EU Parliament passes world’s first law to stop deforestation

The European Parliament has overwhelmingly approved a groundbreaking new law in Brussels today that will require companies to demonstrate that their products have not contributed to deforestation if they want to sell them in the EU market.  

Mighty Earth applauds this vote but says there’s more work to be done to ensure all threatened ecosystems, including grasslands, wetlands, and peatlands, are protected.   

The new European Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) applies to beef, soy, palm oil, cocoa, coffee, rubber, and timber, as well as most of the products derived from these commodities like leather, hides and chocolate. 

Alex Wijeratna, Senior Director at Mighty Earth said:  

This landmark vote signals a turning point for the world’s forests and for climate change. For the first time Europe is telling business ‘If you or your suppliers destroy forests, you can’t sell your products here.’” 

“This is great news for the Indigenous people and wildlife who depend on standing forests for their survival, but also for consumers who have been telling governments and companies that they don’t want to dine on deforestation.” 

“There’s more work to be done to plug the dangerous gaps that remain in this ground-breaking EU law; we need to ensure that within a year of the legislation coming into force, “Other Wooded Lands” such as the Cerrado savannah in Brazil are given the same protection.” 


 Notes to Editors: 

  • Agriculture is the biggest driver of deforestation globally, with the meat industry one of the worst climate polluters. 
  • Imports of agricultural imports to Europe are the second largest contributors to global deforestation in the world, after China’s. 
  • A recent poll showed that an overwhelming majority of Europeans (82%) believe businesses should not sell products that destroy the world’s forests and support (81%) the law to ban products that drive deforestation.  
  • There was a groundswell of support for the new law with almost 1.2 million citizens calling on the EU to pass a strong regulation to stop imported deforestation. 

For more information or to arrange an interview please contact: 

Carole Mitchell, Senior Director of Communications (UK-based) 

[email protected] 

+44 7917 105000 

About Mighty Earth 

 Mighty Earth is a global advocacy organization working to defend a living planet.  Our goal is to protect half of Earth for Nature and secure a climate that allows life to flourish.  We are obsessed with impact and aspire to be the most effective environmental advocacy organization in the world. Our team has achieved transformative change by persuading leading industries to dramatically reduce deforestation and climate pollution throughout their global supply chains in palm oil, rubber, cocoa, and animal feed, while improving livelihoods for Indigenous and local communities across the tropics. 


Mighty Earth files complaint with US Securities and Exchange Commission against JBS ‘green bonds’

“ leaders are saying one thing – but doing another. Simply put, they are lying, and the results will be catastrophic.”  UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, April 4, 2022  

Washington DC, January 17, 2023 — Senior executives at Mighty Earth have filed a whistleblower complaint to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), calling for a full investigation into alleged misleading and fraudulent “green bonds” issued by the Brazilian meat giant JBS. 

Evidence presented to the SEC details how JBS, the world’s largest meat processor with operations in over 20 countries, issued $3.2 billion in four separate debt issuances or “green bonds” in 2021, referring to them as Sustainability-Linked Bonds (SLBs) tied to its stated goal to cut its emissions and achieve “Net Zero by 2040.”  

The heart of the complaint centers on the fact that JBS based the bond offerings on its commitment to achieve net zero emissions by 2040 – but that its emissions have in fact increased in recent years and it excluded ‘Scope 3’ supply chain emissions that comprise upwards of 97% of its climate footprint. It also omitted key information from investors about the actual number of animals it slaughters each year, denying US investors vital information to make fully informed decisions about JBS’s net zero and climate-related claims as they decided whether to purchase these SLBs. 

Mighty Earth’s CEO Glenn Hurowitz said: 

JBS seduced investors with sustainability pledges, but those pledges had practically zilch to do with the actual source of JBS’ supersized climate impact. Companies simply shouldn’t be able to ignore the environmental impact of 97% of their operations and then market themselves as green.” 

“The fact that the meat company arguably responsible for more climate pollution and deforestation than any other in the world was able to raise $3.2 billion through green bonds is an indictment of the utter lack of safeguards in the world of ESG investing. JBS’ success in duping investors shows that SEC needs to step in right away to set clear rules about what does or doesn’t count as sustainable.”  

“We need trillions of dollars in investment in decarbonization, but it shouldn’t be wasted on industrial meat companies that are driving deforestation and spewing pollution into the atmosphere.”  

“The facts uncovered in today’s SEC filing should signal to investors that they can’t take company sustainability claims at face value. JBS’ materials make the company sound like Greta Thunberg even as their suppliers burned the Amazon and spewed enormous amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Before JBS makes elaborate claims like these, they need to first stop the bulldozers in their supply chain and slash their methane pollution.”    

The complaint cites the official Second Party Opinion on JBS’ Sustainability-Linked Securities that concluded that the bonds “were not material to the whole corporate value chain as the KPI does not include Scope 3 emission,” which are responsible for an estimated 97% of the company’s footprint.  

Our complaint – the first against a Sustainability-Linked Bond – highlights that since 2017 JBS has concealed the true scale of its emissions footprint, by failing to disclose the number of animals it slaughters every year, which are the primary source of its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These Scope 3 emissions relate to animals in its supply chain – from deforestation, methane, and land use change to rear cattle on the thousands of farms and feedlots, which directly and indirectly produce meat for JBS in Brazil, the United States and beyond.  

Despite JBS’ claims, the complaint shows that JBS is heading in the opposite direction when it comes to reaching net zero by 2040. The complaint argues that JBS omitted material information in its bond offering and investor presentations about its Scope 3 emissions. The most recent published analysis shows that instead of JBS’ emissions footprint shrinking, it is estimated to have grown by between 17% and 56% between 2016 and 2021, to 288 million metric tons COequivalent in 2021, and may be as high as 541 million metric tons CO2.  For context, JBS’ estimated total emissions of 288 mmt CO2 in 2021 exceed the entire emissions of Spain. 

Alex Wijeratna, Senior Director at Mighty Earth, said:  

This is greenwashing so severe that we hope the SEC investigates it as securities fraud. We’re urging the SEC to conduct a full investigation into these $3.2 billion of JBS green bonds, in order to protect investors from wrongdoers who mislead, conceal, and massively under-report their climate emissions. 

Kevin Galbraith, attorney for Mighty Earth and the whistleblower, said: 

“JBS’ long history of corporate misconduct resulting in billions of dollars in fines from several governmental agencies and yet no apparent modification of its behavior make plain that the company needs more than a slap on the wrist. These facts require an energetic investigation of the material misrepresentations that we have alleged in the whistleblower complaint. JBS’ greenwashing achieved its desired effect: the company accessed U.S. capital markets to raise billions from unsuspecting investors, including asset managers who had signed on to a pledge to avoid issuers whose conduct fuels climate change. We are confident that when the SEC’s Climate and ESG Task Force carefully examines what has happened here, it will take appropriate action to hold JBS accountable and ensure that it lives up to its environmental promises.” 

Indigenous activist and filmaker, Edivan Guajajara, who supported the SEC submission, said:  

For too long big business has held all the power, deforesting at will in the Amazon to rear cattle or grow soy, on land taken from Indigenous communities.  The tide is turning and we’re seeing more organizations willing to call out bad practice and pursue legal challenges.  We support this, as none of us can fight this alone. 


Sustainability initiatives will fail until companies pay more for cocoa warns new report co-published by Mighty Earth

Sustainability initiatives will fail until companies pay more for cocoa warns new report co-published by Mighty Earth

Endemic sustainability issues within global cocoa supply chains, including child labour and deforestation, will continue unless efforts are coupled with the payment of a higher farmgate price for cocoa, according to the 2022 Cocoa Barometer.  

 The report finds that a combination of public policies, private sector purchasing practices, and agricultural solutions are needed. 

 The Barometer – developed by the VOICE Network of civil society organizations, of which Mighty Earth is a member – shows that there remains a wide range of problems facing families in cocoa communities, including child labour; gender inequality; (infant) malnutrition; lack of access to education; insufficient health care facilities and sanitation; and a variety of labour rights violations for smallholders, workers, and tenants. Environmental issues such as deforestation and climate change remain a growing concern. 

 Without a significant increase in earnings, cocoa farmers will be burdened with the responsibility for addressing this range of issues without the means or incentives to do so. As such, environmental and social harms such as deforestation and child labour are likely to continue in the world’s major cocoa producing countries Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire.  

 Dr Julian Oram, Senior Director at Mighty Earth, said:   

 “Commodity traders and chocolate companies talk a good talk about wanting to protect forests and tackle social problems such as child labour that continue to plague the cocoa industry. But ultimately, they need to put their money where their mouth is by paying farmers more so they can earn a living income for growing cocoa sustainably”. 

 Top-down national and international government strategies aimed at increasing cocoa production to address poverty tend to support the chocolate industry while failing to address these issues. Additionally, the cost-of-living crisis is putting further pressure on farmers in West Africa. 

 Yao Kouame Martia, of the cocoa cooperative ECAM, in the south-west of Côte d’Ivoire, said: 

“In the past, after selling my cocoa beans, I used to plan my expenses and charges for my household, but this is becoming very difficult now. Prices of products are far beyond my provisions. I have children to care about and I‘m struggling to pay their school fees”. 

 Other Measures Ineffective in Isolation 

 New data and models launched with this Barometer confirm that development measures aimed at increasing productivity and diversification will be ultimately ineffective without real efforts to close the living income gap through higher farmgate prices. Likewise, development programmes alone are incapable of reducing deforestation, the use of hazardous pesticides or entrenching the long-term adoption of good agricultural practices. 

 Despite this evidence, most cocoa-purchasing companies continue to operate business as usual, supporting development programmes while refusing to directly address their own purchasing practices – including pricing.  

 Hayford Duodu, a cocoa farmer in Ghana, said:  

 “The one thing that affects us farmers is the pricing of cocoa beans. In fact, pricing is a disincentive to cocoa farmers”. 

 According to the VOICE Network, raising productivity or increasing farm size will never work in isolation to address the myriad of problems in the global cocoa supply chain. 

 Antonie Foundation, Director of the VOICE network said:   

 “Paying a higher price is inevitable if the living income gap is to be closed. Interventions such as the Ivorian-Ghanaian Living Income Differential are necessary first steps, but companies need to go far beyond that to ensure the farmgate price goes up.” 

 The Barometer suggests that colonial-era dynamics in cocoa supply chains, which saw vast wealth extracted from cocoa producing regions, continue to influence corporate and political attitudes to the problem, with the wealth generated in consuming countries through cocoa, still dwarfing investments in development programmes. To address this imbalance, autonomous farmer organizations such as cooperatives need to be strengthened and supported by national and local government initiatives in producing countries. 


Action Needed on Three Fronts 

 The Barometer concludes that, in order for living income to become a reality for cocoa farmers, action is needed on three separate fronts: good governance policies by public bodies; good purchasing practices by the private sector; and good agricultural practices by farmers.  

For the past two decades, however, almost all of the cocoa sector efforts have been focused on farmers themselves, sidestepping the necessary changes in government policy and purchasing practices needed to tackle sustainability issues. 


In this context, recent efforts by the EU to establish ‘due diligence’ directives aimed at curbing environmental and social harms in global supply chains, including cocoa, are a welcome first step towards creating a more transparent supply chain. This is essential for keeping companies accountable for their purchasing practices. Ultimately even these positive policy developments will come to nothing if companies do not take action soon: they need to pay a higher price. 

 To read the full Barometer, or see the full list of recommendations for governments, corporations and farmers, see: 


The Cocoa Barometer is published biennially by a global consortium of civil society actors:  ABVV/Horval, Action against Child Exploitation (ACE), Be Slavery Free, EcoCare, European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT), Fair World Project, Fern, Freedom United, Green America, IDEF, Inades Formation, INKOTA-netzwerk, Global Labor Justice/International Labor Rights Forum, Mighty Earth, Oxfam America, Oxfam Belgium, Oxfam Ghana, Oxfam Novib, Public Eye, Rikolto, Roscidet, SEND Ghana, Solidaridad, Südwind Institut, Tropenbos International, Tropenbos Ghana, WWF France. 


For free to publish photos and infographics from the report, please use this link 

Mighty Earth launches new interactive map to track cocoa-driven deforestation in Ghana

Mighty Earth launches new interactive map to track cocoa-driven deforestation in Ghana 

Forest loss in the West African country remains high despite government and industry pledges to reduce it 

Link to map here 

The launch of Mighty Earth’s new Cocoa Accountability Map for Ghana comes as the organisation reveals forest loss in the country remains stubbornly high, despite pledges by the Ghanian government and the chocolate industry to reduce cocoa-driven carbon emissions and forest loss.  

Latest figures show 10,550 hectares of deforestation this year within cocoa-growing regions, with 8,188 hectares of this clearance occurring within forest reserves. It is likely that much of this clearance has been for cocoa plot expansion. 

Mighty Earth has been working with RADD (Radar for Detecting Deforestation) forest-alert data from 2019 onwards to identify areas of recent land clearance across Ghana, which has lost more than 2.5 million hectares (33.7%) of its forest since the early 1990s.1 The open-source map for the Ghanaian cocoa industry consolidates data layers to provide greater transparency around deforestation linked to cocoa industry supply chains. The initiative provides visibility to cocoa cooperatives, with data released by Whittaker, Barry Callebaut, Olam, Blommer, Ecom, Ferrero, Hershey, Mars, Nestle, and Tony’s Chocolonely.2  

Dr Julian Oram, Senior Director for Africa at Mighty Earth said:  

“It is possible to prevent cocoa from deforested areas ending up in chocolate products, but two things need to happen. Firstly, small scale farmers, which are the bedrock of the industry, need to be properly remunerated, creating a disincentive to farm in forest reserves, or protected areas. Secondly, we need effective monitoring, which is where our Ghana Cocoa Accountability Map comes in. Our aim is for farmers, cocoa companies, NGOs, and governmental organizations to work together to end deforestation in supply chains and meet commitments for full traceability from farm gate to chocolate product.” 

The new interactive map highlights deforestation hotspots, including those within protected areas and forest reserves, and shows their proximity to Licensed Buying Companies (LBCs) 3 supplying major cocoa traders and chocolate companies.  

Sam Mawutor, Senior Advisor, Ghana at Mighty Earth said:  

The cocoa beans' journey from farm to the first point of purchase is still the hardest to track and this is where beans from deforested areas can be mixed with those grown on legally cultivated land. The grim reality is that 30 – 40% of cocoa is still untraceable. Some chocolate companies are sitting on that information. Our map can be used to raise deforestation alerts and to hold big business accountable for bad practices. Locally we’re promoting the use of agroforestry approaches, which give value to standing trees and help diversify farmer livelihoods.” 

Training session with local farmers in Accra Tuesday 6 December 

Mighty Earth is training local cocoa farmer cooperatives and Ghana CSO Cocoa Platform members to use the map collaboratively to gain further insight into traceability at local level, beyond the LBC locations published by corporations.4   

Evelyn Aziamati, a cocoa farmer from Adjoobo Okrase in Ghana’s Eastern Region, said:  

“Protecting our livelihoods means addressing deforestation and being aware of what is happening in our local area. Tracking where the threats are can help us to raise the alarm before one hectare of deforestation becomes ten. Keeping our farms going and being able to provide for our families, means growing cocoa sustainably and using standing forests to support our work.” 

Mighty Earth calls for urgent action from UK retailers & government to end deforestation

Mighty Earth, in collaboration with Think Film Impact Productions, held a special film screening and panel event in London on 24 November. It brought together an audience of leading retailers, including Tesco, Waitrose, M&S and John Lewis, along with civil servants from BEIS (Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy), the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, DEFRA the UN, plus environmental NGOs including Friends of the Earth, Sustain and WWF. The aim of the event was to examine how best to prevent deforestation, linked to the global meat and soy industries, from entering UK supply chains and ending up on supermarket shelves.  

The film screening was preceded by a panel discussion, which included special guest Indigenous leader from the Amazon, Benki Piyako, Will Schreiber of the Retail Soy Group and Maggie Charnley, Head of International Forests Unit at BEIS.  

Speaking during the panel event, Benki Piyako offered a message of hope, saying the election of President Lula offered a new dawn for the Amazon, but said everyone has a role to play:   

We all have a collective responsibility to ensure the resources we are using, the products coming to the UK from the Amazon do not harm nature – and we must all understand the impacts of what we are consuming. Companies must stop taking from the forest and we all must ensure we protect the Amazon, for the sake of all of life on our planet.”          

Will Schreiber of RSG (Retail Soy Group) said: 

“We must use the power, both from retailers and through strong legislation, to hold agricultural companies to account and ensure deforestation is eliminated from our supply chains.” 

Maggie Charnley, Head of the UK Government's International Forests Unit (BEIS-FCDO) 
The trader roadmap announcement at COP27 demonstrated collective action by the sector but needs to be implemented and strengthened if we are to halt and reverse the loss of forests and other ecosystems. Strong UK and EU due diligence legislation paired with efforts in Brazilian law must support consumer interests to ensure our supply chains work with local communities and do not drive forest loss.”   

Gemma Hoskins, UK Climate Director at Mighty Earth said:  

Our hope is that by bringing together a wide-ranging collection of actors across the supply chain to see and to feel the impacts and the reality on the ground for those forests’ defenders on the front line of this crucial fight, organisations, Government, and business move our collective agenda forward through specific and urgent action. Suspending business with known forest destroyers is a positive step UK retailers can take immediately to stamp out deforestation from landing on our dinner plates.” 

Body count rises to sixteen at controversial Batang Toru dam in Indonesia after tunnel collapses.

This latest tragedy during the construction of the Batang Toru hydroelectric dam, brings the number of workers and families killed, in less than two years, to sixteen. In the latest incident on Sunday (21st August 2022) a Chinese construction worker was crushed when part of a tunnel collapsed.  

Responding to this latest tragedy, Amanda Hurowitz, Mighty Earth’s Senior Program Director for Southeast Asia said:  

“Our thoughts are with the family and co-workers of the latest victim to lose his life in such tragic circumstances. But the question is: How many more lives are going to be lost, or workers injured, in the construction of this ill-conceived and unnecessary dam before the project is stopped in its tracks?”  

“The Batang Toru ecosystem is wholly unsuitable for this project. This dam is located in a highly sensitive area, home to the Tapanuli orangutan, the world’s most endangered Great Ape. Repeated landslides have killed fifteen individuals, and now a tunnel collapse has claimed yet another life. It seems like this project is just cursed, and it’s time for its backers to cut their losses.”  

“This project has recently been bought for $277mn by China’s State Development and Investment Corporation. The Chinese government involvement conflicts with China’s role as the host of the Convention on Biological Diversity later this year. The optics for China on this one are bad. It can’t claim to the world to be protecting biodiversity if it pushes ahead with this dam, threatening a whole species of orangutan with extinction. We hope that China will instead use its influence to protect Batang Toru and its iconic wildlife, as part of its many efforts to support an ecologically harmonious civilization. Changing the direction of this project  would show China is serious about realizing its commitments to Nature and climate.” 


  • This ill-conceived Chinese backed Indonesian dam project came to worldwide attention in 2017 when scientists 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] 
  • 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] 
  • 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 declined to finance the project. And, the Bank of China has suspended its involvement.[v] 
  • 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] 


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

Les Demandes de Mighty Earth au Groupe Carrefour

L'Amazonie est en train de brûler. Début juillet, les dernières données officielles sur la situation au Brésil alertent sur le fait qu’au cours des six derniers mois, la déforestation en Amazonie brésilienne a atteint son taux le plus élevé depuis des années, avec près de 3 750 kilomètres carrés de forêt qui ont été détruits. Dans le Cerrado brésilien, il n’y a jamais eu autant d'incendies depuis 2004. D'autres pays d'Amérique latine ont connu des catastrophes similaires cette année. La quasi-totalité de cette déforestation est liée à l'industrie de la viande. La chaîne d'approvisionnement de Carrefour à la fois leader de la grande distribution au Brésil et distributeur majeur au niveau mondial, probablement plus qu’aucune autre.

Carrefour continue de s'approvisionner directement ou indirectement auprès des principaux responsables de la déforestation en Amazonie et de la destruction d’autres écosystèmes en Amérique latine : les fournisseurs JBS, Bunge et Cargill. Voici les demandes précédemment remises au groupe Carrefour avec l’appui d’organisations autochtones et d’organisations de la société civile :

  • Interrompre immédiatement les liens de la chaîne d'approvisionnement avec les principales entreprises responsables de la destruction des écosystèmes naturels, en particulier avec JBS, Bunge et Cargill : leurs antécédents montrent leur sabotage répété des actions collectives mises en œuvre par nos organisations.
  • Adopter une politique forte de "Zéro déforestation, Zéro conversion" qui améliore la transparence et traçabilité des chaînes d’approvisionnement de bœuf et de soja avec effet immédiat.
  • Définir des politiques claires pour exiger des fournisseurs qu'ils réduisent considérablement leurs émissions de méthane et autres formes de pollution climatique, et qu'ils se tournent vers des produits plus écologiques et des pratiques régénératrices comme par exemple, une meilleure gestion du fumier, l’amélioration de l’alimentation et les cultures de couverture ou couverts végétaux.
  • Augmenter les ventes de protéines végétales et d’alternatives à la viande dans le cadre d'un effort plus large visant à réduire considérablement les ventes de produits d'origine animale.
  • Accroître massivement le soutien de Carrefour au contrôle indépendant de la chaîne d'approvisionnement au Brésil.


  • Les actions suivantes demandées valent pour tous les produits contenant des protéines animales et valent pour tout le groupe de Carrefour. Un regard particulier sera porté pour le Brésil où Carrefour est la principale chaîne de supermarché mais aussi en Europe où Carrefour propose des produits laitiers et carnés nourris en soja issu de la déforestation.


  • Exclure les responsables de la déforestation : retirez immédiatement JBS de vos fournisseurs de viande bovine sur tout le groupe dont le Brésil.
  • Adopter une politique robuste Zéro Conversion et Zéro Déforestation : mettre en œuvre une politique actualisée sur le bœuf en incluant toutes les étapes de la production du bœuf (fermes indirectes) afin de parvenir à un bœuf vérifié Zéro Déforestation illégale dès la fin 2022 et un bœuf et Zéro Déforestation et Zéro Conversion (ZDC) avant 2025.
  • Transparence : publier immédiatement sur une plateforme publique dédiée tous les fournisseurs directs et indirects, l'empreinte et l'origine des produits de viande bovine (les abattoirs, la liste des élevages directs et indirects identifiés avec la proportion de la viande provenant d’une chaîne d’approvisionnement ZDC garantie).


  • Exclure les responsables de la déforestation : mettre immédiatement fin à toute relation commerciale directe ou indirecte avec les entreprises qui s'approvisionnent auprès des négociants en soja (notamment Bunge et Cargill) qui ont échoué à mettre en oeuvre l’arrêt de la déforestation et de la conversion après la cut-off date de janvier 2020.
  • Adopter une politique robuste zéro conversion et zéro déforestation : publier immédiatement et publiquement une politique actualisée de soja Zéro Déforestation et Zéro Conversion (ZDC). Cette politique doit inclure explicitement une date butoir de janvier 2020 avec un objectif de soja ZDC à atteindre avant 2023.
  • Transparence : Publier immédiatement sur une plateforme publique dédiée, l'origine du soja au niveau du groupe Carrefour (comprenant les négociants, les ports, la liste des silos et des triturateurs, ainsi que la proportion de soja qui provient d'une chaîne d'approvisionnement ZDC).


  • Réduire les produits carnés : d’ici à 2030, s’engager à réduire de 50 % les produits d'origine animale vendus dans les magasins Carrefour dans le monde par rapport aux chiffres actuels (2022), notamment par l'augmentation de la vente de protéines alternatives comme les produits à base de légumineuses afin d'atteindre 15%.
  • Méthane : d’ici à 2030, réduire de 45% (en valeur absolue) les émissions de méthane à l'échelle du groupe et des fournisseurs qu’il faudra aider à adopter de meilleures pratiques sur le terrain.
    Émissions de type 3 : réaliser un audit externe complet de l'empreinte de Carrefour en matière de méthane et d'autres émissions sur le Scope 3 au niveau mondial et ajouter un objectif de réduction de 50 % des émissions de GES sur le Scope 3 d'ici à 2030.

    Une telle politique nécessitera :

  • Du personnel supplémentaire dédié aux chaînes d'approvisionnement en bœuf et en soja.
  • Augmenter de façon substantielle le soutien de Carrefour aux projets d'observatoires
    indépendants sur les chaînes d'approvisionnement en bœuf et en soja.

Si l'on en croit l'expérience passée, des actions commerciales comme celles décrites ci-dessus permettent d’engager les grandes entreprises les plus réticentes à changer leurs propres pratiques commerciales et les inciteront à collaborer pour trouver des solutions à l'échelle du secteur.
Nous savons que ces approches peuvent réussir comme cela a été le cas pour la déforestation liée à l'huile de palme en Asie du Sud-Est, les progrès réalisés par le secteur du papier et du caoutchouc. Il est temps d'obtenir le même type de succès dans l'industrie de la viande, le plus grand moteur agricole de la déforestation et de la pollution climatique.

L’objectif de Mighty Earth est d'obtenir des résultats sur le terrain, et non de faire une campagne pour faire campagne. Si Carrefour met en place les actions nécessaires à la hauteur de l’enjeu et demandées de longues dates par les associations et représentants autochtones, Carrefour sera vu comme le leader attendu sur ces questions de transition alimentaire.

European Supermarkets fail to act on deforestation-linked soy

Major European supermarkets Tesco, Carrefour, Asda, Lidl and Sainsbury’s have been urged to drop key global soy companies after an investigation by Mighty Earth found over 27,000 hectares of deforestation on soy farms in the threatened Cerrado savannah in Brazil.

Less well known than the Amazon rainforest, Brazil’s tropical Cerrado is the world’s most biodiverse savannah and wooded grassland and it has become a global hotspot for soy and cattle-driven deforestation. Most of the soy-driven deforestation observed was used to produce soy animal feed. Meat is the world’s largest driver of deforestation, wildlife extinction, and displacement of Indigenous peoples.

Eleven members of the Retail Soy Group – Ahold Delhaize, Aldi, Asda, Co-op, Lidl, M&S, Migros, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Waitrose and Woolworths – and other retailers such as Carrefour with similar corporate policies promising to ban deforestation-risk soy after a 2020 cut-off date have been urged to investigate Mighty Earth’s findings and to immediately drop key soy traders linked to this new deforestation in the Cerrado. 

Based on satellite imagery analysis, Mighty Earth’s new report Promises, Promises! found five major global soy traders Bunge, Cargill, COFCO, LDC and ALZ Grãos continued to buy soy from Brazilian suppliers and conglomerates who had cleared and deforested at least 27,000 hectares on ten farms in the Cerrado since after August 2020 cut-off. This is an area larger than the city of Edinburgh in Scotland, or half the size of Chicago.

"Major supermarkets like Tesco, Carrefour, Asda and Lidl should urgently investigate and then ban any soy company with proven links to deforestation,” said Alex Wijeratna, Senior Director at Mighty Earth

Read the full report:


Comment on Global Food & Biofuel Price Shocks

Indonesia sent shockwaves through the global markets for both food and fuel by banning exports of palm oil on April 28th. Those markets had already been roiled by Russia’s attack on Ukraine, a key producer of sunflower oil, as Mighty Earth Founder & CEO Glenn Hurowitz recently discussed with the BBC, and Indonesia’s move is widely viewed as a desperation move to calm political unrest fueled by rising domestic palm oil prices.

“For Indonesia, the sudden shortage – and high cost – of cooking palm oil is a classic example of a resource curse, as our economy depends too much on a single export commodity, giving far too much power to corporate palm oil exporters,” said Annisa Rahmawati, Senior Advisor at Mighty Earth. “Indonesia’s government should focus on supporting small farmers, helping the people who meet local needs rather than leaving our families vulnerable to marketand corruption crises.”

Many world governments looking to quit Russian oil & gas have looked to biofuels to increase supplies. But that’s only increased competition for food oil and pushed cooking oil prices higher

“Big shocks like this expose how our governmental policies have totally failed to build resilience into our agricultural systems, leaving them brittle and unable to respond to crisis. These failures are now cascading down our supply chains and as a direct result, we see families from Southeast Asia to the Americas to Europe suffering from cooking oil and fuel shortages and price spikes,” said Mighty Earth’s Glenn Hurowitz. “The tragedy is that the entirety of the food price spikes from Russia’s war in Ukraine could be counteracted just by cutting in half biofuel mandates. It doesn’t make sense to keep burning food for fuel during this crisis."

Mighty Earth and its partners hosted a media briefing to talk about the impact of Indonesia’s refined palm oil export ban, as well as global bioenergy mandates. 

Speakers included:

Moderated by Glenn Hurowitz, Mighty Earth Founder and CEO

Media Contact: Miles Grant, [email protected], 703-864-9599 (m)

Unpacking Deforestation and Climate Change within Chocolate Scorecard 

Dr Stephanie Perkiss 

Stephanie Perkiss is a Senior Lecturer in Accounting at the University of Wollongong and explores social and environmental accounting and accountability in her research. 

This blog post is one of a series linked to the publication of the 2022 Chocolate Scorecard company sustainability rankings. To view the 2022 Chocolate Scorecard please go to 

When biting into a crunchy chocolate candy, many consumers don’t realise where the cocoa ingredients in their favourite treats come from, nor the costs that their production can have for nature and the climate.  

West Africa produces 75% of the world’s cocoa, with Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana producing the lion’s share. In the last 60 years, these two African countries have lost around 94% and 80% of their forests respectively, with approximately one-third of that forest loss to make way for growing cocoa. Research published by Mighty Earth revealed that, in the period between January 2019 and January 2022 alone, Côte d’Ivoire lost 19,421 hectares (194.21 km2) of forest within cocoa-growing regions, while Ghana lost 39,497 hectares (394.97 km2)  in cocoa regions. This amounts to a combined area equivalent to the size of the cities of Madrid, Seoul, or Chicago.  

Many of the remaining tropical forests under threat in these two countries are within legally protected areas, providing critical habitat to endangered species like chimpanzees and pygmy hippos. They also contain vast stores of carbon, which if released could exacerbate global climate change. Forests absorb carbon, and when they die, they release carbon and no longer serve as a sink.  

Amongst other indicators, the 2022 Chocolate Scorecard focuses on the extent to which individual companies are taking concrete steps to ensure that forests are not being cut down to provide them with cocoa. We analysed the responses to deforestation and climate change in the following areas based on best-in-class guidance (see AFI box)  

  1. Application of no-deforestation policy to global sourcing, and percentage of cocoa purchased through a deforestation-free monitoring system;
  2. Percentage of cocoa sourced from deforested areas since 2010 when satellite monitoring systems became widely available;
  3. Percentage of cocoa sourced from actors who have been deforesting since the launch of the CFI in 2017;
  4. Detailed plans for how to respond to evidence of suppliers sourcing cocoa from recently deforested land; and 
  5. 5. Policy to achieve net-zero carbon emissions company-wide; or using science-based targets.

Chocolate Scorecard survey results 

The highest score of the deforestation and climate change theme went to Alter Eco and Beyond Good. There were several others in the ‘green’ or top scoring category: Chocolats Halba, ECOM, Ferrero, Nestlé, and Olam. All these companies have undertaken efforts that put them at the top of the pack, relative to their peers. The lowest scores for deforestation and climate change went to Daito Cacao, Glico and Morinaga. These companies did, however, respond to the survey and have endeavoured to engage on deforestation and climate. This sets them apart from General Mills, Starbucks, and Storck who did not participate in the survey – and who appear (based on a review of their publicly available material) to be worryingly behind on many sustainability metrics including those for their cocoa when it comes to forests/climate – remain at the rock bottom.  

Grading for the deforestation and climate change theme was tough. For many questions we were looking for specific and verifiable data – usually figures and percentages with links so they can be publicly verified. While many of our companies were great at narrative accounts, some key figures were missing.  

We will start with what was done not so well: 

  • Satellite monitoring – We would like to see more companies purchasing cocoa from locations that are verified deforestation-free, using a satellite monitoring system. Even better, if companies started using the available technology that forecasts (quite accurately) where deforestation will happen, this could stop deforestation in their cocoa supply chains before it takes place. While many companies are starting to do monitoring, imagine how good it would be if all companies reached 100%, and then actually used the monitoring to curb forest destruction in their supply chains!  
  • Deforestation mapping - We gave special attention to deforestation and purchasing from the two largest cocoa producing countries, Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. Many companies could not provide details on cocoa they had sourced from areas deforested since 2010 (at which point, accurate and free satellite mapping of forests was easily accessible to all); or again after November 2017 (at which point Cocoa & Forests Initiative (CFI) was signed, wherein all major companies and the governments of Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana pledged to end deforestation and start mapping). We appreciate that this data can feel confusing at first, especially if companies have only recently begun mapping. But, without mapping and understanding one’s deforestation, pledges will remain empty words.  
  • Verifiability - In the survey, we awarded points where respondents provided reference to their data/figures, which can be independently checked. In several instances, citations and URLs were not provided and grades were not given, such as for a few companies who failed to provide evidence of a time-bound plan for working with suppliers and smallholders to map farms using GPS.  
  • Transparency is important - Public transparency in relation to deforestation and climate change is important, so we have urged participating companies to keep publicly sharing their sustainability initiatives and achievements. This allows civil society to follow the old adage: trust, but verify.  

Now, onto what was done well:  

  • Monitoring systems - Most of the companies we surveyed have some form of monitoring system. However, most of these remain incomplete or even deeply flawed. For example, satellite mapping is rarely connected to an alert system that trigger field investigations in the places identified as having deforestation. It also seems almost no company is using deforestation forecasting, although this now exists for Côte d’Ivoire and for many geographies with a variety of tools. There were some standouts: Beyond Good used both satellite imagery as well as on-the-ground monitoring and went further than its peers. Beyond Good established a high-quality Deforestation Dashboard as a deforestation monitoring system.  

Source: Beyond Good’s mapping tool. 

  • Collaboration to eradicate deforestation - Many of the participating companies have joined the ‘Cocoa & Forest Initiative’ (CFI) and/or Initiatives for Sustainable Cocoa (ISCOs). ISCOs refer to public-private platforms for sustainable cocoa now existing in a number of countries including Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, The Netherlands, France and Japan. Most ISCOs include a focus on deforestation in cocoa, and help shape collaborative efforts to eradicate deforestation from consumer countries, as CFI does in producer countries. While it is great to see a lot of companies joining CFI and ISCOs, we are finding similar themes - that there is still a lot to making these collaborative efforts truly work. Joining is only one step. Collaborating for robust group efforts to promote change, is key. Merely joining does not obviate a need for companies to continue their individual work on deforestation and climate change, nor their need to invest in conservation and restoration.  
  • Deforestation-free policies - It was great to see that most of our participants had gone beyond CFIs to embrace a global deforestation-free cocoa policy, or even a cross-commodity deforestation-free policy (for some or all regions they source from). It shows that companies in this industry are trying to take seriously the issues of deforestation and climate change in their supply chains. 
  • Public grievance systems and noncompliance policies - Most Scorecard participants have established both public grievance mechanisms, and noncompliance policies. In most cases these are not deforestation-specific, but cover the entire supply chain, including social and environmental indicators. However, full points on this front were only given when public grievance mechanisms were easily accessible and user-friendly, and where non-compliance policies establish clear consequences for deforestation, including suspension.  
  • Net-Zero carbon emission - We see major positive change with some key cocoa/chocolate companies embracing the SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard. Points were awarded for joining SBTi’s race to zero. While some of the commitments show a low-ambition target of 2050, others have better timetables focused on 2030. In future grading of deforestation and climate change, we will be looking specifically at the actions companies are taking to reach these targets and whether companies have signed up for SBTi.  

A note on CDP, which some cocoa/chocolate companies flagged. We think CDP is providing a valuable service in promoting transparency for investors and nudging companies to be more explicit with the types of data and analysis they report. However, there is uneven public access to CDP disclosures. Best practice in the cocoa space could mean that companies opt to submit forest disclosures to CDP, and also post a copy of their disclosures to their company website so it can be verified.  

A tip for next year’s Chocolate Scorecard! 

Despite progress, some companies are still at risk from sourcing cocoa associated with legal and illegal deforestation. Legislation has been proposed by the European Union to regulate deforestation in high-risk commodities such as cocoa, and similar regulation is also proposed for other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, United States of America, New York State, the State of California, and more. It is worth noting that many chocolate companies have spoken out courageously to support due diligence and deforestation-free regulations in recent years. A public statement supporting regulation in your home country or regions where you sell chocolate will help gain you a better score in future years.  

There are many different roads that lead to better policy and action on deforestation and climate change. For example, Ferrero scored a ‘Green’ because it has now joined others in purchasing 100% certified volumes, and this comes on top of its considerable company-specific efforts around deforestation and climate. However, taking a different path, Mars scored well with only about half of its cocoa being certified, but performing far better when it comes to a serious company-wide, commodity-wide approach to slashing overall emissions with a time-bound implementation plan.  

Another pathway to points was, for example, clear criteria on what it takes to suspend a non-compliant supplier caught with deforestation problems (as opposed to wishy washy criteria or no criteria). Yet another pathway consists of rapid and largescale improvement, with the key to points being speed and scale of change. So, we tried to recognize that what is “good” in the case of deforestation and climate change can be very different. We’re agonistic so long as companies are on a meaningful road, and not a bridge to nowhere. 

Overall, we see lots of potential for continued growth in policy, monitoring, and action in relation to deforestation and climate change, but this is not a bad place to be, at least for the higher-performing companies in this category!  

Agroforestry: How do Chocolate Companies Compare?  

Dr Cristiana Bernardi 

Cristiana Bernardi is a Senior Lecturer in Accounting and Financial Management at The Open University Business School (UK).  

This blog post is one of a series linked to the publication of the 2022 Chocolate Scorecard company sustainability rankings. To view the 2022 Chocolate Scorecard please go to 

Agroforestry: the Future of Cocoa Farming 

Over recent years, the practice of agroforestry has been gaining momentum in cocoa production, as farmers recognise the importance of protecting their land to mitigate the risks posed by climate change and experience the benefits of mixed cropping for their food and livelihood security.  

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines agroforestry as: “(…) a dynamic, ecologically based, natural resource management system that, through the integration of trees on farms and in the agricultural landscape, diversifies and sustains production for increased social, economic and environmental benefits for land users at all levels”.  

When experts refer to cocoa grown in regenerative or ‘nature positive’ agricultural systems, they are often actually referring to robust agroforestry methods of cocoa growing. Scientific research demonstrates that agroforestry cocoa systems are better for the planet, as they can increase carbon sequestration, improve soil health and air moisture retention, support biodiversity, as well as deliver substantial enhancement of farmers’ food security and income diversification. When farmers monocrop, they are hostage to the vicissitudes of market shocks in the price of cocoa; when they produce multiple crops to diversify their income, this can protect them if a market shock occurs. Overall, when crafted properly, agroforestry cocoa systems are a win-win for people and the planet, farmers, and forests. 

These benefits are not abstract. A recent study from the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), in collaboration with the UN-REDD Programme and the CocoaSoils initiative, outlines the potential for targeted cocoa agroforestry implementation to help restore forest cover in the Côte d’Ivoire, the biggest cocoa producer country in the world. The researchers found that “implementing agroforestry in current cocoa growing areas alone could potentially help to store an extra 120 million metric tons of carbon.” They also predict that “assuming the full potential for cocoa agroforestry is met in these areas, the national goal of 20% forest cover could be met” for Côte d’Ivoire.  

Industry Progress? 

For companies that source, trade or process cocoa, the production system under which that cocoa is grown therefore plays a huge role in the overall sustainability of their supply chain. The extent to which companies source from and/or support agroforestry cocoa was, therefore, a key component of the 2022 Chocolate Scorecard. We analysed company responses in the following areas for this category:  

  1. Any agroforestry policy – and its definition;
  2. Application of the agroforestry policy, globally or to West Africa only;
  3. Assessment and monitoring of the agroforestry policy;
  4. Support for and investment in farmers within the supply chain to transition to agroforestry growing methods; and
  5. A target year to source 100% of the cocoa grown in an agroforestry setting.

Despite the wide array of ecological benefits that can be achieved with cocoa agroforestry systems, and the recent progress in industry embracing agroforestry, the results from our questionnaire reveal that as of now agroforestry in the cocoa sector is still far from its potential. As a result, the global transition from monocropping cocoa to diverse agroforestry systems has a long way to go.  

To begin with, we note from our findings for the Chocolate Scorecard that a clear and widely agreed upon-definition of agroforestry is not in place across the cocoa industry. . As of today, a unified definition remains elusive. Even where some consensus can be found with clusters of companies agreeing on some definitions – such as through Rainforest Alliance (RA) the Cocoa & Forests Initiative (CFI), and the Initiative on Sustainable Cocoa (ISCO) – they are not entirely suitable definitions. Analysts have found that these definitions frequently fall short of:  

(i) being farmer-centric;  

(ii) considering an adequate number of trees per hectare;  

(iii) using an adequate percentage of shade per hectare;  

(iv) defining an adequate number of canopy heights;  

(v) prioritising native trees over invasive species; and  

(vi) conducting adequate follow up to ensure the system isn’t failing. 

Therefore, it is of utmost importance for the cocoa industry and the governments of cocoa-producing nations to agree on what is meant by agroforestry, and for that shared definition to be based on the best available science.  

Further, it could be argued that the development of agroforestry systems has not been addressed sufficiently in policy formulation. Both legal restrictions on land management and complex taxation frameworks hinder the development of agroforestry. Unless agroforestry is promoted and regulated through specific policies, it is unlikely that considerable steps forwards will be taken.  

Another major challenge related to cocoa agroforestry is the inadequacy of monitoring systems. This is vital because, in some agroforestry projects, up to 90% of the non-cocoa trees planted end up dying. Monitoring to ensure continuity and success is therefore crucial. Despite numerous tree distribution campaigns in Côte d’Ivoire, the survival rate of distributed trees is less than 2%. Consequently, providing intensive training, education, and collaborative work with cocoa farmers and farm workers are critical to ensuring the successful transition from monoculture to agroforestry.  

Monitoring agroforestry will require investing in technologies and process development for national traceability systems and farm mapping as well as aboveground carbon assessments with satellite mapping. Monitoring progress should be carried out on a regular basis in a collaborative and inclusive manner to enable local civil society and farmers to take part in the monitoring process alongside satellite mappers, scientific experts, government officials, and industry representatives. 

Last but not least, the concepts of agroforestry and zero-deforestation are often confused. Agroforestry is not a replacement for natural forests, although it can contribute to compensating for past deforestation to a minor degree. 

Despite these shortcomings, we were pleased to see that the 2022 Chocolate Scorecard revealed a massive uptick in the industry’s ambition and investment in agroforestry systems compared to the previous editions.  

Chocolate Scorecard survey results 

Grading for the Agroforestry theme was not always straightforward. According to the survey, most companies have an agroforestry policy that applies to all regions they source from. A global policy would be ideal.  

  • Only a minority of the respondents have an agroforestry policy that exclusively applies to West African sourcing. Companies with a West African only policy, should revise it to make it global. 
  • A small number of companies admitted to not having an agroforestry policy at all. This is not acceptable. All companies that buy cocoa should have an agroforestry policy. 
  • Not all the companies provided us with clear-cut percentages of vegetation coverage, canopy cover, and species per hectare required. In some cases, narrative accounts were provided as an attempt to respond to the question. Further, we observed a number of companies not disclosing any figures at all.
  • Points were allotted for companies’ definitions of agroforestry. The better the definition, the better the score. 
  • Points were allotted for the percentage of cocoa grown already in agroforestry systems. Again, the higher the percentage, the better the score. 
  • Points were allotted for improvements as well, and for efforts to switch from monocropping to agroforestry systems. The bigger the switch, the better the score. 
  • Points were allotted for the percentage of cocoa grown with RA certification, as RA does include a focus on agroforestry systems, and works with farmers to continuously improve their agroforestry performance. The higher the percentage, the better the score. 
  • Points were allotted for monitoring.  
  • A few front-runner companies explicitly declared a target year to source 100% of their cocoa grown in an agroforestry setting. 

Investors and supermarkets urged to drop JBS aftershock rise in its climate emissions 

The full Mighty Earth’s report on JBS titled The Boys From Brazil can be found here:

The world’s largest meat company, JBS, has increased its greenhouse gas emissions by a staggering 51% over the last five years and is now responsible for greater emissions than Italy’s annual climate footprint, new research finds.

A coalition of campaign groups – including the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), Feedback and Mighty Earth – have expressed outrage at JBS’s supersized climate emissions, which place it at odds with its own corporate emissions reduction strategy just one year on from its ‘Net-Zero by 2040’ pledge

Ahead of the company’s annual general meeting (AGM) in São Paulo tomorrow, the coalition urges JBS’s investors and customers to drop the Brazil-based company. JBS’s top investors include Brazilian development bank BNDES, asset manager BlackRock, and Barclays and Santander banks. Its major customers in the retail sector include supermarket giants Carrefour, Costco, Tesco, Walmart and Ahold Delhaize. Its customers include McDonald’s, Burger King, and KFC in the fast-food sector. 

Using an UN-approved methodology, new research contained in a media brief by IATP, Feedback and investigative website DeSmog, found that JBS – which processed 26.8 million cattle, 46.7 million pigs and 4.9 billion chickens last year – increased its annual GHG emissions by 51% in five years from 280 million metric tonnes (mmts) in 2016 to around 421.6 mmts in 2021. This is more than the annual climate footprint of Italy or Spain and close to that of France (at 443 mmt) and the UK (at 453 mmt). It is approximately equivalent to fossil fuel giant Total’s 2020 emissions.

The latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report has singled out livestock-related methane emissions, recommending they be slashed by a third by 2030 to hold global temperature rise to 1.5ºC. Instead, JBS’s emissions are set to jump even higher as it pursues aggressive expansion plans and seeks access to increased financing through a possible listing on an American stock exchange.

“It’s mind-blowing that JBS can continue to make climate claims to investors, even as the company massively increases its emissions,” said Shefali Sharma, Europe director of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, which estimated in 2018 that JBS’s emissions were roughly half that of oil majors such as BP, Shell or ExxonMobil. “Our updated emissions estimates show clearly the harm being done by empty net-zero announcements. This greenwash shouldn't fool investors gathering at today's AGM. We need public, independent and accountable systems for monitoring these companies’ emissions. Governments need to step up and regulate these companies and support a transition out of this destructive model of industrial livestock production.”

With operations in 20 countries ranging from Brazil to the US and record annual revenues of $76 billion, JBS last year promised to achieve net-zero emissions by 2040. However, its net-zero plans provide little detail and have been panned by campaigners for omitting so-called ‘Scope 3’ emissions, representing up to 97% of JBS’s contribution to climate change. Scope 3 emissions encompass pollution from its entire supply chain: potent greenhouse gases such as methane emitted from livestock, as well as emissions from deforestation, forest fires, and land conversion, plus the production of animal feed, enteric fermentation, and the use of agrochemicals.

Carina Millstone, Executive Director of campaign group Feedback, said: “It's high time that banks and investors, many of whom have adopted their own 'net-zero’ targets and committed to ending deforestation, ceased to bankroll climate chaos and the destruction of nature, by pulling the plug on their financial backing to toxic JBS and its subsidiaries.”

Hazel Healy, UK Editor of climate investigative news outlet DeSmog, said: “JBS is using the same greenwashing tactics employed by oil and gas majors for decades. It presents itself as a company with genuine climate ambition but fails to disclose its full emissions so they can be compared with the company’s public communications. And as this research shows, JBS’s emissions are increasing substantially, not decreasing.”

Launched alongside IATP’s JBS emissions revelations, a new report about the company by Mighty Earth – called The Boys From Brazil – highlights how JBS used corruption and massive government subsidies to finance the enormous international growth into the climate super-polluter category in which it finds itself today. 

The report highlights that JBS was responsible for an estimated 1.5 million hectares of deforestation in its indirect supply chains in Brazil since 2008 and warns that scandal-hit JBS has repeatedly broken its promises to stamp out deforestation in the Amazon or conserve other key ecosystems such as the Cerrado and the Pantanal. It also chronicles a long history of links to elite bribery, price-fixing, invasion of Indigenous lands, worker exploitation, modern-day slavery, and environmental pollution.

“JBS is one of the world’s worst climate offenders, and that’s why we’re urging its key customers like giant supermarkets Carrefour, Costco and Tesco to drop JBS urgently,” said Alex Wijeratna, Campaign Director at Mighty Earth. “No company that buys meat from JBS can claim to be serious about climate change. JBS could easily implement systems that would end its links to deforestation and radically reduce its methane pollution. The fact that a single meat company can cause more pollution than an entire G7 member country should be a wake-up call that we need a massive scale-up of plant-based and cultivated protein, and we need it now.”


  • Shefali Sharma, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), [email protected], Tel: +49 177 146 9613; Ben Lilliston, IATP in the US, Tel: +1 612 870-0453 x3416
  • Natasha Hurley, Feedback, [email protected], Tel: +44 7585 663648
  • Rich Collett-White, DeSmog, [email protected], Tel: +44 7805 887695
  • Alex Wijeratna, Mighty Earth, [email protected] + 44 01753 370 823

Notes for editors:

  1. The full DeSmog, IATP and Feedback joint media briefing on JBS’s emissions and climate greenwash:
  2. Mighty Earth’s new report on JBS titled The Boys From Brazil can be found here:
  3. Mighty Earth's new report can also be found in French and Spanish.


The Boys From Brazil: How JBS became the world’s largest meat company – and wrecked the climate to do it

The Boys From Brazil: How JBS became the world’s largest meat company – and wrecked the climate to do it 


Mighty Earth has published a new report which highlights that the world’s largest meat company, JBS, has increased its greenhouse gas emissions by a staggering 51% over the last five years and is now responsible for greater emissions than Italy’s annual climate footprint.

The report The Boys From Brazil: How JBS became the world’s largest meat company – and wrecked the climate to do it highlights how the Brazilian-based meat giant has been driving the destruction of the Amazon rainforest and other ecosystems, while also causing supersized climate emissions. The scandal-hit company has been linked to high-level bribery, price-fixing, pollution and the exploitation of workers.

Key findings in the report: 

  • JBS has increased its greenhouse gas emissions by a staggering 51% over the last five years 
  • JBS’ emissions are now greater than Italy's annual climate footprint 
  • JBS slaughtered 46.7 million pigs, 26.8 million cattle and 4.9 billion chickens last year 
  • JBS’s emissions are now higher than the annual climate footprint of Spain and are almost as much as France and the United Kingdom. 

The latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report has singled out livestock-related methane emissions, recommending they be slashed by a third by 2030 in order to hold global temperature rise to 1.5ºC. This means the rapid expansion of JBS poses a direct threat to the climate. 
Mighty Earth’s report highlights that JBS was responsible for an estimated 1.5 million hectares of deforestation in its indirect supply chains in Brazil since 2008 and warns that JBS has repeatedly broken its promises to stamp out deforestation. 
“JBS is one of the world’s worst climate offenders and that’s why we’re urging its key customers like giant supermarkets Carrefour, Costco and Tesco to drop JBS urgently,” said Alex Wijeratna, Campaign Director at Mighty Earth.  

Read the full report

Communiqué de presse: Travail des enfants? Empoisonnement aux pesticides? Dans quelle mesure votre chocolat de Pâques est-il éthique?

Ce communiqué de presse est interdit à la diffusion jusqu'au 7 avril, 12:01 temps de l’Est (GMT – 4)

Le rapport complet peut être consulté au lien : en Français
Méthodologie: en Anglais

Contact : Miles Grant, [email protected], (+1) 703-864-9599 (m)

L’évaluation du chocolat de Pâques 2022 classe Starbucks parmi les "œufs cassés"

La coalition encourage l'industrie à rompre tous liens entre produits chocolatés, déforestation, travail des enfants et dégradation de l'environnement.

7 avril 2022 - Que contient réellement notre chocolat de Pâques ? Une coalition mondiale de défenseurs de l'environnement et de la justice sociale publie aujourd'hui The Chocolate Scorecard ou évaluation du chocolat, une enquête annuelle qui examine les progrès, ou l'absence de progrès, de l'industrie du chocolat dans la résolution des problèmes sociaux et environnementaux découlant des pratiques de l'industrie du cacao et des produits chocolatés qu'elle vend. La coalition de 29 membres est composée, entre autres, de Be Slavery Free, Mighty Earth et National Wildlife Federation.

L’évaluation du chocolat se concentre sur les chaînes de production et d'approvisionnement qui commencent en Afrique de l'Ouest, où environ 75 % du cacao mondial est produit. Si de nombreux acteurs du secteur relèvent le défi, d’autres, en revanche, continuent d'ignorer l’exigence des consommateurs d’avoir un chocolat exempt de travail des enfants, de pauvreté et de déforestation. Starbucks, General Mills et Storck ont reçu l'"œuf cassé" pour leur refus de fournir des informations pour les besoins de l’évaluation.

"Il est décevant de voir des entreprises comme Starbucks, qui prétendent être leader en matière de durabilité et de lutte contre la crise climatique, refuser de répondre à des questions directes sur leurs performances en matière de durabilité du cacao. Il est inadmissible que, à une époque de transparence croissante, Starbucks refuse d'être franc avec ses clients", déclare Glenn Hurowitz, fondateur et PDG de Mighty Earth. Et il poursuit : "Mighty Earth continuera à exiger la transparence et une véritable durabilité de la chaîne d'approvisionnement, tant pour notre climat que pour les communautés locales qui produisent ces matières premières essentielles."

Storck a reçu l'"Œuf pourri" pour la pire note globale, les chercheurs relevant le manque de transparence des politiques et pratiques dans sa chaîne d'approvisionnement en cacao, ainsi qu’à la lumière des plaintes de la société civile concernant l'entreprise.

Cette année, Ferrero rejoint la liste des bons œufs ("Good Eggs") qui comporte également Hershey's, Unilever et Ritter, dont le cacao est certifié à près de 100 % par Rainforest Alliance ou Fairtrade.

"Bien que la certification ne soit pas parfaite, elle constitue souvent une première étape positive dans le parcours de durabilité d'une entreprise", a déclaré Fuzz Kitto, de Be Slavery Free, l'organisation caritative basée en Australie qui a coordonné l’évaluation du chocolat 2022. "Si les entreprises progressent dans l'amélioration de la durabilité de leurs chaînes d'approvisionnement en chocolat, nous, leurs clients et leurs investisseurs, aimerions en être informés."

Les mentions spéciales pour le leadership sont attribuées à :

  • Alter Eco, Tony's Chocolonely et Whittaker's pour avoir continué à être parmi les meilleurs de leur catégorie.
  • Nestlé pour avoir pris d'importantes mesures en matière d'innovation afin d'améliorer le revenu des agriculteurs grâce à des paiements supplémentaires et pour s'être engagée à planter 2,8 millions d'arbres d'ombrage d'ici à la fin 2022.
  • Ferrero pour avoir rejoint d'autres entreprises dont le cacao est en grande majorité certifié, comme Hershey's, Unilever, Fazer et quelques autres.

Le tableau d’évaluation du chocolat est une mesure de responsabilité qui évalue les entreprises sur les six questions de durabilité les plus urgentes auxquelles est confrontée l'industrie du chocolat : la diligence raisonnable en matière de droits de l'homme, la transparence et la traçabilité, la déforestation et le changement climatique, l'agroforesterie, les politiques de revenu de subsistance et le travail des enfants. Alors que les chrétiens du monde entier célèbrent Pâques en dégustant des produits chocolatés, la coalition invite les consommateurs à utiliser le tableau de bord pour effectuer des achats plus intelligents et plus durables qui récompensent le bon comportement des entreprises plutôt que de renforcer les pratiques irresponsables.

Une précédente analyse des données (data analysis) de Mighty Earth a révélé que, plus de quatre ans après le lancement très médiatisé de l'Initiative Cacao et Forêts (CFI), les principales nations africaines productrices de cacao continuent de voir d'énormes zones de forêts précieuses détruites en Afrique de l'Ouest pour faire place à la production de cacao. La perte de ces précieuses forêts est souvent motivée par le fait que les petits exploitants locaux ne tirent pas de revenu suffisant de leur cacao, ce qui les oblige à pratiquer une agriculture extensive.

"Le temps des petits projets de compagnie est révolu et nous commençons maintenant à voir de nombreuses entreprises prendre des engagements majeurs pour lutter contre la pauvreté des agriculteurs et améliorer les moyens de subsistance des cacaoculteurs", soutient Sam Mawutor, du College of Earth Oceans and Atmospheric Sciences de l'Oregon State University. "Au minimum, cela montre que les marques de chocolat sont conscientes de ce problème, ce qui est un progrès. Cependant, étant donné que la pauvreté des ménages d'agriculteurs entraîne le travail des enfants, l'utilisation de produits chimiques et la conversion des forêts, il est nécessaire que les entreprises améliorent leur collaboration pour la mise en œuvre de solutions coordonnées à large échelle."

À propos de Mighty Earth

Mighty Earth ( est une organisation mondiale de défense d'une planète vivante.  Notre objectif est de conserver la moitié de la Terre pour la nature et de garantir un climat propice à la vie.  Nous sommes résolument engagés à l’obtention d'impact et aspirons à être l'organisation de défense de l'environnement la plus efficace au monde. Notre équipe a réussi à transformer les choses en persuadant les principales industries de réduire considérablement la déforestation et la pollution climatique tout au long de leurs chaînes d'approvisionnement mondiales en huile de palme, caoutchouc, cacao et aliments pour animaux, tout en améliorant les moyens de subsistance des communautés autochtones et locales des régions tropicales de la planète.

Pour les demandes de presse générales, veuillez contacter Miles Grant, [email protected], (+1) 703-864-9599 (m)

Pour toute demande de la presse locale, des photos et des citations d'experts, veuillez contactez les personnes suivantes :

  • Australie Fuzz Kitto (heure de l’est australien) +61 (0) 407 931 115 [email protected] (Anglais)
  • Europe de l’Est Kadri Org (heure d’été Europe de l’Est) Tél : +372 56 489 584 [email protected] (Estonien, Anglais)
  • Europe de l’Ouest Esta Steyn (heure d’Europe centrale) +31 6 3457 1595 [email protected](hollandais, Afrikaans)
  • Japon Roger Smith (heure de l’Est étatsunien) [email protected] (Anglais, japonais), Hajime Enomoto (heure normale du Japon), [email protected] (japonais)
  • Royaume Uni Dominic Murphy (heure britannique normale) +44 (0)7943 498239 [email protected](Anglais)
  • Etats-Unis Etelle Higonnet (heure de l’Est étatsunien) +1 202 848 7792. [email protected] (Anglais, français, espagnole, portugais, italien, allemand)
    Afrique de l’Ouest Fofana Mansah Souleymane (heure d’Afrique de l’Ouest) +225 22 42 21 42 [email protected] (Anglais, français)






2022年4月8日 ー「世界チョコレート成績表」は、人権NGOビー・スレイバリー・フリー、マイティ・アース、熱帯林行動ネットワークなど29団体が参加するネットワーク団体「ザ・チョコレート・コレクティブ」によって、チョコレートの取引業者、加工業者、製造業者を含む世界最大のチョコレート企業38社(注1の社会的・環境的影響を評価したものです。







2「チョコレート成績表」は、世界のカカオの約75%が生産されている西アフリカを起点とした生産とサプライチェーンに着目しています。日本のカカオ豆の輸入額(2019年)の 約7割はガーナからのものです。



これまでのマイティ・アースのデータ分析により、注目された「カカオと森林イニシアチブ(The Cocoa and Forests Initiative, CFI)」の発足から4年以上が経過した現在も、アフリカのカカオ生産上位国では、西アフリカでカカオ生産のために広大な面積の貴重な森林が破壊されていることが判明しています。この貴重な森林の消失は、この地域の小規模農家がカカオから生計を立てられず、拡大を余儀なくされていることが原因であることが多いのです。
















調査チーム:Be Slavery Free, Macquarie University (Australia), Wollongong University (Australia), The Open University (UK)

アドバイザー:Forest Trends, International Cocoa Initiative, Pesticide Action Network, Sudwind Institute, VOICE Network

協力団体:Abolishion, ACRATH, Asset Campaign, Baptist World Aid Australia, Child Labor Coalition, EcoCare Ghana, Estwatch, European Freedom Network, Freedom United, Green America, 熱帯林行動ネットワーク, El Llamado del Bosque, マイティ・アース, National Consumer League, National Wildlife Federation, Netzwerk gegen Menschenhandel, RAIN, Roscidet, SIM for Freedom, Unseen.


熱帯林をはじめとした世界の森林の保全のために、森林破壊を招いている日本の木材貿易と木材の浪費社会を改善するための政府、企業、市民の役割を提言し、世界各地の森林について、生物多様性や地域の住民の生活が守られるなど、環境面、社会面において健全な状態にすることを目指しています。団体ウェブサイトには、マイティ・アースが2017年に発表した「Chocolate ‘s Dark Secret」の内容を日本語でまとめた「チョコレートについての基本情報」を用意していますので、ご参考までにお使いください。


マイティ・アース (は、命ある地球の保護活動を行うグローバルなアドボカシー組織です。自然のために地球の半分を守り、命が繁栄できる気候を確保することを目標としています。  当組織のチームは、世界に張り巡らされたパーム油、ゴム、カカオ、飼料などのサプライチェーンにおいて森林破壊と気候変動をもたらす汚染を大幅に削減するよう大手企業を説得し、熱帯地方の先住民族や地域住民の生活向上を図ることにより、変革を実現してきました。

ご連絡先:サミュエル・マウター、ロジャー・スミス [email protected] (日本語対応可)


ビー・スレイバリー・フリーは、市民団体、コミュニティー、およびその他の組織からなる連盟で、ともにオーストラリア、オランダ、そして世界各地で現代版の奴隷労働の防止、廃止、撤廃に向け活動を行っています。ビー・スレイバリー・フリーには、現代版の奴隷労働の防止、撤廃、対策を現地で行ってきた経験があります。特に、サプライチェーンにおける奴隷労働に光を当てることに注力しています。ビー・スレイバリー・フリーが生み出した動きにより、オーストラリアでは現代奴隷法の可決が実現しました。2007年以降はチョコレート業界との取り組みを行い、カカオ生産における児童労働と奴隷労働の問題への対応を求めてきました。ビー・スレイバリー・フリーに関してさらなる情報は、 で公開しています。

ご連絡先:ビー・スレイバリー・フリー(オーストラリア)ファズ・キット+61(0)407-931-115(オーストラリア東部標準時)[email protected]



Cargill: pull out of Russia - action at Cargill HQ

Mighty Earth volunteers visited Cargill to say: Stop doing business in Russia. Cargill must cease its $1 billion+ business in Putin's Russia. 

They carried thousands of petition signatures and a letter from Ukraine civil society groups and allies from Minnesota and around the country and world.

Thanks to the volunteers, allies and especially Ukrainian organizations who reached out to ask Cargill to stand with them. Watch what happened:

Perusahaan Kertas Korea menjarah hutan hujan terakhir sembari mengklaim operasinya ramah lingkungan

Setahun Investigasi mengungkap deforestasi di rantai pasok kertas dan bubur kertas

Merauke, Papua, Indonesia (15 Maret, 2022) — Sebuah Investigasi terbaru dikeluarkan hari ini oleh Environmental Paper Network (EPN), Mighty Earth, Pusaka, Solutions for Our Climate (SFOC), Korean Federation for Environmental Movement (KFEM) and Advocates for Public Interest Law (APIL) merincikan perusakan hutan alami di provinsi terpencil tanah Papua, Indonesia. Surga dari keanekaragaman hayati, budaya masyarakat adat, dan tangkapan karbon ini sedang dihancurkan untuk memproduksi serpihan kayu pembuatan kertas yang dicap sebagai produk yang lestari dan beretika kepada konsumen di seluruh dunia.

Moorim Paper, perusahaan Korea Selatan, melalui anak perusahaannya, PT Plasma Nutfah Marind Papua (PT PNMP) telah membabat lebih dari enam ribu hektar hutan antara tahun 2015 dan 2021. Dengan luas 64.000 hektar yang mereka kelola, dan akan lebih banyak hutan yang terancam dibabat di tahun-tahun mendatang.

Di antara tuntutan dari penyelidikan, koalisi menyerukan Moorim agar berkomitmen di publik untuk segera melakukan moratorium terhadap pembukaan hutan lebih lanjut, sambil menunggu analisis menyeluruh nilai-nilai lingkungan dan sosial yang harus dilindungi; mengadopsi dan melaksanakan kebijakan Tanpa Deforestasi Tanpa Pembukaan Gambut, Tanpa Eksploitasi (No Deforestation No Peat No Exploitation - NDPE), termasuk di dalamnya Nilai Konservasi Tinggi - Nilai Stok Karbon Tinggi (HCV-HCSA); dan pemulihan wilayah yang telah dirusak, juga memulihkan hak-hak masyarakat adat yang telah diabaikan. Selain itu, koalisi mendesak Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) untuk melakukan penyelidikan penuh atas masalah ini untuk menjaga integritas sertifikasi FSC.

Hutan hujan Papua adalah surga keanekaragaman hayati yang otentik, rumah bagi ribuan spesies flora dan fauna yang unik di bumi, terutama di daerah tempat perusahaan berada merupakan habitat kanguru pohon dan kasuari, dengan banyak spesies yang masih harus ditemukan dan dikatalogkan, dan yang lain dikategorikan sebagai spesies terancam dalam Daftar Merah IUCN.

Sampai saat ini, hutan alam di provinsi terpencil di Indonesia ini relatif masih utuh. Namun, gelombang perkebunan industri telah mengoyak wilayah tersebut, merusak seluruh ekosistem serta tanah masyarakat adat untuk menghasilkan komoditas di pasar global. “Kertas dijual secara global sebagai pengganti plastik yang katanya ramah lingkungan, namun ternyata masih berasal dari deforestasi dan melecehkan hak masyarakat adat”, kata Sergio Baffoni dari Environmental Paper Network (EPN). “Kita tidak dapat mengorbankan surga terakhir di planet ini untuk produk yang hanya berakhir di tempat sampah dalam beberapa jam setelah dipakai sekali”.

“Moorim Paper mengiklankan diri sebagai pemimpin industri kertas dan bubur kertas yang berkelanjutan, tetapi pelanggarannya terhadap hak asasi manusia dan perusakan hutan tropis asli di Papua tidak diketahui oleh masyarakat Korea.” kata Soojin Kim dari Solution for Our Climate (SFOC). “Bahwa Moorim mengabaikan peringatan LSM Korea ini dan masih melanjutkan bisnis seperti biasa tanpa menyelesaikan masalah ini dalam tiga tahun terakhir, ini tidak bisa kita terima.”

Hutan-hutan yang dibabat oleh Moorim di Papua adalah milik suku tradisional, yang telah membentuk kehidupan dan budaya mereka. Namun, buldoser perusahaan menghancurkan tempat mencari ikan, berburu, dusun sagu, dan bahkan situs keramat mereka, di mana tanah suku-suku tersebut memiliki nilai-nilai sosial dan spiritual bagi mereka. Moorim telah gagal untuk menghormati hak-hak masyarakat adat dan menerapkan Persetujuan atas Dasar Informasi Awal tanpa Paksaan (Free Prior Informed Consent) untuk setiap kegiatan di tanah mereka. “Kegagalan perusahaan untuk menghormati hak-hak masyarakat adat menyebabkan kerugian sosial ekonomi, budaya dan lingkungan” kata Franky Samperante, Direktur Eksekutif Yayasan Pusaka Bentala Rakyat. “Masyarakat adat sudah menghadapi kesulitan dalam memenuhi kebutuhan mereka akan pangan dan air yang berkualitas, penghidupan, dan harmoni, di mana semua ini tidak bisa diganti dengan kompensasi yang tidak adil. Pemerintah harus memberikan sanksi atas dugaan pelanggaran terhadap perusahaan”.

Lebih jauh lagi “Laporan ini menunjukkan bagaimana perusahaan seperti Moorim terus mencampakkan hutan hujan terakhir di Indonesia sambil bersembunyi di balik label hijau kehutanan FSC. FSC harus mengambil tindakan cepat terhadap setiap perusahaan yang melanggar standarnya. Jika tidak, maka label FSC hanyalah sebuah greenwash kata Annisa Rahmawati, Advokat Mighty Earth untuk Indonesia.

“Pemerintah Korea terkait secara langsung dengan dampak lingkungan dan pelanggaran hak asasi manusia yang disebabkan oleh PT PNMP, dengan memberikan pinjaman 9,1 miliar KRW kepada perusahaan induknya, Moorim P&P untuk kegiatan bisnis kehutanannya di luar negeri. Pemerintah harus segera membuka penyelidikan yang transparan dan inklusif tentang kerugian yang ditimbulkan oleh PT PNMP serta meminta Moorim P&P untuk melakukan uji tuntas lingkungan dan hak asasi manusia terhadap PT PNMP termasuk memberikan solusi'' pungkas Shin Young Chung dari Advocates for Public Interest Hukum (APIL).

Waktu kita hampir habis untuk menyelamatkan iklim dan hutan-hutan terakhir di bumi ini, serta orang-orang yang hidupnya bergantung padanya. Sudah waktunya bagi Moorim untuk berhenti bersembunyi di bawah klaim ramah lingkungan. Jika Moorim gagal mengambil langkah-langkah yang diperlukan, maka sudah seharusnya pembeli, pemodal, dan mitra bisnisnya menutup kontrak pasokan, menghentikan dan menangguhkan perjanjian keuangan dan jasa.

Laporan tersedia disini

Korean Paper Company Plunders the Last Rainforests While Continuing to Claim Operations are Eco-Friendly

Year-long Investigation Reveals Deforestation Throughout Pulp & Paper Supply Chain

A new investigation released today by Environmental Paper Network (EPN), Mighty Earth, Pusaka, Solutions for Our Climate (SFOC), Korean Federation for Environmental Movement (KFEM), and Advocates for Public Interest Law (APIL) details the devastation of pristine forests in the remote province of Papua land, Indonesia. 

Moorim Paper, a South Korean company, through its subsidiary company, PT Plasma Nutfah Marind Papua (PT PNMP) has cleared more than six thousand hectares of forests between 2015 and 2021. With 64,000 hectares of the area they manage, more forests will be at risk to be chopped down in the coming years.

This paradise for biodiversity, Indigenous culture, and carbon capture is being devastated to produce wood chips for papermaking that are being branded as sustainably and ethically sourced products to consumers across the globe.

Statement on Cargill’s “Scaling Back” Russian Business

March 11, 2022 – Cargill announced today that it is “scaling back” its business in Russia and stopping investment there, as pressure from Ukrainian organizations, Mighty Earth, and allies mounted on the company.

Cargill’s announcement today that it is “scaling back” its Russian business activities and stopping investment is a “step in the right direction.” Still, Cargill now needs to pull out entirely, according to Ukrainian and global conservation leaders.

"War in Ukraine is a tragedy not only for people but also for the environment. Cargill must continue to take a hard look at the impact of its continuing to send tax revenue to support the Russian invasion,” said Yehor Hrynyk of the Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group.

Over 300 Western businesses ranging from ExxonMobil to McDonald’s have pulled out of Russia to show their opposition to the Putin regime’s brutal invasion. Cargill has suspended operations in Ukraine but has resisted calls to suspend its Russian operations entirely. 

“This is a good step forward for Cargill in re-evaluating its investments in Russia. Anyone who does business with and pays taxes to Vladimir Putin’s government is fueling Russia’s war machine,” said Glenn Hurowitz, founder and CEO of Mighty Earth. “We hope this move will spur a broader reexamination of Cargill’s role in the world, spurring the company to move away from being a business that supports authoritarian governments, drives the destruction of ecosystems, and makes an outsized contribution to climate change.”

“The disruption caused by Russia’s invasion of the Ukrainian breadbasket highlights the need for companies and countries to scale up investments in plant-based and cultivated proteins dramatically, so we’re not so dependent on fragile international supply chains for animal feed,” Hurowitz said.

Cargill competitor LDC announced on March 4 that it was suspending operations in Russia, but ADM and Bunge have also refused to pull out of Russia. However, companies exposed to these traders and Cargill in their supply chains, such as McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Yum! Brands and PepsiCo have announced they are pulling out. 

Privately-owned Cargill’s unethical business practices worldwide have long been in the spotlight. In 2019, Mighty Earth’s report, The Worst Company in the World, detailed the company’s history, including its undermining of the embargo on the Soviet Union in response to the invasion of Afghanistan.

About Mighty Earth

Mighty Earth ( is a global advocacy organization working to defend a living planet.  Our goal is to protect half of Earth for Nature and secure a climate that allows life to flourish.  We are obsessed with impact and aspire to be the most effective environmental advocacy organization in the world. Our team has achieved transformative change by persuading leading industries to dramatically reduce deforestation and  climate pollution throughout their global supply chains in palm oil, rubber, cocoa, and animal feed while improving livelihoods for Indigenous and local communities across the tropics.

Une nouvelle étude approfondie révèle que les principaux fabricants de chocolat n’ont pas tenu leur promesse de mettre fin à la déforestation

Le rapport Petites douceurs révèle que le cacao contribue encore à la destruction d’aires protégées et de l’habitat des chimpanzés et des éléphants, malgré les promesses faites il y a quatre ans par le secteur. 

Lire le rapport complet [FR]
Read the full report [EN]

14 février 2022 — Plus de quatre ans après le lancement très médiatisé de l’Initiative Cacao et Forêts (ICF), les principaux pays africains producteurs de cacao sont toujours confrontés à la destruction de vastes zones forestières au profit des plantations de cacao, indique une nouvelle analyse de données réalisée par Mighty Earth. Petites douceurs: Le secteur du chocolat n’a pas tenu sa promesse de mettre fin à la déforestation dans ses chaînes d’approvisionnement en cacao révèle que, même après la publication des plans de mise en œuvre par le secteur, la Côte d’Ivoire a perdu 19 421 hectares de forêt au sein des régions productrices de cacao, et le Ghana 39 497 hectares. En additionnant ces chiffres, on obtient une superficie équivalente à celle des villes de Madrid, Séoul ou Chicago. 

« Ce rapport dévoile une dimension peu ragoûtante du secteur du cacao et montre qu’il est urgent de rompre le lien unissant les produits chocolatés à la déforestation », a déclaré Glenn Hurowitz, directeur général de Mighty Earth, une organisation mondiale de plaidoyer qui œuvre pour la défense d’une planète vivante. « Les fabricants de chocolat tels que Nestlé, Hershey’s, Mondelēz et Mars doivent cesser de faire de vaines promesses et collaborer dès maintenant avec les gouvernements signataires de l’ICF pour mettre en place cette année un mécanisme conjoint ouvert et efficace de surveillance de la déforestation. »

Grâce à l’analyse de données satellitaires complétées par des enquêtes sur le terrain, Mighty Earth a pu démontrer que le défrichement des forêts tropicales pour la culture du cacao se poursuit. Il s’agit notamment de la déforestation dans des zones dites protégées qui constituent des habitats vitaux pour la faune sauvage menacée, notamment pour les chimpanzés et les hippopotames nains. Ces forêts sont également des puits de carbone indispensables pour freiner la crise climatique et la perte de biodiversité.

Les principales conclusions du rapport sont les suivantes :

  • Quatre ans et demi après l’engagement pris dans le cadre de l’ICF par les fabricants de chocolat et les gouvernements d’interdire la création de nouvelles exploitations de cacao, les taux de déforestation restent dans l’ensemble proches d’un niveau record ;
  • Dans ces régions productrices de cacao, la Côte d’Ivoire a perdu 19 421 hectares (ha) de forêts, soit 2 % de ses forêts, depuis que le plan d’action de l’ICF a été publié en janvier 2019, tandis que le Ghana a perdu une surface conséquente de 39 497 ha de forêts, avec un taux de déforestation vertigineux de 3,9 %. En combinant la superficie perdue de forêt tropicale pour ces deux pays, on obtiendrait une superficie équivalente à celle des villes de Madrid, Séoul ou Chicago.
  • Au Ghana, la perte de couvert forestier enregistrée en 2020 montrait qu’elle était 370 % plus élevée depuis janvier 2019 qu’elle ne l’a été entre 2001 et 2010, et 150 % plus importante que la perte de couvert forestier moyenne entre 2011 et 2019 ;
  • Pour la Côte d’Ivoire, la perte moyenne du couvert forestier a été 230 % plus élevée depuis janvier 2019 qu’elle ne l’a été entre 2001 et 2017, et 340 % plus élevée que la perte moyenne enregistrée au cours des années 2000 ;
  • La déforestation se poursuit dans l’ensemble des aires protégées de Côte d’Ivoire et du Ghana, et l’analyse des données satellitaires et les observations sur le terrain en Côte d’Ivoire menées par Mighty Earth révèlent que l’expansion de la culture du cacao joue un rôle majeur dans cet empiètement.

« Cette catastrophe peut être parfaitement évitée et aurait dû l’être depuis longtemps déjà. Pendant ce temps, les forêts continuent de disparaître, la faune sauvage meurt et les communautés souffrent », a déclaré Souleymane Fofana, coordinateur général du Regroupement des acteurs ivoiriens des droits humains (RAIDH). « La filière cacao dispose des mêmes outils et de bien plus de ressources que Mighty Earth pour surveiller et prévenir la déforestation, mais le manque de volonté et de transparence reste le principal obstacle aux avancées. »

Les principales conclusions du rapport sont les suivantes :

  • Quatre ans et demi après l’engagement pris dans le cadre de l’ICF par les fabricants de chocolat et les gouvernements d’interdire la création de nouvelles exploitations de cacao, les taux de déforestation restent dans l’ensemble proches d’un niveau record ;
  • Dans ces régions productrices de cacao, la Côte d’Ivoire a perdu 19 421 hectares (ha) de forêts, soit 2 % de ses forêts, depuis que le plan d’action de l’ICF a été publié en janvier 2019, tandis que le Ghana a perdu une surface conséquente de 39 497 ha de forêts, avec un taux de déforestation vertigineux de 3,9 %. En combinant la superficie perdue de forêt tropicale pour ces deux pays, on obtiendrait une superficie équivalente à celle des villes de Madrid, Séoul ou Chicago.
  • Au Ghana, la perte de couvert forestier enregistrée en 2020 montrait qu’elle était 370 % plus élevée depuis janvier 2019 qu’elle ne l’a été entre 2001 et 2010, et 150 % plus importante que la perte de couvert forestier moyenne entre 2011 et 2019 ;
  • Pour la Côte d’Ivoire, la perte moyenne du couvert forestier a été 230 % plus élevée depuis janvier 2019 qu’elle ne l’a été entre 2001 et 2017, et 340 % plus élevée que la perte moyenne enregistrée au cours des années 2000 ;
  • La déforestation se poursuit dans l’ensemble des aires protégées de Côte d’Ivoire et du Ghana, et l’analyse des données satellitaires et les observations sur le terrain en Côte d’Ivoire menées par Mighty Earth révèlent que l’expansion de la culture du cacao joue un rôle majeur dans cet empiètement.

« Cette catastrophe peut être parfaitement évitée et aurait dû l’être depuis longtemps déjà. Pendant ce temps, les forêts continuent de disparaître, la faune sauvage meurt et les communautés souffrent », a déclaré Souleymane Fofana, coordinateur général du Regroupement des acteurs ivoiriens des droits humains (RAIDH). « La filière cacao dispose des mêmes outils et de bien plus de ressources que Mighty Earth pour surveiller et prévenir la déforestation, mais le manque de volonté et de transparence reste le principal obstacle aux avancées. »

Le rapport contient notamment les recommandations suivantes :

  • En 2022, un mécanisme commun ouvert et transparent de surveillance de la déforestation doit être mis en place par les fabricants de chocolat, les négociants en cacao et les gouvernements en mettant leurs informations sur les chaînes d’approvisionnement en cacao en commun et en les associant aux données d’imagerie satellitaire. Un tel mécanisme permettrait d’agir collectivement pour empêcher l’empiètement des forêts par l’expansion des plantations de cacao, et de cibler les initiatives visant à améliorer les moyens de subsistance des petits exploitants au Ghana et en Côte d’Ivoire.
  • L’ICF doit rendre compte publiquement des progrès accomplis dans la réduction de la déforestation au Ghana et en Côte d’Ivoire, afin d’empêcher toute nouvelle déforestation pour le cacao d’ici deux ans  ;
  • Les principaux chocolatiers et négociants en cacao devraient participer activement à la restauration des forêts dégradées et de la biodiversité au Ghana et en Côte d’Ivoire. Ils doivent s’engager à s’approvisionner d’ici 2025 en cacao issu de l’agroforesterie à hauteur d’au moins 50 %, et collaborer avec les coopératives de cacao et les agences gouvernementales pour aider les petits cultivateurs à passer des monocultures de cacao à des systèmes agricoles diversifiés.
  • Le gouvernement de la Côte d’Ivoire doit valider rapidement les limites des aires protégées et stopper toute nouvelle déforestation en associant, de manière transparente, les communautés et les organisations de la société civile à leur suivi ; 
  • Au Ghana, la Commission gouvernementale forestière (Forestry Commission) et le Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) doivent s’assurer que le nouveau système de gestion du cacao (CMS, Cocoa Management System), destiné à retracer la chaîne d’approvisionnement en cacao, est conçu de manière transparente, afin que les parties prenantes puissent avoir toute confiance dans les données qui seront produites ;
  • L’Union européenne, le Japon et les États-Unis doivent adopter une législation obligeant les entreprises à effectuer des contrôles de vigilance approfondis pour prévenir l’importation de cacao ou de produits dérivés du cacao liés à la déforestation sur leurs marchés respectifs.

« L’Initiative Cacao et Forêts a beaucoup de potentiel, mais elle n’est pas encore à la hauteur de ses ambitions. Elle a beaucoup promis, mais n’a pas atteint ses objectifs. Pour les entreprises du secteur du cacao et du chocolat, la protection de l’environnement est un devoir, sous peine de perdre à jamais la denrée dont elles dépendent. La situation actuelle n’est pas tenable », a déclaré Obed Owusu-Addai, responsable de campagne pour EcoCare Ghana.

Contact : Miles Grant, [email protected], +1 703-864-9599 (mobile)