.
    2. 75 % der Deutschen denken, dass Regierungen Supermärkte dazu verpflichten sollten, gegen die Abholzung vorzugehen.
  1. 66 % der Deutschen würden eine Änderung ihrer Ernährung in Erwägung ziehen, wenn sie wüssten, dass die Fleischproduktion die Abholzung der Wälder vorantreibt.

Die Stichprobe umfasste insgesamt 2034 Erwachsene. Die Feldforschung wurde zwischen dem 5. und 9. März 2021 durchgeführt.

Die Befragung wurde online durchgeführt. Die Zahlen wurden gewichtet und sind repräsentativ für alle deutschen Erwachsenen (18 Jahre und älter).

[2] Jeden Monat nutzen Mighty Earth und die Forschungsorganisation Aidenvironment satellitengestützte Abholzungswarnungen von brasilianischen Regierungsbehörden, Grundstücksbilder, Untersuchungen der Teams vor Ort und die Zusammenarbeit mit den Unternehmen, um die Verbindungen zwischen Sojahändlern, Rindfleischverarbeitern und der Waldzerstörung in Brasilien herzustellen. Mighty Earth’s Soy & Cattle Deforestation Tracker stellt eine Verbindung zwischen Fällen von großflächiger Landrodung im Amazonasgebiet und Cerrado und Sojahändlern und Fleischverpackern her. Er erfasst nicht die gesamte Entwaldung in Brasilien, die um ein Vielfaches größer ist. Der komplette Datensatz und die Methodik sind unter verfügbar.

[3] Globale Abholzungsraten und -statistiken nach Land | GFW ( Der brasilianischen Raumfahrtbehörde (INPE) zufolge ist die Abholzung des Regenwalds im Amazonasgebiet auf ein Zwölfjahreshoch angestiegen.

[4] EDEKAs TV-Werbung „Wir und Jetzt für mehr Nachhaltigkeit“.

[5] EDEKAs Nachhaltigkeitsbericht 2019.ökologisches-engagement/wwf/edeka_wwf-fortschrittsbericht-2019.pdf

[6] Laut der heutigen Veröffentlichung vom Mighty Earth’s Soy and Cattle Deforestation Tracker sind Bunge und Cargill die schlechtesten Sojahändler, obwohl sie in ihren jüngsten Nachhaltigkeitsberichten ihre nahezu abholzungsfreien Lieferketten rühmen. Cargill wird für mehr als 66.000 Hektar Abholzung verantwortlich gemacht – das ist der höchste Wert von allen Sojahändlern. Unterdessen steht Bunge in Verbindung mit fast 60.000 Hektar Abholzung – davon mehr als ein Drittel in Naturschutzgebieten. Erfahren Sie mehr auf

[7] Welches sind die Gründe für die Abholzung? – Fern

Mighty Earth’s new monitoring data reveals deforestation connected to soy trader and meatpackers in Brazil more than doubled over two-year period

Mighty Earth’s new monitoring data reveals deforestation connected to soy trader and meatpackers in Brazil more than doubled over two-year period

The largest soy traders and meatpackers in Brazil have failed on their promises to end deforestation in their supply chains and continue to do business with suppliers that are destroying rainforests and savanna. 

review of the past two years of monitoring data (March 2019-March 2021) demonstrates that deforestation detected in companies’ supply chains more than doubled in the second year of monitoring compared to the firstHowever, despite this escalating crisis, only one case of deforestation has ever been resolved by these companies out of the 235 recorded by our monitoring.  

Thupdated tracker includes new data from Mighty Earth’s three latest Rapid Response reportsreleased in partnership with Aidenvironment. The new data builds on the original version of the tracker and policy brief released in December 2020 to encompass a full two years of monitoring (March 2019-March 2021.) 

Key Findings: 

  • The tracker update reveals that major soy traders and meatpackers are linked to more than 314,000 hectares deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado over the past two years (March 2019 to March 2021) -- an area larger than twice the size of London. Yet, out of 235 cases of deforestation that Mighty Earth has sent to companies, only one has ever been resolved. 
  • The data reveals a pattern of escalating amounts of deforestation carried out by soy trader and meatpacker suppliers. On average, deforestation connected to supply chains of soy traders and meatpackers more than doubled over a two-year period of monitoring. This pattern mirrors increasing rates of deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado biomes overall during this time periodi. 
  • JBS was the worst-scoring meatpacker and company overall. It has been linked to 100,000 hectares of clearance the past two years – an area larger than all of Berlin. 75 percent of this clearance occurred in protected areas, making it potentially illegal under Brazilian law.  
  • Bunge and Cargill are the worst performing soy traders, despite their recent sustainability reports touting their nearly deforestation-free supply chainsBunge is linked to almost 60,000 hectares of clearance – more than a third of which took place in protected areas. Meanwhile, Cargill is linked to more than 66,000 hectares of clearance -- the largest amount out of any other soy trader.  
  • While no company performs well in the tracker, some are performing better than others, such as Amaggi and Louis Dreyfus out of the soy traders. 

Many US supermarkets continue to buy from Bunge, Cargill, and/or JBS despite these numbers – including Costco, Walmart, and Kroger. Bunge, Cargill, and JBS are also major suppliers to European supermarkets, including Tesco, EDEKA, Carrefour and Albert Heijn (Ahold Delhaize.)

In addition to the worst-scorer JBS above, the other two meatpackers included in the tracker, Marfrig and Minerva, are also poor performers, having been connected to more than 50,000 hectares of clearance eachMost of this clearance is potentially illegal, having occurred in protected areas. Much of the deforestation included in the meatpackers’ scores is related to their indirect suppliers, which meatpackers currently cannot fully trace and therefore cannot monitor for deforestation. 

Although Mighty Earth sends all instances of deforestation detected in our monitoring system to meatpackers and soy traders on a monthly basisthey very rarely take action on the suppliers responsible for the destruction. Only one case of deforestation has ever been resolved by a company, out of 235 cases to date that Mighty Earth sent to companies in the past two years 

One example of this inaction is meatpackers continuing to source from Agropecuária Santa Bárbara Xinguara (AgroSB a company that has direct and indirect links to JBS, Marfrig, and Minerva. Mighty Earth and Aidenvironment have caught AgroSB deforesting or setting fires on six separate occasions during the past two yearsAgroSB has also been accused of exploiting workers and money laundering.ii The clearance carried out by AgroSB now totals more than 2,800 hectares, more than 2,200 of which occurred in protected areas. The clearance could have been stopped long ago, but inaction from meatpackers allows business to continue as usual.  

Similarly, Cargill and Bunge continue to source from SLC Agrícola despite repeated deforestation cases connecting the supplier to more than 11,000 hectares of clearance over our two years of monitoring. Furthermore, SLC Agrícola is associated with $200 million land grabbing corruption schemeiii. While SLC Agrícola committed to stop deforesting in 2020, it admitted it still had more clearing to do before implementing the commitment and has actively opposed a deforestation cut-off date in the Cerradoiv. It also recently bought 8 new properties through its acquisition of Terra Santa Agro, one of which overlaps with more than 18,000 hectares of Indigenous land in Mato Grossov 

AgroSB and SLC Agrícola are examples of how the agricultural groups and property owners implicated in deforestation cases are often also connected to land conflicts, labor rights violations, government bribery and environmental crimes, which are further detailed in our Rapid Response reports. 

Beyond the issue of deforestation, many cases added to the tracker involve the concerning use of fire. About half of the deforestation cases from Rapid Response reports added to the latest tracker update also involved fire incidences. Often, producers use fire to clear debris from bulldozed trees after they’ve deforested. Fires set by agricultural companies can often spread out of control, resulting in the destruction of land and air quality of Indigenous and local communitiesvi. The worst performers in the tracker tended to be linked to more fire incidences. For instance, 63 percent of new cases connected to Bunge included in the updated tracker involved fire events on the property. Meanwhile, 55 percent of new cases connected to JBS involved fires. 

Ultimately, no company featured in the tracker can claim a clean supply chainAll companies in the tracker lack full traceability of their direct and/or indirect supply chain and therefore are limited in their validation and investigation of our reports of deforestation. Even the best performer in the tracker, soy trader Amaggi, still only earns a total of 56 points out of 100 points and is connected to more than 5,000 hectares of clearance. 

The Solution 

The buyers and financiers of the soy traders and meatpackers must take significant action that includes contractual penalties if significantly more progress on their zero-deforestation commitments is not made by supplying traders and meatpackersThey should ensure that the soy traders and meatpackers in their supply chain: 

1) Agree to a cut-off date for deforestation in the Cerrado with a 2020 cut-off date 

2) Adopt zero deforestation and zero conversion commitments for all sourcing areas, including those outside of Brazil. 

2) Adopt a suspend-then-engage approach to suppliers with widespread conversion, either legal or illegal 

3) Develop a publicly available joint-monitoring system that includes transparent traceability to farm-level for all suppliers 

4) Commit to the advancement of corporate and government policies that protect Indigenous land and secure workers’ rights 

Want to learn more about our methodology? 

*Data reflects company responses as of April 15 2021 

Want to take action? 

Visit our petition page  

President Biden

Biden Climate Summit Requires Bold Industrial Decarbonization Plan

By Phelim Kine and Megan Larkin

U.S. President Joseph R. Biden’s virtual Earth Day Summit will commence on April 22 on a hopeful note. The European Union on April 21 struck a tentative climate accord designed to ensure that the 27-nation grouping reaches carbon neutrality by 2050. And Biden’s climate czar, John Kerry, and his Chinese counterpart, Xie Zenhua, pledged on April 18 to take joint "concrete actions in the 2020s to reduce emissions aimed at keeping the Paris Agreement-aligned temperature limit within reach."

That’s the good news.

The challenge: Reaching consensus on key government priorities essential to reduce carbon emissions that are fueling the already evident negative impacts of climate change. There’s a ready short list – stopping tropical deforestation and accelerating a global transition to renewable energy. But the summit’s true success hinges on states’ concrete commitments to decarbonization of the heavy industry sector which constitutes around 18 percent of all global carbon emissions. The World Steel Institute estimates the steel sector is responsible for approximately eight percent of total global carbon emissions. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that dramatic cuts in those emissions are essential to limit global warming to 1.5°C by 2050. The IPCC warns that failure to meet that target will greatly increase “climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth.”

A growing number of the world’s largest steel companies have proactively announced that they’ll reduce their carbon emissions over the next three decades. ArcelorMittal committed on March 17 to the development and rollout of two low-carbon steel product lines including a “certified green steel” line and a low-carbon recycled steel line, respectively. Japan’s Nippon Steel has set a target of reducing its carbon emissions by 30 percent by 2030, prompting similar pledges from rivals including South Korean steelmaker POSCO and China’s state-owned Baowu Steel. And some of the world’s largest automakers are demanding that their steel suppliers provide them “green steel” car parts for their rapidly expanding lines of carbon neutral electrical vehicles.

Those corporate commitments are laudable. But decarbonizing the world’s heavy industry sector, starting with steel, is a nonstarter unless governments back up the private sector’s best intentions toward decarbonization with funding and supportive policy and regulatory initiatives. Pilot carbon reduction projects by ArcelorMittal, Tata Steel and Swedish steelmaker SSAB have hinged on millions of Euros in government support. That funding is a fraction of what is required to transition the entire global steel sector to carbon neutral status by 2050. POSCO has underscored the financial challenge of that transition when it revealed that replacement of its nine existing high carbon emission blast furnaces with carbon-neutral facilities will cost the “equivalent to its 30-year operating profit.”

Mighty Earth and The Climate Group have collaborated to create a new international multistakeholder policy tool that provides a common playbook outlining the respective responsibilities of governments and the private sector dedicated to accelerate and scale-up the decarbonization of heavy industry, starting with steel,  to align with a 1.5°C global warming trajectory. The Global Framework Principles for Decarbonizing Heavy Industry (“Framework Principles”) launched in February after a drafting process that involved close coordination with industry and policy experts across the globe. These principles constitute the first-ever publicly available global guidance for how to equitably balance economic growth with decarbonization.

The Framework Principles outline the respective roles of governments and private industry to ensure the successful decarbonization of heavy industries – including steel, cement and chemicals – through allocation of public financing for emissions reduction plans. The Framework Principles specify investment in low- and zero-carbon technologies as a top government and corporate priority to help phase out fossil fuel use in industrial processes. The United Kingdom has offered a potential model for meeting this challenge through government-corporate decarbonization partnerships by earmarking an initial US$1.4 billion over 15 years to fund such initiatives. The Framework Principles are grounded in a recognition that decarbonization efforts include biodiversity and human health protections and a commitment to a just transition to a decarbonized industrial future. The growing number of corporate endorsers include Tata Steel Ltd. and JSW cement of India, China’s Jinko Solar and the U.S.-based carbon recycling firm, LanzaTech.

Governments can also play an important role by helping to foster the development of an accepted, universal standard for low-carbon or carbon-zero “green steel.”  Such standards are needed to ensure that corporate carbon neutrality commitments bridge the gap between rhetoric and reality. The ResponsibleSteel coalition, which groups a diverse array of high carbon emission corporations with nongovernmental organizations including Mighty Earth, has developed standards that extend beyond greenhouse gas emission metrics to include “a wide range of social, safety and environmental issues.”

Biden’s challenge as host of the two-day summit is to align the climate pledges of state leaders of countries home to heavily polluting heavy industry sectors, including China, Japan and India, with concrete policy initiatives that will allocate state funding to accelerate industrial decarbonization.  Biden himself has pledged to put “sectoral decarbonization” at the center of his administration’s “green recovery efforts,” but failed to make it a priority of his massive infrastructure spending plans.

Biden’s not alone in that gap between rhetoric and reality. Chinese President Xi Jinping committed in September 2020 to reduce China’s carbon emissions in order to reach carbon neutral status by 2060. But despite China’s status as the world’s largest steel producer, Xi has yet to allocate the trillions of dollars at his disposal via state-owned commercial banks to put wheels on that pledge. Likewise, Japan’s Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga has publicly committed to transition Japan to a decarbonized, zero-emission industrial production model by 2050. But Suga’s failure to date to provide a substantive road map to that target has prompted skepticism in Japan’s business community.  A survey of more than 11,000 large and small Japanese firms about Suga’s carbon neutrality target revealed that only 15.8% of surveyed companies considered it “achievable.”

Most concerning is the disconnect about the essential role of state financing for industrial decarbonization in the Indian government of Prime Minister Nahrendra Modi. RK Singh, India’s Minister of Power, last month derided other countries’ carbon net zero goals as “pie in the sky.” Singh then declared that the onus for decarbonization sat squarely on developed countries by “removing more carbon to the atmosphere than they are adding.” India’s status as the world’s third-largest carbon emitter behind China and the United States makes Singh’s dismissal of his country’s industrial decarbonization obligations particularly incongruous.

There is a growing global consensus that heavy industry decarbonization is essential to avert emission-fueled climate disaster. Biden’s climate summit will demonstrate whether that consensus can produce the necessary vision and political will to make heavy industry decarbonization a reality. 

Phelim Kine is the senior director Asia at the Washington, D.C.-based environmental campaign organization Mighty Earth; Megan Larkin is an Associate at Mighty Earth where she works on its heavy industry decarbonization campaign and business development


Some Measure of Justice

Today’s verdict brought some measure of justice, though for George Floyd and his family above all, this cannot make up for his loss. And while today is a cause for hope, we know there have been so many other unjust verdicts in the past, and so many more cases like this that never even made it to trial. Even since George Floyd’s murder, there have been many other murders under similar circumstances, and daily reminders of violence and racism in our society. We celebrate the progress that was sparked by George Floyd’s death, but know that for Black Americans, they still face daily questions about how American institutions, the justice system, and the American people value their lives. Even with a sense of relief, we have so much to do in our thirst for a more just society.

Automakers Must Drive Global Push for "Green Steel"

By Megan Larkin 

Sweden’s Volvo Cars has seen the future of the automobile: it’s built with carbon neutral “green steel.”

That’s the message that Volvo sent last week when it announced a collaboration with Swedish steel producer SSAB to produce “the world’s first vehicles to be made of fossil-free steel.”  Volvo and SSAB are pioneering a carbon neutral steel production process that this year will produce the first “green steel” concept cars ahead of serial production “within a few years.”

Volvo isn’t alone in that vision of a near-future carbon neutral automobile steel supply chain. Scania, a Swedish truck manufacturer, is investing in H2 Steel, a hydrogen start-up, to jumpstart access to green steel in response to consumer demand. And Boston Metal, an electrolysis-based steel technology start-up has already received seed funding from BMW in a similar venture. BMW has described that investment as part of the German automaker’s aim to disrupt an “extremely pollutive industry.”

These initiatives are essential in order for automakers to meet the growing consumer demands for environmentally friendly automobiles that are driving the rapid expansion of electric vehicle development and production. But automakers increasingly recognize that reducing the carbon footprint of their products must go beyond electrification and address the use of steel in their products.

The average vehicle requires an average of around 2,000 pounds of steel, making the automobile sector a significant consumer of a material that contributes an estimated 8 percent of total annual global carbon emissions. Given its role in global carbon emissions, decarbonizing the steel industry will be integral to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that failure to meet this target will greatly increase “climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth.”

Some of the world’s largest steel makers have already publicly announced that they will transition their production processes to carbon neutral status by 2050. Those companies include ArcelorMittal, Japan’s Nippon Steel, China’s Baowu Steel and POSCO in South Korea.  Those firms deserve credit for setting out such ambitious goals. But what they lack are clear timetable and science-based targets to allow those companies to achieve those objectives. And one of the biggest challenges for steel companies in unveiling the details of those carbon neutrality goals is cost.  Some estimates place the total cost for heavy industrial decarbonization at $11 trillion-$21 trillion through 2050. What steelmakers need, and soon, are assurances from their buyers there is a lucrative, growing market for low carbon or carbon free products that will justify the costly transition to zero emission production systems.

This is where automakers come in. Any demand that automakers make for green steel will communicate to steelmakers the longer-term financial incentives for investing in carbon neutral steel production technologies. Automakers’ massive purchasing power provided by the huge volumes of steel they buy gives them significant influence in the type of steel their suppliers produce. That means that automakers have untapped leverage that they can use to pressure steel makers to transition their current highly carbon intensive production methods to lower carbon or carbon neutral systems.

Automakers seeking to navigate their route to a carbon neutral supply chain now have the resources to coordinate with government: an international, multistakeholder policy tool dedicated to accelerating and scaling-up the decarbonization of heavy industry to align with a 1.5-degree Celsius trajectory. The Global Framework Principles for Decarbonizing Heavy Industry (“Framework Principles”), developed in partnership with The Climate Group, outline the role of government and private industry to ensure the successful decarbonization of heavy industries including steel, cement and chemicals through allocation of public financing for emissions reduction plans. The Framework Principles specify investment in low- and zero-carbon technologies as a top government and corporate priority to help phase out fossil fuel use in industrial processes.

Importantly, the Framework Principles go beyond the obvious targets – heavy industrial producers and manufacturers – and recognize the importance of end users, such as the automotive industry. Principle #3 calls for policies to create buyer demand for “low-carbon, circular, and resource efficient basic material products.” These policies would likely give muscle and leveraging power to end-user demands for green steel.

The automotive industry is waking up to growing consumer demand for environmentally friendly, carbon neutral products, particularly cars. What is needed is a sense of urgency to make the necessary changes to steel production processes in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050. Martin Lindqvist, President and CEO at SSAB, says there is “a new green revolution emerging.” The appetite for green steel technology is there. With stronger partnerships between automakers and green steel technology in reach, he may just be right.

Megan Larkin is an Associate at the Washington, D.C.-based environmental campaign organization Mighty Earth where she works on its heavy industry decarbonization campaign and business development.


Beef Scorecard: Global Food Brands Failing to Address Largest Driver of Deforestation

WASHINGTON, DC – The world's top supermarket and fast-food companies are largely ignoring the environmental and human rights abuses caused by their beef products, a new scorecard by Mighty Earth finds. The scorecard evaluates the beef sourcing practices of fifteen of the world’s largest grocery and fast-food companies that have pledged to end deforestation across their supply chains. Despite beef’s role as the top driver of global deforestation, only four companies- Tesco, Marks & Spencer, Carrefour, and McDonald’s - have taken some action to stop sourcing beef from destructive suppliers.

Scores shown for each food company
Click to Enlarge

“A small handful of global beef suppliers are leading the destruction of our global forests and selling meat to food companies around the world,” said Lucia von Reusner, Senior Campaign Director for Mighty Earth. “Supermarkets and fast-food companies are the gatekeepers in the supply chain that can either enforce sustainability standards or continue to allow meat suppliers to sell beef from deforested land to unwitting customers.”

Public awareness and concern about the environmental impacts of meat production is on the rise. Cattle is the most significant driver of native ecosystem conversion, responsible for over 60% of global deforestation from high-risk commodities between 2001-2015. Mighty Earth’s scorecard reveals how supermarket and fast-food companies are performing against their promises to stop destroying forests. Companies are evaluated on three criteria: policy commitment, monitoring & verification, and public reporting on progress.

Key findings include:

  • Despite the outsized destruction generated by the cattle sector, only four companies – Tesco (65/100), Marks & Spencer (62/100), Carrefour (61/100), and McDonald’s (54/100) – have begun to implement their deforestation and conversion-free (DCF) commitments for beef products.
  • Tesco – at only 65 out of a possible 100 points – was the best performer, followed by Marks & Spencer (62/100) in second place. The two companies were the only ones to demonstrate effective use of the ‘suspend and engage’ approach with their beef suppliers, having cut contracts with non-compliant suppliers and prioritized sourcing from low-risk suppliers.
  • Rewe (9/100), Aldi Süd (14/100), Ahold Delhaize (19/100), and Auchan Retail (24/100) were the worst performing companies according to the scorecard.
  • Most efforts to stop native ecosystem destruction in the beef industry are concentrated in Brazil’s Amazon and do not address other ecosystems, despite increasing evidence that the problem has spread to the Pantanal, Cerrado, the Gran Chaco region of Paraguay and Argentina, the Chiquitania in Bolivia, and even parts of Australia.

The scorecard also provides comprehensive recommendations for steps food companies can take to improve their performance. These recommendations include:

  • No-deforestation policy commitments must apply to all products globally, have a clear date for achieving compliance, include protections for all ecosystems beyond just forests, and have a clear cut-off date after which new deforestation will be considered a violation of the policy.
  • Implementing internal systems for monitoring the performance and compliance of beef suppliers, which includes a ‘suspend and engage’ protocol for non-compliant suppliers.
  • Require beef suppliers to provide data needed to evaluate performance, including full traceability information back to the farm level.
  • Report regularly on progress, including volumes of conversion-free beef, percent of supply chain that is fully traceable back to the farm level, and disclose a list of all beef suppliers.


Joint Statement re: 2021 Revisions to Biomass Plan Development Guidelines (Japan's Feed-in-Tariff)

Japan’s Ministry of Trade, Economy and Industry’s (METI) issued revised “Business Plan Development Guidelines” for biomass power generation under the feed-in-tariff on April 1st, 2021. The undersigned organizations found the revisions inadequate regarding climate change and biodiversity and urge the speedy adoption of greenhouse gas emission limits and stronger criteria regarding the environmental sustainability of biomass fuel.


In October 2020, the Japanese government announced a goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. However, the feed-in-tariff renewable electricity incentive program, which began in 2012, includes no assessment of greenhouse gas emissions. We have particular concerns about biomass power generation, as this form of thermal power generation has potential impacts on forests, ecosystems and biodiversity, and has emissions of greenhouse gases throughout its lifecycle. The Agency for Natural Resources and Energy under METI convened a “sustainability working group” which has held deliberations regarding the sustainability of biomass fuel under the feed-in-tariff. Unfortunately, the guidelines for biomass generation did not undergo significant changes from last year, and lack any sort of greenhouse gas emissions limits, potentially making it more difficult to achieve Japan’s 2050 climate target, protect forests or further the sustainable use of forests.

Japan’s rapid expansion of biomass imports has drawn international concern. In February 2021, more than 500 academics issued a letter (English, Japanese) to Prime Minister Suga and other world leaders warning of deforestation from the use of biomass fuel. In addition, in September 2020, 17 environmental organizations from the United States sent a letter (English, Japanese) to the Japanese government asking for wood pellets to be removed from the feed-in-tariff due to concerns about their impacts on American forests.

Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Limits Needed

The current biomass guidelines lack any limits for greenhouse gas emissions. To address climate change, there needs to be a strict upper limit on lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions limits covering all biomass fuel types. The combustion of biomass originating from forests (primarily wood pellets and wood chips) is especially problematic as it rapidly releases carbon stored in the forests into the atmosphere and also risks the release of carbon accumulated in the soil over a long period of time. Even if forests regrow completely after logging, the time period for this can range from decades to more than one hundred years, so it cannot be said that forest biomass is carbon neutral.

In addition, in cases where the production of biomass fuel causes changes in land-use, including conversion of forests, emissions will be even greater. Furthermore, most of the biomass projects are using fuel imported from overseas and have high greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. We strongly urge the Sustainability Working Group to adopt a strict greenhouse gas emission standard this year in order to contribute towards the 2050 carbon neutrality target.

Palm Oil Should be Removed from the Feed-in-Tariff

We welcome the change in guidelines that limits new biomass fuel types to be included in the feed-in-tariff to “inedible byproducts.” However, we note that palm oil, an “edible primary product,” is still included. This is a major contradiction and palm oil should be removed from eligibility. Under the guidelines, only palm oil that demonstrates sustainability with RSPO or RSB certification can be used. However, neither of them are able to solve the problem of competition between fuel and food and additionally, there are no greenhouse gas thresholds under RSPO criteria.

Sustainability Standards Needed for All Biomass Fuels

After two years since the start of the Sustainability Working Group, there is now a requirement to obtain sustainability certificates for palm oil and palm kernel shells (PKS). However, despite the feed-in-tariff for biomass overwhelmingly supporting the burning of wood, there has not even been any consideration of standards to protect forest ecosystems and biodiversity. There are many important issues to address including protecting forests’ long-term stores of carbon, preventing the conversion of natural forests to tree plantations, stopping forest loss and degradation from logging, preventing the destruction of forest habitat, protecting biodiversity, and more.

In addition, despite the fact that the guidelines specify that certifications for imported woody biomass fuel are required, in reality there have been problematic examples of plants which are operating without forest sustainability certificates and with only proof of legality. A survey found some cases of only “chain of custody” certificates that lack the corresponding “forest management” certificates needed to cover issues related to sustainability in the forests the fuel was sourced from.

To solve this problem, the guidelines need to clarify what is meant by certifications for woody biomass. Deliberations and the implementation of sustainability standards for all types of biomass fuel eligible under the feed-in-tariff are needed urgently.

Transparency and Certification System & Ensuring Compliance

Under these guidelines, power plants using palm oil biomass are required to publish the name of the third-party certificate, the amount of certified fuel, and the identification number for the certified fuel on their website. However, since outside parties cannot access information about the oil processing plant or plantation from the identification number alone, it cannot be said that it ensures transparency. To avoid serious problems like human rights abuses, deforestation and the development of peatlands, etc., it is necessary to require information regarding processing plants and plantations of suppliers to be made public. We ask for similar information disclosure for all types of imported forest-derived biomass.

In addition, at present there is no method for confirming compliance with the measures required by the guidelines under the feed-in-tariff. In the case of byproducts like PKS, where certification requirements are currently postponed, there is a condition requiring the disclosure of details about voluntary efforts and the origins of the fuel (such as the plantation it is from) on the firm’s webpage, but many power plants do not publicize this data. Also, last year the Fukuchiyama City and Maizuru City palm oil plants in Kyoto Prefecture, respectively, stopped operation or were cancelled, and both cases had inadequate consultation with nearby residents. In Fukuchiyama, the neighbors were afflicted with noise and odors which progressed to mediation over pollution-related issues. So as not to have situations like this, it is necessary to establish a system to ensure compliance with the guidelines and sustainability/legality certification with corrective actions for non-compliance.

Compliance Deadlines Should Not be Extended

Until now primary products (palm oil) were required to be certified by March 31, 2021, with a deadline for March 31, 2022 for secondary products (PKS), but they were both extended one year to March 31, 2022 and March 31 2023, respectively. The reason given was that COVID-19 made the procurement of certified products difficult, but extending the grace period means that fuel lacking sustainability certificates will continue to be used. As a result, affected biomass plants can be thought of as having a negative influence on forest ecosystems, biodiversity and human rights. Even with the pandemic, ensuring sustainability should be a basic pre-condition, so it is not necessary to extend this compliance period.

In fiscal year 2020, the discussions of the Sustainability Working Group in 2020 never reached a point where clear criteria regarding lifecycle greenhouse gas standards could be introduced. In addition, there were no deliberations about resolving the many problems related to the sustainability of woody biomass. We urge METI to reconvene this group in 2021 to discuss a greenhouse gas standard and sustainability standards for woody biomass, as both are urgently needed, especially for imported biomass fuel.

(organizations listed in alphabetical order)

Sponsoring organizations:

Biomass Industrial Society Network, Director Miyuki Tomari (Japan)
Friends of the Earth Japan (Japan)
Global Environmental Forum (Japan)

Endorsing organizations:

Australian Forests and Climate Alliance (Australia)
Bob Brown Foundation (Australia)
Dogwood Alliance (USA)
Environment East Gippsland (Australia)
Fridays For Future Sendai (Japan)
HUTAN Group (Japan)
Ichihara Coal Plant Concerns Group (Japan)
Japan Tropical Forest Action Network (Japan)
Kiko Network (Japan)
Maizuru City Western District Environmental Concerns Group (Japan)
Mighty Earth (USA)
Natural Resources Defense Council (USA)
Partnership for Policy Integrity (USA)
Pivot Point (USA)
Plantation Watch(Japan)
Rainforest Action Network (USA)
Sodegaura Residents Policy Study Group (Japan)
Soga Coal Power Plant Concerns Group (Japan)
Solutions for Our Climate (S. Korea) (Canada)
Yokosuka Coal Plant Concerns Group (Japan)
Wilderness Society (Australia)
WWF Japan (Japan)


Rimba Collective Could Be a Game Changer for Commodity Agriculture

Yesterday, the world’s largest palm oil company, Wilmar International, along with palm oil users Nestle, PepsiCo, and Procter & Gamble, joined with Lestari Capital to announce the Rimba Collective, a project to mobilize $1 billion and drive more than one million acres of forest and peat conservation and restoration. Mighty Earth CEO Glenn Hurowitz shared the following statement:

"There’s been great success in persuading large commodity companies to avoid future harm by stopping deforestation, and you can see that in the more than 90% drop in deforestation for palm oil. But until now, few companies have done much of anything to go beyond avoiding harm and make an actual positive contribution to conservation.

"The Rimba Collective announcement begins to change that by pledging to mobilize real dollars for real conservation. This is a far better investment for companies that use palm oil than just throwing money at certification schemes, and has the potential to deliver gigaton-scale climate benefits and expanded habitat for orangutans, tree kangaroos and other wildlife that have been pushed to the edge of extinction by plantation agriculture.

"Of course, just as pledges to stop deforestation only mattered when they were actually implemented on the ground, these conservation commitments will only matter once the money starts flowing and is invested in high-quality conservation that benefits Indigenous and local communities. When that happens, it could be a game changer for commodity agriculture."

ISCO Japanese










国名 プラットフォーム 設立
ドイツ German Initiative on Sustainable Cocoa(GISCO) 2012年6月
スイス Swiss Platform for Sustainable Cocoa(SWISSCO) 2018年1月
ベルギー Beyond Chocolate (持続可能なベルギーのチョコレート産業のためのパートナーシップ、以下「BISCO」) 2018年12月
日本 開発途上国におけるサステイナブル・カカオ・プラットフォーム(ここでは非公式に「JAPANISCO」とする) 2020年1月
オランダ Dutch Initiative on Sustainable Cocoa(DISCO)


フランス フランスのSyndicat du Chocolat(「FRISCO」)
米国 米国は、産業界、政府、市民社会が一堂に会し、持続可能なカカオの輸入に向けた道筋を打ち立てるためのプラットフォームの開発に着手することができず。 N/A
英国 同様に、英国も無策により失敗。 N/A


12 の持続可能性に関する基準には、トレーサビリティーと透明性、森林破壊、アグロフォレストリー、化学物質の使用、児童労働などの問題に関するプラットフォームの構造、コミットメント、目標、活動、政策的立場などが含まれています。森林破壊などの基準は、 Mighty Earthのカカオに関する出版物をご覧になったことがある方にはおなじみのものです。特に、これらの基準の多くは、過去の世界チョコレート成績表でも紹介されています。成績表では、カカオの環境・社会面でのパフォーマンスをランク付けし、個々の基準でのパフォーマンスに「良い」「普通」「悪い」の印をつけ、企業全体のパフォーマンスに点数をつけています。カカオトレーダーやチョコレートメーカーが説明責任を果たし、採点を受けなければならないのと同様に、国レベルでカカオを改革しようとしているプラットフォームもまた、説明責任を果たす必要があります。






レポートを読む (英語)

L’évaluation ISCO examine les plateformes publiques/privées pour un cacao durable

L’évaluation ISCO examine les plateformes publiques/privées pour un cacao durable


Au cours des quatre dernières années, l’industrie du chocolat a adopté plusieurs réformes afin de lutter contre la déforestation, le travail des enfants et d’autres abus ayant cours dans le secteur du cacao.

Parallèlement à d’autres réformes, les “plateformes” public-privé pour un cacao durable, communément appelées “ISCO”, ont proliféré. Les ISCO rassemblent l’industrie, les entités gouvernementales et les organisations de la société civile des pays consommateurs de chocolat afin de promouvoir la durabilité du cacao.

En facilitant la collaboration entre l’industrie, le gouvernement et la société civile, les ISCO définissent des objectifs, fixent des cibles et surveillent les progrès. Elles sont une chance exceptionnelle pouvant permettre à l’industrie de passer à un cacao durable et nous applaudissons les organisations, les entreprises et les institutions qui ont rejoint ces plateformes de durabilité dans le but d’améliorer les performances sociales et environnementales du secteur.

Il faut cependant craindre que, malgré de bonnes intentions, les ISCO aient du mal à mettre leurs engagements en pratique. De plus, sans une pression supplémentaire de la société civile et des citoyens, le risque existe de les voir devenir un outil de blanchiment écologique de l’industrie. Enfin, si chacune des ISCO travaille de façon solitaire en élaborant ses propres définitions, ses ambitions, ses indicateurs de performance clés et si elles ont des dates butoirs divergentes, cela pourrait conduire au chaos plutôt qu’à une pression mondiale synergique en faveur de l’amélioration du secteur du cacao.

L’évaluation des ISCO est mise en œuvre pour exercer une pression en faveur de la synergie plutôt que de la divergence, de l’ordre plutôt que du chaos, des objectifs ambitieux plutôt que de la médiocrité, et aussi pour mettre en évidence les réussites. Nous espérons que cette évaluation encouragera les ISCO à concrétiser leurs engagements. Pour que l’industrie cacaoyère devienne réellement durable, des réformes sont nécessaires dans les pays consommateurs. La cohérence et la clarté seront les meilleurs propulseurs de ces réformes.

Le tableau ci-dessous donne un aperçu des plateformes évaluées :




Allemagne Initiative allemande pour un cacao durable (GISCO)


Juin 2012
Suisse Plate-forme suisse pour un cacao durable (SWISSCO)


Janvier 2018


Belgique Beyond Chocolate (partenariat pour une industrie chocolatière belge durable, “BISCO”)


Décembre 2018
Japon Plate-forme pour un cacao durable pour les pays en développement (dénommée officieusement “JAPANISCO”) Janvier 2020
Pays-Bas Initiative néerlandaise pour un cacao durable (DISCO)



Août 2020
France Le Syndicat du Chocolat (FRISCO)



Les États-Unis n’ont pas réussi à mettre en place une plateforme permettant à l’industrie, au gouvernement et à la société civile de se réunir et de définir une marche à suivre pour les importations de cacao durable.




Royaume-Uni De même, le Royaume-Uni a échoué pour son inaction.





Les 12 critères de durabilité comprennent la structure, les engagements, les objectifs, les activités et les prises de positions des plateformes sur des questions telles que la traçabilité et la transparence, la déforestation, l’agroforesterie, l’utilisation de produits chimiques et le travail des enfants. Certains de ces critères, comme la déforestation, apparaissent familiers à toute personne ayant consulté l’une des publications de Mighty Earth sur le cacao. En effet, nombre de ces critères sont mis en évidence dans nos précédentes fiches d’évaluation de Pâques dans lesquelles nous avons noté les acteurs du secteur du cacao tels les négociants, les fabricants et les supermarchés en fonction de leurs performances environnementales et sociales, en attribuant des notes “bonnes”, “moyennes” et “mauvaises” pour les performances relatives aux critères individuels ainsi que des notes pour les performances globales de l’entreprise. À l’instar des négociants en cacao et des fabricants de chocolat qui sont tenus responsables et notés, les plateformes qui cherchent à réformer le cacao au niveau national doivent également l’être.

L’objectif de ce classement ISCO n’est pas de créer une concurrence antagoniste entre les plateformes, ni de pénaliser les plateformes récemment créées parce qu’elles ne sont pas plus avancées. Le but est plutôt de créer une course vers le sommet, d’inciter toutes les plateformes à apprendre les unes des autres et à s’entraider pour mieux faire.

La valeur que les plateformes de durabilité du cacao ajoutent au secteur est reconnue. Il faut les encourager à mieux articuler des engagements synergiques et partagés autour des questions qui sont au cœur de la durabilité du secteur. En outre, notre objectif est de soutenir les plateformes avec une feuille de route, afin qu’elles concrétisent leurs engagements et collaborent pour faire face aux défis complexes.

Pour les plateformes nouvellement établies, ce tableau de bord peut aider à orienter les discussions sur la façon dont elles aborderont les questions clés. Pour les marchés qui envisagent de développer une plateforme comme les États-Unis ou le Royaume-Uni, ce tableau de bord sert de point de départ.

L’initiative japonaise pour la durabilité du cacao, JAPANISCO, en est une belle illustration puisqu’elle coïncide avec le nouvel engagement louable du gouvernement japonais d’atteindre la neutralité carbone d’ici 2050. Le Japon s’apprêtant à devenir un leader mondial et à servir de modèle aux autres pays pour qu’ils prennent des engagements similaires, il devient crucial que toutes les industries japonaises prennent des mesures pour atteindre les objectifs nationaux officiels. Grâce à la naissante JAPANISCO, l’industrie chocolatière japonaise dispose désormais d’un cadre d’échange et de collaboration ainsi que d’un système élaboré pour un effort collectif visant l’atteinte de l’objectif zéro déforestation importée et la promotion de l’agroforesterie qui, tous deux, peuvent réduire les concentrations atmosphériques de CO2. Compte tenu de la capacité démontrée de l’industrie japonaise à innover rapidement, l’espoir est grand de voir JAPANISCO connaître le succès dans l’industrie du cacao, constituer un modèle viable et susciter un effet d’entrainement vers l’objectif zéro déboisement pour toutes les plates-formes et toute l’industrie agroalimentaire japonaise, englobant d’autres matières premières clés telles que l’huile de palme.

Nous encourageons toutes les plateformes à répondre, de toute urgence, à toutes les critiques formulées dans ce document et à aider, ainsi, l’industrie cacaoyère à accélérer sa marche vertueuse vers la durabilité véritable.

ISCO Scorecard Examines Public/Private Platforms for Sustainable Cocoa

ISCO Scorecard Examines Public/Private Platforms for Sustainable Cocoa



In the last four years, the chocolate industry has taken on an increasing number of reforms to begin to address deforestation, child labor, and other abuses in the cocoa sector.

Along with other developments for reform, public-private “platforms” for sustainable cocoa commonly referred to as “ISCOs,” have proliferated. ISCOs bring together industry, governmental entities, and civil society organizations in chocolate-consuming countries to promote sustainability in cocoa.

Facilitating these stakeholders to work together, the ISCOs create goals, set targets and monitor progress. ISCOs have tremendous potential to enable industry to transition to sustainable cocoa and we applaud the organizations, companies, and institutions that have joined a cocoa sustainability platform to improve social and environmental performance of the cocoa industry.

However, we fear that despite great intentions, the ISCOs will have difficulty turning commitment into action and that without added pressure from civil society and the public, the ISCOs could become a tool for industry greenwashing. Additionally, if each of the ISCOs develop divergent definitions, ambitions, key performance indicators (KPIs), and cut-off dates, it could lead to chaos in the world of sustainable cocoa, rather than synergistic global pressure for improvement.

Thus, we have created an ISCO scorecard to exert pressure for synergy over divergence, for order over chaos, for high-ambition goals over mediocrity, and to highlight successes. We hope this scorecard can help set the course for ISCOs to meet their potential.

The table below provides an overview of the evaluated platforms:


Table 1: Cocoa Sustainability Platforms Evaluated

Country Platform Date of Launch
Germany The German Initiative on Sustainable Cocoa (GISCO) June 2012
Switzerland The Swiss Platform for Sustainable Cocoa (SWISSCO) January 2018


Beyond Chocolate (the Partnership for a sustainable Belgian chocolate industry referred herein as ‘BISCO’) December 2018
Japan  The Platform for Sustainable Cocoa for Developing Countries (herein unofficially dubbed ‘JAPANISCO’) January 2020
Netherlands The Dutch Initiative on Sustainable Cocoa (DISCO)


August 2020
France The Syndicat du Chocolat (‘FRISCO’) of France
USA The United States has failed to begin to develop a platform for industry, government, and civil society to come together and hammer out a way forward for sustainable cocoa imports. N/A
UK Likewise, the United Kingdom has failed for its inaction.





The 12 sustainability criteria include the platforms’ structure, commitments, goals, activities, and policy positions on issues such as traceability and transparency, deforestation, agroforestry, use of chemicals, and child labor. Some of these criteria, such as deforestation, are also familiar to anyone who has read any of Mighty Earth’s publications on cocoa. Most notably, many of these criteria are highlighted in our past Easter Scorecards, wherein we have ranked and graded cocoa traders, manufacturers, and supermarkets on their environmental and social performance, allocating “good,” “medium,” and “bad” markers for performance on individual criteria and  scores for overall corporate performance. Just as cocoa traders and chocolate manufacturers must be held accountable and scored, so too must the platforms that are seeking to reform cocoa at a national level.

Most ISCOs performed well on overall ambition of their platforms, accessibility of information and efforts to address child labor categories. GISCO deserves special recognition for leading the pack.  All platforms, however, failed on traceability and transparency of cocoa supply chains and performed poorly on deforestation and climate.  This shows the urgent need to contribute to joint monitoring mechanisms, like our Accountability Map, or those promised in 2017 by the Cocoa and Forests Initiative (CFI).  Platforms should also adopt CFI’s cut off date of 2018, at a minimum, in order to discourage trade of cocoa produced on land cleared after that date.  WIth so much deforestation for cocoa production over the past thirty years, especially in West Africa, platforms need to go further to invest resources in conservation and restoration.  Finally, another area calling for vast improvement is chemical management– growing cocoa should not be synonymous with poisoning farmers, especially children.

For newly established platforms such as DISCO, FRISCO and JAPANISCO, this scorecard can help shape discussions on how the platform will address key issues. For markets that may be considering developing a platform like in the US or UK, this scorecard serves as a place to start.

Action in Japan to create JAPANISCO comes at a fortuitous time, as its creation roughly coincided with the laudable new Japanese government commitment to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. With Japan poised as a global leader that is setting a model for other countries to make similar commitments, it will be crucial for all Japanese industries to take action to meet the official national goals, including in the chocolate industry. Thanks to the nascent JAPANISCO, in coming years, the Japanese chocolate industry now has a ready-made forum and system wherein they can collectively strive for zero imported deforestation and promotion of agroforestry, both of which can reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Given Japanese industry’s demonstrated ability to innovate quickly, we hope and believe that JAPANISCO will have success in the cocoa industry and can evolve into a vital model for all cross-commodity zero-deforestation platform for the Japanese food and agriculture industry, encompassing other key feedstocks such as palm oil and helping Japan in the race to net zero.

We embarked on this ranking project to encourage a race to the top and incentivize platforms to learn from each other and help each other do better.  It is in this spirit that we encourage all platforms to urgently address all of the critiques in this paper and thus help push the cocoa industry further along the path to true sustainability.

See the full report here.

Easter Scorecard 2021 Social Media Toolkit

Sample posts:

🐰This Easter, see how your favorite chocolate companies are doing on #childslavery and #deforestation🌲🍫
The good eggs: @altereco_foods, @whittakersNZ, & @TonysChocoUS
The bad egg: #Storck aka @werthers_orig
👇See it here:

Right in time for Easter, this scorecard tells you which chocolate companies are bulldozing pristine forests to source their cocoa, and which are working to keep ecosystems intact.  🍫It's time to end #childlabor and #deforestation in the cocoa industry👇

This Easter, don’t buy chocolate that hurts wildlife! 🐘 🍫 Check out our Easter Scorecard to make sure the chocolate you buy protects forests and gives farmers and their families a living income.

This Easter, please buy from the heart! Make sure the chocolate treats you get are also good for forests, wildlife, and farmers. Check out our #EasterScorecard: 🐰🌲

JBS Promises 14 More Years of Forest Destruction

On March 23, 2021, JBS announced a "commitment to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2040," including a pledge to "achieve zero deforestation across its global supply chain by 2035." Mighty Earth Vice President and Global Director for Latin America Sarah Lake released the following statement in response:

“In a much-publicized announcement, JBS has just promised at least 14 more years of forest destruction. As Brazil’s largest cattle company and one of the single worst companies driving deforestation, habitat destruction, and climate change, JBS’s climate and deforestation commitments should be commensurate with their outsized impact. By that standard, this latest pledge — to achieve zero deforestation by 2035 and net-zero emissions by 2040 — is woefully inadequate. The climate is changing now. Forests are burning today. That JBS felt the need to make this announcement shows they are feeling the pressure to act; the paltry scope of the pledge demonstrates the need for us to keep that pressure on.”

industrial deforestation at Michelin's RLU project in Jambi, Indonesia.

Mighty Earth Urges Climate Bonds Initiative to Delist $95M Michelin "Green Bond" Amid Allegations of Industrial Deforestation

LONDON – Today, environmental campaign organization Mighty Earth announced that it had filed a formal complaint with the Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) calling for Asia’s first corporate “Sustainability Bond” – which had been issued in 2018 for investors in French tire maker Michelin's natural rubber joint venture in Indonesia – to be delisted from CBI’s booming global green bond markets.

The complaint argues that the $95 million bond, which financed Michelin’s RLU project, a 70,716-hectare natural rubber plantation in Jambi, Indonesia, should be ineligible for CBI listing because green investors were not informed of serious allegations of environmental destruction and social conflict around the project. Mighty Earth alleges that thousands of hectares of tropical rainforests and critical conservation habitat were industrially deforested by the local subsidiary of Michelin’s Indonesian partner prior to the start of their project, and that Michelin knew of the destruction but failed to provide this information to investors.

“We are urging the Climate Bonds Initiative to immediately investigate our complaint and – if evidence of large-scale deforestation is supported by our findings – to immediately delist this questionable bond,” said Mighty Earth Campaign Director Alex Wijeratna. “It’s inconceivable that a bond tied to the widespread, deliberate, and undisclosed industrial deforestation of thousands of hectares of precious rainforest and conservation habitat could ever be labelled as ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’.”

Michelin signed the RLU joint venture shareholder agreement with its Indonesian partner, Barito Pacific, in December 2014. Mighty Earth’s complaint includes new evidence showing that Michelin officials knew before that time that their partner’s key local subsidiary – a company called PT Lestari Asri Jaya (LAJ) – was independently identified as one of the main causes of land clearing and deforestation on its concessions in Jambi. However, this crucial information was not disclosed to green bond investors in any publicly available due diligence reports, nor was it disclosed in the Tropical Landscapes Finance Facility (TLFF I) Sustainability Bond “Offering Circular” which was arranged by French bank BNP Paribas, facilitated by ADM Capital, and offered to investors in March 2018.

Conforming to voluntary Green and Sustainability Bond Principles and Guidelines monitored and overseen by the CBI, bonds labelled as “sustainable” have exploded in popularity in recent months, with companies and governments expected to issue a record $650 billion in green debt this year, according to Moody’s. Other analysts predict the global green bond market could hit €2 trillion by 2023.

A second round of funding to finance the next phase of the RLU project – worth $120 million – is due to be offered to green bond investors imminently.

As part of the complaint filed with CBI, Mighty Earth included its recent satellite image-based report – Complicit, An Investigation into Deforestation at Michelin’s Royal Lestari Utama Project in Sumatra, Indonesia (2020) – which found 2,590 ha of irreplaceable tropical rainforest, biodiversity hotspots, and conservation habitat in Jambi – a huge area the size of central Paris – was industrially deforested in a key area (known as ‘LAJ 4’)  during a 33-month period prior to start of the joint venture in 2015. The report found this industrial deforestation was in areas identified by WWF Indonesia as home to two vulnerable forest-dependent Indigenous peoples,  and which form a critical habitat for endangered Sumatran elephants, tigers, and orangutans.

Key green investors such as &Green fund, Unilever, and PG Impact Investments have invested millions in the 15-year TLFF I Sustainability Bond, though it is unclear if they were told of these deforestation concerns prior to investing. “No green investor wants to invest in a sustainability or green bond project that failed to disclose large-scale industrial deforestation or the deliberate destruction of tropical rainforest that was once home to endangered Sumatran elephants, tigers and orangutans,” said Wijeratna. “The Climate Bonds Initiative should swiftly investigate and delist the TLFF I Sustainability Bond in order to restore trust and integrity in global green bond markets.”