#audit-fraud — Public Fediverse posts

Biofuel Boom in Brazil: Green Growth or Greenwash?

Brazil’s booming biofuel industry is hailed as a solution to climate change, yet its rapid expansion comes at a cost. The push for bioethanol and biodiesel production is driving deforestation, threatening food security, and displacing communities. As Brazil positions itself as a leader in bioenergy, concerns grow over the environmental and social impacts of this industry, spotlighting the need for genuine solutions. 🌿 #Biofuel #EnvironmentalJustice #ClimateActionNow #Boycott4Wildlife

The #biofuel boom in #Brazil made from #palmoil and #soy is touted as a #climate saviour. Yet in reality, biofuel #deforestation is causing #food insecurity, #indigenous land-grabbing and #ecocide #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife 🌴🛢️🔥⛔ @palmoildetect.bsky.social

Written by Monica Piccinini for The Canary, republished with author permission. Read original.

Brazil’s push to expand biofuels is central to its strategy to “drive the decarbonisation agenda” and build a robust “bioeconomy,” setting the stage for this to become a major focus at the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference (COP 30) in Brazil in November 2025.

Brazil’s biofuel ‘revolution’

During a ceremony at the Brasilia Air Base in October, president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva declared:

Brazil will lead the world’s energy revolution

This statement came as he signed the Fuel of the Future Law, a set of initiatives aimed at advancing the country’s bioenergy sector. Lula added:

Brazil will get a head start because you, the entrepreneurs, who have the capacity to produce, to research. Enacting this law demonstrates that none of us have the right to continue disbelieving that this country can be a large economy,” added Lula.

Lula announced a rise in ethanol blending with gasoline from 22% to 27%, with a target of 35% by 2030. Biodiesel blending, currently at 14%, will increase by one percentage point annually, aiming to reach 20% by March 2030.

Biofuel mandates have generated a relentless demand for crops, including sugarcane, corn, soybean, and palm oil.

Ethanol and biodiesel production in Brazil reached nearly 43bn litres in 2023, according to the 2024 Brazilian Statistical Yearbook on Oil, Natural Gas, and Biofuels, published by Brazil’s National Agency for Petroleum, Natural Gas, and Biofuels (ANP).

Biofuels for energy independence

In Brazil, biofuels make up 25% of transportation fuels – a remarkably high share compared to other nations – and this proportion is still increasing. Bioethanol leads the biofuel sector, representing an average of 49% in terms of energy of the total gasoline and ethanol consumption.

Jorge Ernesto Rodriguez Morales, lecturer and researcher in environmental policy and climate change governance at the Department of Economic History and International Relations at Stockholm University, spoke to the Canary. He mentioned:

Historically, Brazilian energy policy has achieved significant success, largely due to the development of the oil industry alongside biofuels and other energy sources. This diversification has enabled Brazil to rely less on energy imports from the global market, fostering a degree of energy independence and security critical for economic stability.

He added that:

By reducing dependence on external energy sources, Brazil’s economy is less vulnerable to external shocks, such as fluctuations in oil and gas prices. Sugarcane ethanol, in particular, has been pivotal in these developments, positioning bioenergy – a renewable energy form derived from recently living organic materials known as biomass – at the forefront of national strategies to combat climate change.

Green sheen

Although bioenergy has been promoted as a climate strategy, there is ongoing debate within the scientific community regarding the actual sustainability of biofuel production.

Some scientists argue that the production of biofuels is an energy-negative process that may lead to various socio-environmental consequences. These include rising food prices that threaten food security and the conversion of forestlands for biofuel cultivation. Some state that presenting bioenergy as a climate strategy has served as a justification for the industry’s expansion in Brazil and globally.

Morales explained that:

Despite its success, the biofuels industry in Brazil developed within broader developmental and territorial security goals, often placing significant pressure on ecosystems and communities in an institutional environment that generally overlooked socio-environmental concerns. This unsustainable co-evolution of development pathways and bioenergy – marked by deforestation, land colonization, and agricultural expansion – has limited the adaptation space in agriculture. As a result, current climate policy is largely oriented toward path-dependent and potentially maladaptive strategies, such as relying on sugarcane ethanol for transportation.

A report by the Royal Society raises concerns about expanding biofuel production, highlighted issues such as the impact on food prices, the potential rise in greenhouse gas emissions due to direct and indirect land use changes (LUC) associated with biofuel feedstock production, and the risks of land, forest, water resource, and ecosystem degradation.

The Royal Society report recommends comprehensive auditing of biofuel supply chains as essential, along with enhancing transparency, data availability, and sharing. These elements are crucial for ensuring that the life cycle assessment (LCA) of biofuels is reliable and beneficial for policymaking.

Demand driving deforestation

The use of feedstocks like sugarcane, palm oil, corn, and soybean – predominant in Brazil – has sparked significant controversy, primarily due to competition with food production and concerns about converting agricultural land into fuel production. Rising demand for agricultural products poses a risk of increased deforestation and the use of land with high biodiversity value to satisfy this demand, along with related freshwater consumption.

The EU Deforestation-Free Regulation (EUDR) identifies soybean as one of the world’s leading drivers of deforestation. Trade interests appear to be the main barrier to removing soy biofuels from the Renewable Energy Directive, as Europe imports nearly 90% of its soy for biodiesel production from Brazil, Argentina, and the United States.

Dr David Pimentel, a professor of ecology and agricultural sciences at Cornell University, asserted that there is insufficient land, water, and energy available for biofuel production. He also highlighted environmental issues associated with converting crops into biofuels, such as water pollution from fertilisers and pesticides, air pollution, soil erosion, and contributions to global warming.

Pimentel conducted calculations that accounted for all the inputs needed to produce ethanol, including machinery, seeds, labour, water, electricity, fertilisers, insecticides, herbicides, fuel, drying, and transportation. He found that producing one litre of fuel-grade ethanol (5,130 kcal) requires an energy input of 6,600 kcal, indicating that biofuel production is an energy-negative process.

‘Serious socio-economic impacts’

A report published in the Biofuel journal states that measuring greenhouse gas emissions linked to ethanol fuel should account for emissions at every stage, including production, processing, distribution, and vehicle use. This comprehensive assessment is known as the core well-to-wheels LCA emissions, along with any additional emissions resulting from LUC.

Morales discussed some of the impacts of implementing a climate policy that relies on biomass fuels. He told the Canary:

Current climate policy positions biomass-based fuels as a replacement for fossil fuels in the transport sector, with sugarcane ethanol as a flagship solution for greenhouse gas reduction in international climate negotiations. However, scaling up bioenergy production can have serious socio-environmental impacts.

He added that:

Like food production, ethanol requires land, water, and nutrients, meaning that a large-scale expansion could intensify the negative side effects of agricultural growth. These include significant socio-environmental challenges related to sustainable development goals, such as deforestation (SDG 15), CO2 emissions from land-use change (SDG 13), nitrogen losses (SDGs 13, 14, 15), unsustainable water withdrawals (SDG 14), and food security risks (SDG 2), among others.

Brazil biofuel policies

During Brazil’s colonial period (1500-1822), sugarcane plantations established the basis for political power through land monopoly and slavery. Policies were implemented to promote the economic interests of the agribusiness sector.

In response to the energy and sugar crisis of the 70s, Brazil launched a national ethanol program called “Pró-Álcool” in 1975. This initiative included tax breaks, subsidies, and lower financing costs to benefit the sugarcane industry, including producers, planters, distillers, and the automotive sector.

The “Pró-Álcool” policy led to significant repercussions, such as the exploitation of workers (bóias-frias) and environmental degradation, which the Brazilian government neglected out of concern that environmental regulations might hinder economic growth and development.

From 1992 to 2004, while Brazil’s total greenhouse gas emissions rose by 80%, the government defended its support for ethanol on environmental grounds, positioning bioenergy as a “sustainable energy source.” This approach framed bioenergy as part of a climate strategy, leading to its promotion at international levels to combat climate change.

Overlooking indirect land use changes

However, the socio-environmental impacts of bioenergy production were largely overlooked, including direct and indirect LUC, water and biodiversity loss, deforestation, fertiliser pollution, and soil erosion.

In 2017, the “Renovabio” initiative was launched as a new government program aimed at promoting the growth of the bioenergy sector, with an emphasis on various types of biofuels, such as biodiesel, biomethane, bioethanol, and biokerosene.

A report published in the Biofuels journal indicates that Brazil’s RenovaBio programme does not account for direct or indirect LUC in its emissions calculator, potentially leading to an overestimation of decarbonisation levels and encouraging biofuel production with greater environmental impacts. To ensure the program is environmentally effective and delivers appropriate signals to decision-makers, it is crucial to incorporate LUC parameters into the calculator.

Morales mentioned that:

Brazil’s ethanol diplomacy aims to portray the nation as climate-conscious, using biofuel as leverage in climate negotiations. Many countries have followed Brazil’s ‘successful’ example by integrating bioenergy into their climate policies, even though its social and environmental costs are widely acknowledged.

Biofuel Expansion

Raízen, formed from the merger of Cosan and Shell, along with BP Bunge, Atvos, São Martinho, Tereos, Lincoln Junqueira, Cofco, Coruipe, Adecoagro, Katzen, Millenium, Brasil BioFuels (BBF), and Agropalma, represent some of the leading bioenergy companies in Brazil.

In October, Katzen International, a prominent bioethanol company, announced the successful completion and launch of the INPASA Agroindustrial S/A bioethanol plant expansion project in Sinop, Mato Grosso. This expansion boosted the plant’s production capacity to 2.1bn litres per year, establishing it as the largest grain-based dry mill bioethanol facility in the world.

Corn ethanol production in Brazil is projected to reach 7.7 billion litres in 2024/25, representing a 20% increase compared to previous years.

The biofuel industry is making significant investments in the state of Pará. Governor Helder Barbalho has announced plans for a biofuel refinery to be established in the municipality of Redenção, located in the southeastern part of the state. A collaboration between the Mafra Group and Companhia Mineira de Açúcar e Álcool (CMAA), which together comprise Grão Pará Bioenergia, will contribute over $350 million to this project.

Barbalho said that:

These are the agendas that will be challenging for us: the forest agenda, the energy production agenda. These are different agendas in which each one of them can present their solutions.

Alongside the refinery, a fattening service for cattle will be provided to partner ranchers, allowing them to use the refinery’s facilities for confining their animals. The primary feedstock for cattle confinement will be Dried Distillers Grain (DDG), a by-product of corn ethanol production.

Fueling conflicts

A report by NGO Imazon revealed that Pará accounted for 57% of the degraded forest areas in the Amazon. Forest degradation surged from 196 km² in September 2023 to 11,558 km² in the same month this year – nearly a 60-fold increase.

The state of Pará, which will host COP30, is marked by conflicts, including those related to the palm oil industry. Palm plantations in Pará cover an area that was once rainforest, approximately 226,834 hectares, nearly equivalent to the size of Luxembourg.

An investigation by the NGO Global Witness revealed that two major Brazilian palm oil companies, Agropalma and Brasil Biofuels (BBF), were implicated in conflicts with local communities in the state of Pará. BBF faced allegations of environmental crimes and violent efforts to suppress indigenous and traditional communities. Meanwhile, Agropalma was associated with community evictions and land grabbing.

A study by scientists Lucas Ferrante and Philip Fearnside revealed that biofuel companies, such as Millenium Bioenergia, are establishing a production chain for biofuels and food products derived from monocultures on Amazonian Indigenous lands and within other traditional communities.

Millenium announced plans to “partner” with Indigenous and traditional communities, proposing unpaid labour to produce corn, fish, chickens, pigs, and confined cattle. This approach not only infringes on human rights but also poses a risk of triggering new pandemics due to zoonotic leaps linked to environmental degradation.

Biofuels an exercise in greenwashing Brazil’s climate policy

Brazil must expand biofuel production to meet growing demand, which will increase logistical pressures nationwide. Critical to this expansion are infrastructure projects, such as the construction of highways like the Amazon’s BR-319, connecting Manaus to Porto Velho, and the Ferrogrão railway project, linking Sinop in Mato Grosso to the port of Miritituba, situated across the Tapajós River from Itaituba in Pará. These developments are likely to cause irreversible environmental degradation and adversely affect numerous indigenous and traditional communities in these areas.

Morales highlighted the Brazilian government’s position and priorities concerning the expansion of biofuel production:

In foreign environmental policy, the Brazilian government has historically been reluctant to prioritise environmental protection over economic growth, often attributing major environmental issues to developed countries. Although various administrations have made efforts to address environmental challenges such as biodiversity loss and climate change, these issues remain secondary concerns, frequently viewed as obstacles to short-term political and economic goals.

He added:

Positioning bioenergy as a climate strategy has effectively justified broader policies supporting the biofuel industry and contributed to the greenwashing of Brazil’s climate policy on the international stage. Several countries have mirrored Brazil’s approach, adopting bioenergy into their climate agendas in response.

Featured image via the Canary

Written by Monica Piccinini for The Canary, republished with author permission. Read original.

ENDS

Read more about deforestation and ecocide in the palm oil industry

Santa Catarina’s Guinea Pig Cavia intermedia

Santa Catarina’s Guinea Pig are enchanting critically endangered rodents under threat from climate change. Advocate for climate action now! #Boycott4Wildlife

Keel-billed Toucan Ramphastos sulfuratus

Keel-billed Toucans have dazzling rainbow-coloured bills and are iconic to South America. Threats include hunting, palm oil and meat deforestation. Take action!

Asian Small-clawed Otter Aonyx cinereus

Asian Small-clawed Otters are the world’s smallest otter species and are Vulnerable from palm oil tea and coffee deforestation. Protect them, boycott palm oil!

Tapanuli Orangutan Faces Extinction From Forest Protection Rollback

Save the Tapanuli orangutan! The rarest ape in the world faces extinction after floods, cyclones and now rezoning of their habitat in Sumatra #BoycottPalmOil!

Marsupials thought extinct for 6,000 years found in West Papua

Two stunning marsupials thought extinct for 6000 years rediscovered in West Papua. Calls for rainforest protection even more urgent!

Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.

Take Action in Five Ways

1. Join the #Boycott4Wildlife on social media and subscribe to stay in the loop: Share posts from this website to your own network on Twitter, Mastadon, Instagram, Facebook and Youtube using the hashtags #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife.

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Instagram
• WordPress
• YouTube
• Mail
• Mastodon

Enter your email address

Sign Up

2. Contribute stories: Academics, conservationists, scientists, indigenous rights advocates and animal rights advocates working to expose the corruption of the palm oil industry or to save animals can contribute stories to the website.

Wildlife Artist Juanchi Pérez

Mel Lumby: Dedicated Devotee to Borneo’s Living Beings

Anthropologist and Author Dr Sophie Chao

Health Physician Dr Evan Allen

The World’s Most Loved Cup: A Social, Ethical & Environmental History of Coffee by Aviary Doert

How do we stop the world’s ecosystems from going into a death spiral? A #SteadyState Economy

3. Supermarket sleuthing: Next time you’re in the supermarket, take photos of products containing palm oil. Share these to social media along with the hashtags to call out the greenwashing and ecocide of the brands who use palm oil. You can also take photos of palm oil free products and congratulate brands when they go palm oil free.

https://twitter.com/CuriousApe4/status/1526136783557529600?s=20

https://twitter.com/PhillDixon1/status/1749010345555788144?s=20

https://twitter.com/mugabe139/status/1678027567977078784?s=20

4. Take to the streets: Get in touch with Palm Oil Detectives to find out more.

5. Donate: Make a one-off or monthly donation to Palm Oil Detectives as a way of saying thank you and to help pay for ongoing running costs of the website and social media campaigns. Donate here

Biofuel Boom in Brazil: Green Growth or Greenwash?

Brazil’s booming biofuel industry is hailed as a solution to climate change, yet its rapid expansion comes at a cost. The push for bioethanol and biodiesel production is driving deforestation, threatening food security, and displacing communities. As Brazil positions itself as a leader in bioenergy, concerns grow over the environmental and social impacts of this industry, spotlighting the need for genuine solutions. 🌿 #Biofuel #EnvironmentalJustice #ClimateActionNow #Boycott4Wildlife

The #biofuel boom in #Brazil made from #palmoil and #soy is touted as a #climate saviour. Yet in reality, biofuel #deforestation is causing #food insecurity, #indigenous land-grabbing and #ecocide #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife 🌴🛢️🔥⛔ @palmoildetect.bsky.social

Written by Monica Piccinini for The Canary, republished with author permission. Read original.

Brazil’s push to expand biofuels is central to its strategy to “drive the decarbonisation agenda” and build a robust “bioeconomy,” setting the stage for this to become a major focus at the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference (COP 30) in Brazil in November 2025.

Brazil’s biofuel ‘revolution’

During a ceremony at the Brasilia Air Base in October, president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva declared:

Brazil will lead the world’s energy revolution

This statement came as he signed the Fuel of the Future Law, a set of initiatives aimed at advancing the country’s bioenergy sector. Lula added:

Brazil will get a head start because you, the entrepreneurs, who have the capacity to produce, to research. Enacting this law demonstrates that none of us have the right to continue disbelieving that this country can be a large economy,” added Lula.

Lula announced a rise in ethanol blending with gasoline from 22% to 27%, with a target of 35% by 2030. Biodiesel blending, currently at 14%, will increase by one percentage point annually, aiming to reach 20% by March 2030.

Biofuel mandates have generated a relentless demand for crops, including sugarcane, corn, soybean, and palm oil.

Ethanol and biodiesel production in Brazil reached nearly 43bn litres in 2023, according to the 2024 Brazilian Statistical Yearbook on Oil, Natural Gas, and Biofuels, published by Brazil’s National Agency for Petroleum, Natural Gas, and Biofuels (ANP).

Biofuels for energy independence

In Brazil, biofuels make up 25% of transportation fuels – a remarkably high share compared to other nations – and this proportion is still increasing. Bioethanol leads the biofuel sector, representing an average of 49% in terms of energy of the total gasoline and ethanol consumption.

Jorge Ernesto Rodriguez Morales, lecturer and researcher in environmental policy and climate change governance at the Department of Economic History and International Relations at Stockholm University, spoke to the Canary. He mentioned:

Historically, Brazilian energy policy has achieved significant success, largely due to the development of the oil industry alongside biofuels and other energy sources. This diversification has enabled Brazil to rely less on energy imports from the global market, fostering a degree of energy independence and security critical for economic stability.

He added that:

By reducing dependence on external energy sources, Brazil’s economy is less vulnerable to external shocks, such as fluctuations in oil and gas prices. Sugarcane ethanol, in particular, has been pivotal in these developments, positioning bioenergy – a renewable energy form derived from recently living organic materials known as biomass – at the forefront of national strategies to combat climate change.

Green sheen

Although bioenergy has been promoted as a climate strategy, there is ongoing debate within the scientific community regarding the actual sustainability of biofuel production.

Some scientists argue that the production of biofuels is an energy-negative process that may lead to various socio-environmental consequences. These include rising food prices that threaten food security and the conversion of forestlands for biofuel cultivation. Some state that presenting bioenergy as a climate strategy has served as a justification for the industry’s expansion in Brazil and globally.

Morales explained that:

Despite its success, the biofuels industry in Brazil developed within broader developmental and territorial security goals, often placing significant pressure on ecosystems and communities in an institutional environment that generally overlooked socio-environmental concerns. This unsustainable co-evolution of development pathways and bioenergy – marked by deforestation, land colonization, and agricultural expansion – has limited the adaptation space in agriculture. As a result, current climate policy is largely oriented toward path-dependent and potentially maladaptive strategies, such as relying on sugarcane ethanol for transportation.

A report by the Royal Society raises concerns about expanding biofuel production, highlighted issues such as the impact on food prices, the potential rise in greenhouse gas emissions due to direct and indirect land use changes (LUC) associated with biofuel feedstock production, and the risks of land, forest, water resource, and ecosystem degradation.

The Royal Society report recommends comprehensive auditing of biofuel supply chains as essential, along with enhancing transparency, data availability, and sharing. These elements are crucial for ensuring that the life cycle assessment (LCA) of biofuels is reliable and beneficial for policymaking.

Demand driving deforestation

The use of feedstocks like sugarcane, palm oil, corn, and soybean – predominant in Brazil – has sparked significant controversy, primarily due to competition with food production and concerns about converting agricultural land into fuel production. Rising demand for agricultural products poses a risk of increased deforestation and the use of land with high biodiversity value to satisfy this demand, along with related freshwater consumption.

The EU Deforestation-Free Regulation (EUDR) identifies soybean as one of the world’s leading drivers of deforestation. Trade interests appear to be the main barrier to removing soy biofuels from the Renewable Energy Directive, as Europe imports nearly 90% of its soy for biodiesel production from Brazil, Argentina, and the United States.

Dr David Pimentel, a professor of ecology and agricultural sciences at Cornell University, asserted that there is insufficient land, water, and energy available for biofuel production. He also highlighted environmental issues associated with converting crops into biofuels, such as water pollution from fertilisers and pesticides, air pollution, soil erosion, and contributions to global warming.

Pimentel conducted calculations that accounted for all the inputs needed to produce ethanol, including machinery, seeds, labour, water, electricity, fertilisers, insecticides, herbicides, fuel, drying, and transportation. He found that producing one litre of fuel-grade ethanol (5,130 kcal) requires an energy input of 6,600 kcal, indicating that biofuel production is an energy-negative process.

‘Serious socio-economic impacts’

A report published in the Biofuel journal states that measuring greenhouse gas emissions linked to ethanol fuel should account for emissions at every stage, including production, processing, distribution, and vehicle use. This comprehensive assessment is known as the core well-to-wheels LCA emissions, along with any additional emissions resulting from LUC.

Morales discussed some of the impacts of implementing a climate policy that relies on biomass fuels. He told the Canary:

Current climate policy positions biomass-based fuels as a replacement for fossil fuels in the transport sector, with sugarcane ethanol as a flagship solution for greenhouse gas reduction in international climate negotiations. However, scaling up bioenergy production can have serious socio-environmental impacts.

He added that:

Like food production, ethanol requires land, water, and nutrients, meaning that a large-scale expansion could intensify the negative side effects of agricultural growth. These include significant socio-environmental challenges related to sustainable development goals, such as deforestation (SDG 15), CO2 emissions from land-use change (SDG 13), nitrogen losses (SDGs 13, 14, 15), unsustainable water withdrawals (SDG 14), and food security risks (SDG 2), among others.

Brazil biofuel policies

During Brazil’s colonial period (1500-1822), sugarcane plantations established the basis for political power through land monopoly and slavery. Policies were implemented to promote the economic interests of the agribusiness sector.

In response to the energy and sugar crisis of the 70s, Brazil launched a national ethanol program called “Pró-Álcool” in 1975. This initiative included tax breaks, subsidies, and lower financing costs to benefit the sugarcane industry, including producers, planters, distillers, and the automotive sector.

The “Pró-Álcool” policy led to significant repercussions, such as the exploitation of workers (bóias-frias) and environmental degradation, which the Brazilian government neglected out of concern that environmental regulations might hinder economic growth and development.

From 1992 to 2004, while Brazil’s total greenhouse gas emissions rose by 80%, the government defended its support for ethanol on environmental grounds, positioning bioenergy as a “sustainable energy source.” This approach framed bioenergy as part of a climate strategy, leading to its promotion at international levels to combat climate change.

Overlooking indirect land use changes

However, the socio-environmental impacts of bioenergy production were largely overlooked, including direct and indirect LUC, water and biodiversity loss, deforestation, fertiliser pollution, and soil erosion.

In 2017, the “Renovabio” initiative was launched as a new government program aimed at promoting the growth of the bioenergy sector, with an emphasis on various types of biofuels, such as biodiesel, biomethane, bioethanol, and biokerosene.

A report published in the Biofuels journal indicates that Brazil’s RenovaBio programme does not account for direct or indirect LUC in its emissions calculator, potentially leading to an overestimation of decarbonisation levels and encouraging biofuel production with greater environmental impacts. To ensure the program is environmentally effective and delivers appropriate signals to decision-makers, it is crucial to incorporate LUC parameters into the calculator.

Morales mentioned that:

Brazil’s ethanol diplomacy aims to portray the nation as climate-conscious, using biofuel as leverage in climate negotiations. Many countries have followed Brazil’s ‘successful’ example by integrating bioenergy into their climate policies, even though its social and environmental costs are widely acknowledged.

Biofuel Expansion

Raízen, formed from the merger of Cosan and Shell, along with BP Bunge, Atvos, São Martinho, Tereos, Lincoln Junqueira, Cofco, Coruipe, Adecoagro, Katzen, Millenium, Brasil BioFuels (BBF), and Agropalma, represent some of the leading bioenergy companies in Brazil.

In October, Katzen International, a prominent bioethanol company, announced the successful completion and launch of the INPASA Agroindustrial S/A bioethanol plant expansion project in Sinop, Mato Grosso. This expansion boosted the plant’s production capacity to 2.1bn litres per year, establishing it as the largest grain-based dry mill bioethanol facility in the world.

Corn ethanol production in Brazil is projected to reach 7.7 billion litres in 2024/25, representing a 20% increase compared to previous years.

The biofuel industry is making significant investments in the state of Pará. Governor Helder Barbalho has announced plans for a biofuel refinery to be established in the municipality of Redenção, located in the southeastern part of the state. A collaboration between the Mafra Group and Companhia Mineira de Açúcar e Álcool (CMAA), which together comprise Grão Pará Bioenergia, will contribute over $350 million to this project.

Barbalho said that:

These are the agendas that will be challenging for us: the forest agenda, the energy production agenda. These are different agendas in which each one of them can present their solutions.

Alongside the refinery, a fattening service for cattle will be provided to partner ranchers, allowing them to use the refinery’s facilities for confining their animals. The primary feedstock for cattle confinement will be Dried Distillers Grain (DDG), a by-product of corn ethanol production.

Fueling conflicts

A report by NGO Imazon revealed that Pará accounted for 57% of the degraded forest areas in the Amazon. Forest degradation surged from 196 km² in September 2023 to 11,558 km² in the same month this year – nearly a 60-fold increase.

The state of Pará, which will host COP30, is marked by conflicts, including those related to the palm oil industry. Palm plantations in Pará cover an area that was once rainforest, approximately 226,834 hectares, nearly equivalent to the size of Luxembourg.

An investigation by the NGO Global Witness revealed that two major Brazilian palm oil companies, Agropalma and Brasil Biofuels (BBF), were implicated in conflicts with local communities in the state of Pará. BBF faced allegations of environmental crimes and violent efforts to suppress indigenous and traditional communities. Meanwhile, Agropalma was associated with community evictions and land grabbing.

A study by scientists Lucas Ferrante and Philip Fearnside revealed that biofuel companies, such as Millenium Bioenergia, are establishing a production chain for biofuels and food products derived from monocultures on Amazonian Indigenous lands and within other traditional communities.

Millenium announced plans to “partner” with Indigenous and traditional communities, proposing unpaid labour to produce corn, fish, chickens, pigs, and confined cattle. This approach not only infringes on human rights but also poses a risk of triggering new pandemics due to zoonotic leaps linked to environmental degradation.

Biofuels an exercise in greenwashing Brazil’s climate policy

Brazil must expand biofuel production to meet growing demand, which will increase logistical pressures nationwide. Critical to this expansion are infrastructure projects, such as the construction of highways like the Amazon’s BR-319, connecting Manaus to Porto Velho, and the Ferrogrão railway project, linking Sinop in Mato Grosso to the port of Miritituba, situated across the Tapajós River from Itaituba in Pará. These developments are likely to cause irreversible environmental degradation and adversely affect numerous indigenous and traditional communities in these areas.

Morales highlighted the Brazilian government’s position and priorities concerning the expansion of biofuel production:

In foreign environmental policy, the Brazilian government has historically been reluctant to prioritise environmental protection over economic growth, often attributing major environmental issues to developed countries. Although various administrations have made efforts to address environmental challenges such as biodiversity loss and climate change, these issues remain secondary concerns, frequently viewed as obstacles to short-term political and economic goals.

He added:

Positioning bioenergy as a climate strategy has effectively justified broader policies supporting the biofuel industry and contributed to the greenwashing of Brazil’s climate policy on the international stage. Several countries have mirrored Brazil’s approach, adopting bioenergy into their climate agendas in response.

Featured image via the Canary

Written by Monica Piccinini for The Canary, republished with author permission. Read original.

ENDS

Read more about deforestation and ecocide in the palm oil industry

Santa Catarina’s Guinea Pig Cavia intermedia

Santa Catarina’s Guinea Pig are enchanting critically endangered rodents under threat from climate change. Advocate for climate action now! #Boycott4Wildlife

Keel-billed Toucan Ramphastos sulfuratus

Keel-billed Toucans have dazzling rainbow-coloured bills and are iconic to South America. Threats include hunting, palm oil and meat deforestation. Take action!

Asian Small-clawed Otter Aonyx cinereus

Asian Small-clawed Otters are the world’s smallest otter species and are Vulnerable from palm oil tea and coffee deforestation. Protect them, boycott palm oil!

Tapanuli Orangutan Faces Extinction From Forest Protection Rollback

Save the Tapanuli orangutan! The rarest ape in the world faces extinction after floods, cyclones and now rezoning of their habitat in Sumatra #BoycottPalmOil!

Marsupials thought extinct for 6,000 years found in West Papua

Two stunning marsupials thought extinct for 6000 years rediscovered in West Papua. Calls for rainforest protection even more urgent!

Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.

Take Action in Five Ways

1. Join the #Boycott4Wildlife on social media and subscribe to stay in the loop: Share posts from this website to your own network on Twitter, Mastadon, Instagram, Facebook and Youtube using the hashtags #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife.

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Instagram
• WordPress
• YouTube
• Mail
• Mastodon

Enter your email address

Sign Up

2. Contribute stories: Academics, conservationists, scientists, indigenous rights advocates and animal rights advocates working to expose the corruption of the palm oil industry or to save animals can contribute stories to the website.

Wildlife Artist Juanchi Pérez

Mel Lumby: Dedicated Devotee to Borneo’s Living Beings

Anthropologist and Author Dr Sophie Chao

Health Physician Dr Evan Allen

The World’s Most Loved Cup: A Social, Ethical & Environmental History of Coffee by Aviary Doert

How do we stop the world’s ecosystems from going into a death spiral? A #SteadyState Economy

3. Supermarket sleuthing: Next time you’re in the supermarket, take photos of products containing palm oil. Share these to social media along with the hashtags to call out the greenwashing and ecocide of the brands who use palm oil. You can also take photos of palm oil free products and congratulate brands when they go palm oil free.

https://twitter.com/CuriousApe4/status/1526136783557529600?s=20

https://twitter.com/PhillDixon1/status/1749010345555788144?s=20

https://twitter.com/mugabe139/status/1678027567977078784?s=20

4. Take to the streets: Get in touch with Palm Oil Detectives to find out more.

5. Donate: Make a one-off or monthly donation to Palm Oil Detectives as a way of saying thank you and to help pay for ongoing running costs of the website and social media campaigns. Donate here

@biznewz_bot

The #TreasonWeasel hires all the best people.

“Ben Borgers and his audit firm, BF Borgers, were responsible for one of the largest wholesale failures by gatekeepers in our financial markets,” said Gurbir S. Grewal, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

“Because investors rely on the audited financial statements of public companies when making their investment decisions, the accountants and accounting firms that audit those statements play a critical role in our financial markets. #Borgers and his firm completely abandoned that role, but thanks to the painstaking work of the SEC staff, Borgers and his sham audit mill have been permanently shut down.”

#USPol #AuditFraud #AccountingFraud

@biznewz_bot

The #TreasonWeasel hires all the best people.

“Ben Borgers and his audit firm, BF Borgers, were responsible for one of the largest wholesale failures by gatekeepers in our financial markets,” said Gurbir S. Grewal, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

“Because investors rely on the audited financial statements of public companies when making their investment decisions, the accountants and accounting firms that audit those statements play a critical role in our financial markets. #Borgers and his firm completely abandoned that role, but thanks to the painstaking work of the SEC staff, Borgers and his sham audit mill have been permanently shut down.”

#USPol #AuditFraud #AccountingFraud

SEC charges audit firm BF Borgers with fraud affecting 1,500+ filings, leading to $14M in civil penalties. #SEC #AuditFraud

SEC charges audit firm BF Borgers with fraud affecting 1,500+ filings, leading to $14M in civil penalties. #SEC #AuditFraud

RSPO’s Dubious “Sustainability”: 30 Years of Deceit

Ecolabels like RSPO and FSC are involved in networks of extensive greenwashing. They exist to conceal corporations’ environmental damage rather than fighting it. With three decades dubious promises from environmental certifications, World Rainforest Movement calls for a swift end to this disgraceful palm oil, soy and timber industry greenwashing. You can help resist palm oil colonialism and ecocide #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife every time you shop!

#Ecolabels like #RSPO and #FSC are accused of greenwashing, hiding corporations’ environmental #ecocide from consumers 💩🛒 rather than fighting #corruption. Fight back with your wallet and #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🪔🩸🧐🙊⛔️ #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2023/06/18/certification-ecolabels-dubious-sustainability-30-years-of-deceit-and-violence/

World Rainforest Movement and Palm Oil Detectives call for an end to #palmoil #greenwashing from #RSPO “sustainable” palm oil 🙊🧐⛔️ Resist the greenwash and #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife in the supermarket! 🌴💀🩸🚫 @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2023/06/18/certification-ecolabels-dubious-sustainability-30-years-of-deceit-and-violence/

This article was originally published by World Rainforest Movement as “Certification schemes on “sustainability”: 30 years of deceit and violence” on 25 March, 2023 and was republished with permission here alongside other reports from World Health Organisation, Global Witness and others. Read original.

The shelves in supermarkets and stores are full of certified products. The packaging displays different labels indicating products were made with “sustainable” paper or wood, food or cosmetic products made with “sustainable” palm oil, “responsible” soybeans and so on and so forth.

Even when it comes to buying an airplane ticket, consumers can pay a little more
to ensure that their carbon emissions are (supposedly) “neutralised”, so as to guarantee that much touted “sustainability”.

Read more: WHO Bulletin Report: Palm Oil and Human Health Impacts

So why is there this need for so many labels and forms of certification? What is actually being certified? And who is benefiting from this?

After 30 years of certification schemes with environmental and social bias, what is clear is that the only “sustainability” that they guarantee is that of corporations’ lucrative business.

The first environmental certification mechanism for a specific product (wood) and its production chain emerged in the early 1990s, with the creation of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Although its origin is connected with civil society pressure on corporations, FSC has been fully incorporated into the production logic of logging companies operating in forests, of giant paper and pulp corporations using tree monoculture plantations, as well as of producers and distributors of consumer goods.

Over time, having shown that it did not constitute any threat – on the contrary: an opportunity – to the accumulation strategy of the corporations involved, other sectors started creating similar mechanisms. Hence, starting in the 2000s, initiatives and so-called roundtables for “sustainable” or “responsible” production of palm oil, soybeans, cocoa, sugarcane, among others, proliferated.

Read more: Greenwashing Ecocide: Agropalma and Orangutan Land Trust

100 NGOS signed a public statement denouncing the RSPO in late 2022

These “sustainable” initiatives have various aspects in common

1. They are dominated, compromised and funded by corporate interests

They are schemes that present themselves as non-profit associations including many apparently diverse actors and interests (companies, NGOs, governments etc.) However, in practice, the business sector participants andtheir allies, like the big conservationist NGOs, dominate these initiatives and impose their interests in a highly unequal power relation between the members.

2. They promote toothless and unenforceable guidelines

They are mechanisms that establish operational guidelines and directives for companies to adhere to on a voluntary bases, leaving no possibility of legal consequences when rules are broken – rules formulated and judged by the companies themselves, it should be noted.

3. They promote an endless growth model of capitalism in spite of our limited and finite natural world

They are initiatives submitted to the logic of the market and its expansion, that is to say, certification labels have become important both to obtain funding for companies’ expansion projects and to win over consumers, mainly urban consumers and those from the global North. Read more about the limits of the Endless growth model.

4. The mechanism for conflict resolution is set and decided upon by the certification label itself – amplifying racial and gender inequities

They are mechanisms headquartered in countries of the North, and with management boards mainly composed of men and white people, leaving the rural communities of the South that have to face the certified plantations, to play the role of mere receivers of determinations imposed from outside about the use of the space where they live. And if they want to question the actions of any of the certified companies, they must submit to the protocol created by the certification system itself on how to proceed.

5. They use greenwashing language and false promises even though this does not reflect reality

Certification schemes are used by companies as defence mechanisms whenever they are faced with criticism over the impacts of their activities:

“Our products are certified…”, “The project has certification…”, as if this has guaranteed that there is no cause for concern.

One way or another, such certification mechanisms have not stopped the destructive expansion of industrial tree plantations, oil palms, soy, etc. Read more about using Design and Words as a greenwashing tool.

6. The predatory nature of corporate land-grabbing and expansionism cannot ever work in favour of indigenous peoples

Certification labels have not been able to resolve the conflicts generated with traditional communities and Indigenous Peoples. Nor do they have the potential to do so, since they are designed to allow the continuity and expansion of corporate accumulation patterns that are intrinsically dependent on a predatory dynamic.

In fact, the main common denominator of such certification schemes is that they guarantee a green label to the companies involved, thus contributing to their primary objective, i.e., the maximisation of profit.

7. Certification labels like FSC and RSPO are vital to for companies gain consumer buy-in and greenwash away harms

Certifiers have hence become a key element through which companies seek to legitimize their territorial and economic expansion in the global South, deceiving consumers with the “sustainability” discourse.

In other words, these destructive corporations need certification labels to obtain some legitimacy in the eyes of consumers and investors, bearing in mind the vast number of reports, news and studies showing their harmful effects, such as:

• Violent corporate land-grabbing aided by private enforcement or military/police intervention
• Problematic, deceptive or non-existent community consultation processes
• Contamination by agro-chemicals and its human health and environmental impacts
• Soil degradation
• Dangerous and humiliating jobs
• Sexual abuse and other forms of violence against women
• Child slavery and indentured slavery

among many other impacts related to extensive monoculture plantations.

This permits one to affirm without reservation that certification itself has become an underlying cause of deforestation.

https://vimeo.com/735353691

10 Tactics of Sustainable Palm Oil Greenwashing

Greenwashing Tactic #1: Hidden Trade Off

When a brand makes token changes while continuing with deforestation, ecocide or human rights abuses in another part of their business – this is ‘Hidden Trade Off’

For example, Nestle talks up satellite monitoring to stop palm oil deforestation. Yet…

Greenwashing Tactic #2: No Proof

Greenwashing Tactic 5. Palm oil companies make environmental claims without providing proof or evidence of these claims or using spurious evidence.

Greenwashing Tactic #3: Vagueness

Claiming a brand or commodity is ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ based on broad generalisations, unclear language or vague statements Jump to section Greenwashing: Vagueness in Language Greenwashing: Vagueness in certification standards Reality: Auditing of RSPO a failure Quote: EIA: Who Watches…

Greenwashing Tactic #4: Fake Labels

Claiming a brand or commodity is green based on unreliable, ineffective endorsements or eco-labels such as the RSPO, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or FairTrade coffee and cocoa. Greenwashing: Fake Labels and fake certifications Ecolabels are designed to reassure consumers that…

Greenwashing Tactic #5: Irrelevance and Deflection

Learn how lobbyists use irrelevant information and deflection to shift the conversation away from their environmental harms, e.g. “sustainable” palm oil.

Greenwashing Tactic #6: The Lesser of Two Evils

Claiming that a brand, commodity or industry is greener than others in the same category, in order to excuse ecocide, deforestation, human rights and animal rights abuses. Jump to section Greenwashing: Lesser of Two Evils: Palm Oil Uses Less Land…

Greenwashing Tactic #7: Lying

Greenwashing lies are falsifying support from authorities to back up claims or using spurious research data to back up the greenwashing, boycott palm oil!

Greenwashing Tactic 8: Design & Words

Greenwashing Tactic 8. Companies use design principles and subliminal language to signal ‘greenness’ and trigger unconscious emotional responses in consumers

Greenwashing Tactic 9: Partnerships, Sponsorships and Research Funding

Greenwashing Tactic 9. Corporations use NGOs, Zoo partnerships, sponsorships, and research funding to give an industry or brand a ‘green image.

Greenwashing Tactic 10: Gaslighting, Harassment, Stalking and Threats

Gaslighting, harassing or stalking vocal critics of a brand, commodity or industry certification in order to silence these critics – this is greenwashing!

Ten Tactics of ‘Sustainable’ Palm Oil Greenwashing

Learn ten marketing and PR tactics used for “sustainble” palm oil greenwashing to justify endless growth by the palm oil industry. Boycott palm oil now!

New forms of greenwashing: Carbon Credits and Biodiversity Credits

Furthermore, it is important to mention that the idea of certification has been taking on new shapes. With the creation of offset mechanisms for carbon emissions and biodiversity loss, new commodities have emerged already linked to certification mechanisms. In this new market, carbon credits and biodiversity credits – issued by certification schemes – represent a supposed guarantee that greenhouse gas emissions or the destruction of biodiversity are being duly offset elsewhere.

Differently from wood, paper, palm oil or soybeans, where the certification is “added” to the product by means of a label, in the carbon or biodiversity markets it is the
certification itself that makes it feasible for the product to be consumed.

In other words, the commodity in itself is supposedly a guarantee – though a virtual guarantee, obtained through dubious methodologies and permeated by openly suspect interests.

https://youtu.be/X7x4TWazWJg

This compilation of articles from the WRM Bulletin aims to underscore the damaging role played by companies and organisations involved in certification schemes. WRM considers it important to highlight that after three decades with ever more environmental certification labels on the market, it is urgent to put an end to this greenwashing.

Ultimately, instead of combating environmental devastation and the social ills linked
to corporations’ and other players’ operations, these labels cover up and
sustain their destructive logic.

Sexual Exploitation and Violence against Women at the Root of the Industrial Plantation Model

The industrial plantation model is intrinsically linked with patriarchal oppression, serving as a cornerstone for corporate profitability. Companies often exploit women, recognizing their integral role within community dynamics, as a means to augment their bottom line. The intersection of gender and economic exploitation exemplifies the profound social implications of this oppressive system.

RSPO: outsourcing environmental regulation to oil palm businesses and industry

The RSPO certification, cleverly turning the palm oil industry’s legitimacy crisis to its favor, uses it as a stepping stone to further strengthen the industry’s position. It provides certificates claiming to meet sustainability standards—a clear advantage to the industry. However, it’s important to note that these standards are largely controlled by and designed to benefit companies operating within the palm oil sector itself.

“Gender” in the palm oil industry and its RSPO label

Implementing gender policies in oil palm companies and the RSPO certification scheme is a start. But do they truly tackle the violence, patriarchy, and racism in the plantation model, or merely mask them? It’s crucial to examine how these policies are enacted and if they genuinely drive substantial change, or just scratch the surface of these systemic issues.

https://youtu.be/0n4LSP9RCfA

Colombia: Palm-Producing Company Poligrow Plans to Grab more Land under the “Small Producers” Scheme

The harsh realities of violence, mass killings, and forced relocations amid the armed conflict in Colombia have disturbingly paved the way for the expansion of industrial oil palm cultivation. The palm oil company and RSPO member Poligrow, has been significantly implicated in these issues, with credible allegations of land seizure and intimidation tactics within the region of Mapiripán.

Greenwashing Words: Language that kills forests

Language never operates in a vacuum. Historically, specific terms have been leveraged as tools for exercising control over populations and territories. This article throws light on certain terms which, while seemingly positive, often shield economic interests detrimental to forests, forest animals and forest peoples.

Africa: The RSPO certification for palm oil plantations is greenwash!

The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) is a widely used certification system promising environmental, safety, and human rights standards in the palm oil industry. However, Friends of the Earth Africa groups contest its effectiveness, citing ongoing environmental degradation, human rights breaches, biodiversity loss, and increased poverty in Africa linked to the activities of palm oil companies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnXISnURIBA

Communities resisting the impunity and impacts of oil palm growers in Ecuador: Cases from Esmeraldas

The palm industry in Ecuador, encompassing 270,000 hectares of plantations, has been using the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) certification to project an image of sustainability, setting itself apart from Asian palm oil. However, critics argue that this certification merely muffles community objections. Resistance from communities such as La Chiquita, Guadualito, and Barranquilla de San Javier in the Esmeraldas region continues to fuel discontent and foster international solidarity.

RSPO Certification despite land conflicts, violence and criminalisation

Nearly 1,500 members of MALOA in Sierra Leone are challenging RSPO’s certification of a SOCFIN subsidiary. They cite a string of conflicts and grievances tied to land use. This move follows controversial certifications of SOCFIN group’s operations in Nigeria, Cameroon, and Ivory Coast. Critics question if RSPO, perceived as industry-biased, can truly guarantee sustainability and human rights in the palm oil sector.

Are FSC and RSPO accomplices in crime? Agropalma’s Unresolved Land Question in the Brazilian Amazon

The Palmas del Ixcán company in Guatemala is accused of implementing systematic dispossession of land from indigenous communities for oil palm cultivation, using tactics such as deceptive RSPO certification and independent producers. The company’s strategic approach replaced the traditional collective land management by indigenous people in the Municipality of Ixcán, which had been disrupted by development plans since the 1960s. Despite filing a complaint to the RSPO and participating in consultations, the communities found their concerns disregarded, leading them to criticize the RSPO and label it a sham, asserting that its true intention is to facilitate palm planting at any cost.

Water is life – stop planting palms! reads a sign in Guatemala

This article was originally published by World Rainforest Movement as “Certification schemes on “sustainability”: 30 years of deceit and violence” on 25 March, 2023 and was republished with permission alongside other reports from World Health Organisation, Global Witness and others. Read original.

ENDS

Read more about human rights abuses and greenwashing associated with “sustainable” palm oil

So-called ‘Net Zero’ Flights Flush Rainforest Carbon Into the Sky

Virgin Atlantic airlines now uses ‘sustainable aviation fuel’ however experts call it greenwashing and industry spin causing climate change. Boycott palm oil!

Oreo Maker Linked to Ongoing Deforestation and Human Rights Abuses

Mondelēz International who make Oreos keep sourcing palm oil from suppliers linked to violence and deforestation. Their RSPO certification is pure greenwash!

Parrot Deaths Highlight Urgent Need to Reform CITES

The legal trade is largely to blame for African grey parrots becoming endangered. Regulator CITES is broken allowing exploitation, massive reform needed now!

Seeing Forest As Merely A Carbon “Commodity”: Dangerous Greenwashing

Commodifying forests as merely an investment for ‘carbon credits’ has many dangerous loopholes that human rights to indigenous peoples, take action!

Finance giants fuel $8.9 trillion deforestation economy

Forest 500 report shows 150 of the world’s largest financial institutions invested nearly $9 trillion in deforestation-linked industries. Support EUDR!

Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.

Take Action in Five Ways

1. Join the #Boycott4Wildlife on social media and subscribe to stay in the loop: Share posts from this website to your own network on Twitter, Mastadon, Instagram, Facebook and Youtube using the hashtags #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife.

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Instagram
• WordPress
• YouTube
• Mail
• Mastodon

Enter your email address

Sign Up

2. Contribute stories: Academics, conservationists, scientists, indigenous rights advocates and animal rights advocates working to expose the corruption of the palm oil industry or to save animals can contribute stories to the website.

Wildlife Artist Juanchi Pérez

Mel Lumby: Dedicated Devotee to Borneo’s Living Beings

Anthropologist and Author Dr Sophie Chao

Health Physician Dr Evan Allen

The World’s Most Loved Cup: A Social, Ethical & Environmental History of Coffee by Aviary Doert

How do we stop the world’s ecosystems from going into a death spiral? A #SteadyState Economy

3. Supermarket sleuthing: Next time you’re in the supermarket, take photos of products containing palm oil. Share these to social media along with the hashtags to call out the greenwashing and ecocide of the brands who use palm oil. You can also take photos of palm oil free products and congratulate brands when they go palm oil free.

https://twitter.com/CuriousApe4/status/1526136783557529600?s=20

https://twitter.com/PhillDixon1/status/1749010345555788144?s=20

https://twitter.com/mugabe139/status/1678027567977078784?s=20

4. Take to the streets: Get in touch with Palm Oil Detectives to find out more.

5. Donate: Make a one-off or monthly donation to Palm Oil Detectives as a way of saying thank you and to help pay for ongoing running costs of the website and social media campaigns. Donate here

RSPO’s Dubious “Sustainability”: 30 Years of Deceit

Ecolabels like RSPO and FSC are involved in networks of extensive greenwashing. They exist to conceal corporations’ environmental damage rather than fighting it. With three decades dubious promises from environmental certifications, World Rainforest Movement calls for a swift end to this disgraceful palm oil, soy and timber industry greenwashing. You can help resist palm oil colonialism and ecocide #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife every time you shop!

#Ecolabels like #RSPO and #FSC are accused of greenwashing, hiding corporations’ environmental #ecocide from consumers 💩🛒 rather than fighting #corruption. Fight back with your wallet and #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🪔🩸🧐🙊⛔️ #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2023/06/18/certification-ecolabels-dubious-sustainability-30-years-of-deceit-and-violence/

World Rainforest Movement and Palm Oil Detectives call for an end to #palmoil #greenwashing from #RSPO “sustainable” palm oil 🙊🧐⛔️ Resist the greenwash and #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife in the supermarket! 🌴💀🩸🚫 @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2023/06/18/certification-ecolabels-dubious-sustainability-30-years-of-deceit-and-violence/

This article was originally published by World Rainforest Movement as “Certification schemes on “sustainability”: 30 years of deceit and violence” on 25 March, 2023 and was republished with permission here alongside other reports from World Health Organisation, Global Witness and others. Read original.

The shelves in supermarkets and stores are full of certified products. The packaging displays different labels indicating products were made with “sustainable” paper or wood, food or cosmetic products made with “sustainable” palm oil, “responsible” soybeans and so on and so forth.

Even when it comes to buying an airplane ticket, consumers can pay a little more
to ensure that their carbon emissions are (supposedly) “neutralised”, so as to guarantee that much touted “sustainability”.

Read more: WHO Bulletin Report: Palm Oil and Human Health Impacts

So why is there this need for so many labels and forms of certification? What is actually being certified? And who is benefiting from this?

After 30 years of certification schemes with environmental and social bias, what is clear is that the only “sustainability” that they guarantee is that of corporations’ lucrative business.

The first environmental certification mechanism for a specific product (wood) and its production chain emerged in the early 1990s, with the creation of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Although its origin is connected with civil society pressure on corporations, FSC has been fully incorporated into the production logic of logging companies operating in forests, of giant paper and pulp corporations using tree monoculture plantations, as well as of producers and distributors of consumer goods.

Over time, having shown that it did not constitute any threat – on the contrary: an opportunity – to the accumulation strategy of the corporations involved, other sectors started creating similar mechanisms. Hence, starting in the 2000s, initiatives and so-called roundtables for “sustainable” or “responsible” production of palm oil, soybeans, cocoa, sugarcane, among others, proliferated.

Read more: Greenwashing Ecocide: Agropalma and Orangutan Land Trust

100 NGOS signed a public statement denouncing the RSPO in late 2022

These “sustainable” initiatives have various aspects in common

1. They are dominated, compromised and funded by corporate interests

They are schemes that present themselves as non-profit associations including many apparently diverse actors and interests (companies, NGOs, governments etc.) However, in practice, the business sector participants andtheir allies, like the big conservationist NGOs, dominate these initiatives and impose their interests in a highly unequal power relation between the members.

2. They promote toothless and unenforceable guidelines

They are mechanisms that establish operational guidelines and directives for companies to adhere to on a voluntary bases, leaving no possibility of legal consequences when rules are broken – rules formulated and judged by the companies themselves, it should be noted.

3. They promote an endless growth model of capitalism in spite of our limited and finite natural world

They are initiatives submitted to the logic of the market and its expansion, that is to say, certification labels have become important both to obtain funding for companies’ expansion projects and to win over consumers, mainly urban consumers and those from the global North. Read more about the limits of the Endless growth model.

4. The mechanism for conflict resolution is set and decided upon by the certification label itself – amplifying racial and gender inequities

They are mechanisms headquartered in countries of the North, and with management boards mainly composed of men and white people, leaving the rural communities of the South that have to face the certified plantations, to play the role of mere receivers of determinations imposed from outside about the use of the space where they live. And if they want to question the actions of any of the certified companies, they must submit to the protocol created by the certification system itself on how to proceed.

5. They use greenwashing language and false promises even though this does not reflect reality

Certification schemes are used by companies as defence mechanisms whenever they are faced with criticism over the impacts of their activities:

“Our products are certified…”, “The project has certification…”, as if this has guaranteed that there is no cause for concern.

One way or another, such certification mechanisms have not stopped the destructive expansion of industrial tree plantations, oil palms, soy, etc. Read more about using Design and Words as a greenwashing tool.

6. The predatory nature of corporate land-grabbing and expansionism cannot ever work in favour of indigenous peoples

Certification labels have not been able to resolve the conflicts generated with traditional communities and Indigenous Peoples. Nor do they have the potential to do so, since they are designed to allow the continuity and expansion of corporate accumulation patterns that are intrinsically dependent on a predatory dynamic.

In fact, the main common denominator of such certification schemes is that they guarantee a green label to the companies involved, thus contributing to their primary objective, i.e., the maximisation of profit.

7. Certification labels like FSC and RSPO are vital to for companies gain consumer buy-in and greenwash away harms

Certifiers have hence become a key element through which companies seek to legitimize their territorial and economic expansion in the global South, deceiving consumers with the “sustainability” discourse.

In other words, these destructive corporations need certification labels to obtain some legitimacy in the eyes of consumers and investors, bearing in mind the vast number of reports, news and studies showing their harmful effects, such as:

• Violent corporate land-grabbing aided by private enforcement or military/police intervention
• Problematic, deceptive or non-existent community consultation processes
• Contamination by agro-chemicals and its human health and environmental impacts
• Soil degradation
• Dangerous and humiliating jobs
• Sexual abuse and other forms of violence against women
• Child slavery and indentured slavery

among many other impacts related to extensive monoculture plantations.

This permits one to affirm without reservation that certification itself has become an underlying cause of deforestation.

https://vimeo.com/735353691

10 Tactics of Sustainable Palm Oil Greenwashing

Greenwashing Tactic #1: Hidden Trade Off

When a brand makes token changes while continuing with deforestation, ecocide or human rights abuses in another part of their business – this is ‘Hidden Trade Off’

For example, Nestle talks up satellite monitoring to stop palm oil deforestation. Yet…

Greenwashing Tactic #2: No Proof

Greenwashing Tactic 5. Palm oil companies make environmental claims without providing proof or evidence of these claims or using spurious evidence.

Greenwashing Tactic #3: Vagueness

Claiming a brand or commodity is ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ based on broad generalisations, unclear language or vague statements Jump to section Greenwashing: Vagueness in Language Greenwashing: Vagueness in certification standards Reality: Auditing of RSPO a failure Quote: EIA: Who Watches…

Greenwashing Tactic #4: Fake Labels

Claiming a brand or commodity is green based on unreliable, ineffective endorsements or eco-labels such as the RSPO, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or FairTrade coffee and cocoa. Greenwashing: Fake Labels and fake certifications Ecolabels are designed to reassure consumers that…

Greenwashing Tactic #5: Irrelevance and Deflection

Learn how lobbyists use irrelevant information and deflection to shift the conversation away from their environmental harms, e.g. “sustainable” palm oil.

Greenwashing Tactic #6: The Lesser of Two Evils

Claiming that a brand, commodity or industry is greener than others in the same category, in order to excuse ecocide, deforestation, human rights and animal rights abuses. Jump to section Greenwashing: Lesser of Two Evils: Palm Oil Uses Less Land…

Greenwashing Tactic #7: Lying

Greenwashing lies are falsifying support from authorities to back up claims or using spurious research data to back up the greenwashing, boycott palm oil!

Greenwashing Tactic 8: Design & Words

Greenwashing Tactic 8. Companies use design principles and subliminal language to signal ‘greenness’ and trigger unconscious emotional responses in consumers

Greenwashing Tactic 9: Partnerships, Sponsorships and Research Funding

Greenwashing Tactic 9. Corporations use NGOs, Zoo partnerships, sponsorships, and research funding to give an industry or brand a ‘green image.

Greenwashing Tactic 10: Gaslighting, Harassment, Stalking and Threats

Gaslighting, harassing or stalking vocal critics of a brand, commodity or industry certification in order to silence these critics – this is greenwashing!

Ten Tactics of ‘Sustainable’ Palm Oil Greenwashing

Learn ten marketing and PR tactics used for “sustainble” palm oil greenwashing to justify endless growth by the palm oil industry. Boycott palm oil now!

New forms of greenwashing: Carbon Credits and Biodiversity Credits

Furthermore, it is important to mention that the idea of certification has been taking on new shapes. With the creation of offset mechanisms for carbon emissions and biodiversity loss, new commodities have emerged already linked to certification mechanisms. In this new market, carbon credits and biodiversity credits – issued by certification schemes – represent a supposed guarantee that greenhouse gas emissions or the destruction of biodiversity are being duly offset elsewhere.

Differently from wood, paper, palm oil or soybeans, where the certification is “added” to the product by means of a label, in the carbon or biodiversity markets it is the
certification itself that makes it feasible for the product to be consumed.

In other words, the commodity in itself is supposedly a guarantee – though a virtual guarantee, obtained through dubious methodologies and permeated by openly suspect interests.

https://youtu.be/X7x4TWazWJg

This compilation of articles from the WRM Bulletin aims to underscore the damaging role played by companies and organisations involved in certification schemes. WRM considers it important to highlight that after three decades with ever more environmental certification labels on the market, it is urgent to put an end to this greenwashing.

Ultimately, instead of combating environmental devastation and the social ills linked
to corporations’ and other players’ operations, these labels cover up and
sustain their destructive logic.

Sexual Exploitation and Violence against Women at the Root of the Industrial Plantation Model

The industrial plantation model is intrinsically linked with patriarchal oppression, serving as a cornerstone for corporate profitability. Companies often exploit women, recognizing their integral role within community dynamics, as a means to augment their bottom line. The intersection of gender and economic exploitation exemplifies the profound social implications of this oppressive system.

RSPO: outsourcing environmental regulation to oil palm businesses and industry

The RSPO certification, cleverly turning the palm oil industry’s legitimacy crisis to its favor, uses it as a stepping stone to further strengthen the industry’s position. It provides certificates claiming to meet sustainability standards—a clear advantage to the industry. However, it’s important to note that these standards are largely controlled by and designed to benefit companies operating within the palm oil sector itself.

“Gender” in the palm oil industry and its RSPO label

Implementing gender policies in oil palm companies and the RSPO certification scheme is a start. But do they truly tackle the violence, patriarchy, and racism in the plantation model, or merely mask them? It’s crucial to examine how these policies are enacted and if they genuinely drive substantial change, or just scratch the surface of these systemic issues.

https://youtu.be/0n4LSP9RCfA

Colombia: Palm-Producing Company Poligrow Plans to Grab more Land under the “Small Producers” Scheme

The harsh realities of violence, mass killings, and forced relocations amid the armed conflict in Colombia have disturbingly paved the way for the expansion of industrial oil palm cultivation. The palm oil company and RSPO member Poligrow, has been significantly implicated in these issues, with credible allegations of land seizure and intimidation tactics within the region of Mapiripán.

Greenwashing Words: Language that kills forests

Language never operates in a vacuum. Historically, specific terms have been leveraged as tools for exercising control over populations and territories. This article throws light on certain terms which, while seemingly positive, often shield economic interests detrimental to forests, forest animals and forest peoples.

Africa: The RSPO certification for palm oil plantations is greenwash!

The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) is a widely used certification system promising environmental, safety, and human rights standards in the palm oil industry. However, Friends of the Earth Africa groups contest its effectiveness, citing ongoing environmental degradation, human rights breaches, biodiversity loss, and increased poverty in Africa linked to the activities of palm oil companies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnXISnURIBA

Communities resisting the impunity and impacts of oil palm growers in Ecuador: Cases from Esmeraldas

The palm industry in Ecuador, encompassing 270,000 hectares of plantations, has been using the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) certification to project an image of sustainability, setting itself apart from Asian palm oil. However, critics argue that this certification merely muffles community objections. Resistance from communities such as La Chiquita, Guadualito, and Barranquilla de San Javier in the Esmeraldas region continues to fuel discontent and foster international solidarity.

RSPO Certification despite land conflicts, violence and criminalisation

Nearly 1,500 members of MALOA in Sierra Leone are challenging RSPO’s certification of a SOCFIN subsidiary. They cite a string of conflicts and grievances tied to land use. This move follows controversial certifications of SOCFIN group’s operations in Nigeria, Cameroon, and Ivory Coast. Critics question if RSPO, perceived as industry-biased, can truly guarantee sustainability and human rights in the palm oil sector.

Are FSC and RSPO accomplices in crime? Agropalma’s Unresolved Land Question in the Brazilian Amazon

The Palmas del Ixcán company in Guatemala is accused of implementing systematic dispossession of land from indigenous communities for oil palm cultivation, using tactics such as deceptive RSPO certification and independent producers. The company’s strategic approach replaced the traditional collective land management by indigenous people in the Municipality of Ixcán, which had been disrupted by development plans since the 1960s. Despite filing a complaint to the RSPO and participating in consultations, the communities found their concerns disregarded, leading them to criticize the RSPO and label it a sham, asserting that its true intention is to facilitate palm planting at any cost.

Water is life – stop planting palms! reads a sign in Guatemala

This article was originally published by World Rainforest Movement as “Certification schemes on “sustainability”: 30 years of deceit and violence” on 25 March, 2023 and was republished with permission alongside other reports from World Health Organisation, Global Witness and others. Read original.

ENDS

Read more about human rights abuses and greenwashing associated with “sustainable” palm oil

So-called ‘Net Zero’ Flights Flush Rainforest Carbon Into the Sky

Virgin Atlantic airlines now uses ‘sustainable aviation fuel’ however experts call it greenwashing and industry spin causing climate change. Boycott palm oil!

Oreo Maker Linked to Ongoing Deforestation and Human Rights Abuses

Mondelēz International who make Oreos keep sourcing palm oil from suppliers linked to violence and deforestation. Their RSPO certification is pure greenwash!

Parrot Deaths Highlight Urgent Need to Reform CITES

The legal trade is largely to blame for African grey parrots becoming endangered. Regulator CITES is broken allowing exploitation, massive reform needed now!

Seeing Forest As Merely A Carbon “Commodity”: Dangerous Greenwashing

Commodifying forests as merely an investment for ‘carbon credits’ has many dangerous loopholes that human rights to indigenous peoples, take action!

Finance giants fuel $8.9 trillion deforestation economy

Forest 500 report shows 150 of the world’s largest financial institutions invested nearly $9 trillion in deforestation-linked industries. Support EUDR!

Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.

Take Action in Five Ways

1. Join the #Boycott4Wildlife on social media and subscribe to stay in the loop: Share posts from this website to your own network on Twitter, Mastadon, Instagram, Facebook and Youtube using the hashtags #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife.

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Instagram
• WordPress
• YouTube
• Mail
• Mastodon

Enter your email address

Sign Up

2. Contribute stories: Academics, conservationists, scientists, indigenous rights advocates and animal rights advocates working to expose the corruption of the palm oil industry or to save animals can contribute stories to the website.

Wildlife Artist Juanchi Pérez

Mel Lumby: Dedicated Devotee to Borneo’s Living Beings

Anthropologist and Author Dr Sophie Chao

Health Physician Dr Evan Allen

The World’s Most Loved Cup: A Social, Ethical & Environmental History of Coffee by Aviary Doert

How do we stop the world’s ecosystems from going into a death spiral? A #SteadyState Economy

3. Supermarket sleuthing: Next time you’re in the supermarket, take photos of products containing palm oil. Share these to social media along with the hashtags to call out the greenwashing and ecocide of the brands who use palm oil. You can also take photos of palm oil free products and congratulate brands when they go palm oil free.

https://twitter.com/CuriousApe4/status/1526136783557529600?s=20

https://twitter.com/PhillDixon1/status/1749010345555788144?s=20

https://twitter.com/mugabe139/status/1678027567977078784?s=20

4. Take to the streets: Get in touch with Palm Oil Detectives to find out more.

5. Donate: Make a one-off or monthly donation to Palm Oil Detectives as a way of saying thank you and to help pay for ongoing running costs of the website and social media campaigns. Donate here

Research: Palm Oil Deforestation and its connection to RSPO members/supermarket brands

The RSPO is a global certification scheme for palm oil that certifies palm oil as ‘sustainable’. Yet this word means absolutely nothing, as RSPO members – the biggest supermarket brands in the world: (Unilever, Nestle, Colgate-Palmolive, L’Oreal, Avon, Mars, Mondelez, Cargill, Danone and more) continue with illegal indigenous landgrabbing, deforestation, human rights abuses, slavery and violence on their palm oil plantations.

This is why Palm Oil Detectives advocates for a full boycott on these global brands because of their palm oil corruption. Here is some collected peer-reviewed research, OSINT and investigative journalism about these issues.

Read #research from @EIA_News @Greenpeace @AP @NZZ @Global_Witness @crresearch @FOEInt @ECCHRBerlin how the @RSPOtweets is #greenwashing #ecocide #deforestation #extinction #illegal #landgrabbing Join the #Boycott4Wildlife on #palmoil

Tweet

Jump to section

Burning Questions – Environmental Investigation Agency (2021)

Dying for a Cookie – Greenpeace (2019)

Who Watches the Watchmen 2 – Environmental Investigation Agency (2019)

The RSPO: 14 Years of Failure – Friends of the Earth International (2014)

Destruction Certified – Greenpeace (2021)

Trading Risks ADM and Bunge – Global Witness (2021)

Keep the Forests Standing – Rainforest Action Network (2019)

License to Clear West Papua – Greenpeace 2021

FMCG’s Zero-Deforestation Challenges – Chain Reaction Research (2020)

Plantation Life Corporate Occupation in Indonesia’s Oil Palm Zone (2021)

Planet Palm – Jocelyn Zuckerman (2021)

Rethinking Dayak Identity – Dr Setia Budhi

Human Rights Fitness of the Auditing and Certification Industry – ECCHR (2021)

Is there such a thing as sustainable palm oil? – Neue Zürcher Zeitung (2021)

The True Price of Palm Oil – Global Witness (2021)

Research: Do certified sustainable palm oil plantations support more animal species?

Research: Does RSPO palm oil certification stop deforestation, human rights abuses, illegal land-grabbing and does it meet sustainability metrics?

The RSPO: 14 Years of Failure – An Open Letter from Friends of the Earth and 100 Human Rights NGOs (2014)

Which RSPO members continue to cause deforestation? – Mighty Earth (2021)

Which supermarket brands (RSPO members) cause deforestation, human rights abuses for palm oil? Palm Oil Detectives (2021)

Ecocide & Corruption Whistle-blowers on Twitter

Join the #Boycott4Wildlife

Say thanks by donating to my Ko-Fi

Investigative journalism, OSINT investigations into the RSPO and ‘sustainable’ palm oil

Back to top ↑

Back to top ↑

Research: Do certified sustainable palm oil plantations support more animal species?

Answer: NO

Back to top ↑

Oil palm plantations support much fewer species than do forests and often also fewer than other tree crops. Further negative impacts include habitat fragmentation and pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions.

Emily B. Fitzherbert, Matthew J. Struebig, Alexandra Morel, Finn Danielsen, Carsten A. Brühl, Paul F. Donald, Ben Phalan, How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity?,
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol 23, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.06.012.

Currently certified grower supply bases and concessions in Sumatra and Borneo are located in large mammal’s habitat and in areas that were biodiverse tropical forests less than 30 years ago. We suggest that certification schemes claim for the “sustainable” production of palm oil just because they neglect a very recent past of deforestation and habitat degradation.

Roberto Cazzolla Gatti, Alena Velichevskaya, Certified “sustainable” palm oil took the place of endangered Bornean and Sumatran large mammals habitat and tropical forests in the last 30 years, Science of The Total Environment, Vol 742, 2020,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140712.

We analyse consequences of the globally important land-use transformation from tropical forests to oil palm plantations. Species diversity, density and biomass of invertebrate communities suffer at least 45% decreases from rainforest to oil palm.

Barnes, A., Jochum, M., Mumme, S. et al. Consequences of tropical land use for multitrophic biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Nat Commun 5, 5351 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6351

We found that certified plantation concessions that are committed to deforestation-free production are limited in their ability to prevent further biodiversity loss, due to the past conversion of forest habitats to plantations. Concession holders can improve forest habitats through corridor development and other measures, which would mitigate, but not prevent, further biodiversity loss.

Hideyuki Kubo, Arief Darmawan, Hendarto, André Derek Mader,
The effect of agricultural certification schemes on biodiversity loss in the tropics,
Biological Conservation, Volume 261, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109243.

Research: Does RSPO palm oil certification stop deforestation, human rights abuses, illegal land-grabbing and does it meet sustainability metrics?

Answer: NO

Ans

Back to top ↑

https://twitter.com/earthsight/status/1192827396451438592?s=20&t=rnSAWHikl-a8C6GAd9n09g

Chain Reaction Research

February 2021

2020’s Top Deforesters for Oil Palm in Southeast Asia: A Lower Rate of Deforestation, but the Same Culprits

We find positive effects on prices and income from sale of certified products. However, we find no change in overall household income and assets for workers. The wages for workers are not higher in certified production.

Oya, C., Schaefer, F. & Skalidou, D. The effectiveness of agricultural certification in developing countries: a systematic review. World Dev. 112, 282–312 (2018).

There was no significant difference was found between certified and non-certified plantations for any of the sustainability metrics investigated, however positive economic trends including greater fresh fruit bunch yields were revealed. To achieve intended outcomes, RSPO principles and criteria are in need of substantial improvement and rigorous enforcement.

Morgans, C. L. et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of palm oil certification in delivering multiple sustainability objectives. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 064032, 2018.

This article argues that the form of sustainability offered by certification schemes such as the RSPO fetishes the commodity palm oil in order to assuage critical consumer initiatives in the North. This technical-managerial solution is part of a larger project: the “post-political” climate politics regime (Swyngedouw) that attempts to “green” the status quo.

Commodifying sustainability: Development, nature and politics in the palm oil industry (2019) World Development
Volume 121, September 2019, Pages 218-228

• The palm oil industry is neither sustainable nor a viable development model.
• Certification represents a technical fix which neglects underlying dynamics of power, class, gender and accumulation.
• The fetishised commodity ‘certified sustainable palm oil’ has no impact on the regional scale of expansion.
• Working conditions in the plantations and mills entrench social inequality and poverty.

From: Commodifying sustainability: Development, nature and politics in the palm oil industry (2019) World Development
Volume 121, September 2019, Pages 218-228

“Both Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) schemes are failing to ensure that palm oil is being produced and traded legally, let alone sustainably. They cannot be relied upon by overseas consumers concerned about their role in the global chain that leads to deforestation.”

Deceased Estate: Illegal palm oil wiping out Indonesia’s national forest, Greenpeace Indonesia, Oct 2021

No significant difference was found between certified and non-certified plantations for any of the sustainability metrics investigated, however positive economic trends including greater fresh fruit bunch yields were revealed. To achieve intended outcomes, RSPO principles and criteria are in need of substantial improvement and rigorous enforcement.

Evaluating the effectiveness of palm oil certification in delivering multiple sustainability objectives. (2018), Morgans, C. L. et al. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 064032.

Back to top ↑

RSPO: 14 years of failure to eliminate violence and destruction from the industrial palm oil sector

Friends of the Earth and 100 other human rights and environmental NGOS co-signed this letter in 2018

Letter

During its 14 years of existence, RSPO – the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil – has failed to live up to its claim of “transforming” the industrial palm oil production sector into a so-called “sustainable” one. In reality, the RSPO has been used by the palm oil industry to greenwash corporate destruction and human rights abuses, while it continues to expand business, forest destruction and profits.

RSPO presents itself to the public with the slogan “transforming the markets to make sustainable palm oil the norm”. Palm oil has become the cheapest vegetable oil available on the global market, making it a popular choice among the group that dominates RSPO membership, big palm oil buyers.

They will do everything to secure a steady flow of cheap palm oil. They also know that the key to the corporate success story of producing “cheap” palm oil is a particular model of industrial production, with ever-increasing efficiency and productivity which in turn is achieved by:

1. Planting on a large-scale and in monoculture, frequently through conversion of tropical biodiverse forests
2. Using “high yielding” seedlings that demand large amounts of agrotoxics and abundant water.
3. Squeezing cheap labour out of the smallest possible work force, employed in precarious conditions so that company costs are cut to a minimum
4. Making significant up-front money from the tropical timber extracted from concessions, which is then used to finance plantation development or increase corporate profits.
5. Grabbing land violently from local communities or by means of other arrangements with governments (including favourable tax regimes) to access land at the lowest possible cost.

Those living on the fertile land that the corporations choose to apply their industrial palm oil production model, pay a very high price.

Violence is intrinsic to this model:

• violence and repression when communities resist the corporate take over of their land because they know that once their land is turned into monoculture oil palm plantations, their livelihoods will be destroyed, their land and forests invaded. In countless cases, deforestation caused by the expansion of this industry, has displaced communities or destroyed community livelihoods where
• companies violate customary rights and take control of community land;
• sexual violence and harassment against women in and around the plantations which often stays invisible because women find themselves without possibilities to demand that the perpetrators be prosecuted;
• Child labour and precarious working conditions that go hand-in-hand with violation of workers’ rights;
• working conditions can even be so bad as to amount to contemporary forms of slavery. This exploitative model of work grants companies more economic profits while allowing palm oil to remain a cheap product. That is why, neither them or their shareholders do anything to stop it.

• exposure of workers, entire communities and forests, rivers, water springs, agricultural land and soils to the excessive application of agrotoxics;
• depriving communities surrounded by industrial oil palm plantations of their food sovereignty when industrial oil palm plantations occupy land that communities need to grow food crops.

RSPO’s proclaimed vision of transforming the industrial oil palm sector is doomed to fail because the Roundtable’s certification principles promote this structural violent and destructive model.

The RSPO also fails to address the industry’s reliance on exclusive control of large and contingent areas of fertile land, as well as the industry’s growth paradigm which demands a continued expansion of corporate control over community land and violent land grabs.

None of RPSO’s eight certification principles suggests transforming this industry reliance on exclusive control over vast areas of land or the growth paradigm inherent to the model.

Industrial use of vegetable oils has doubled in the past 15 years, with palm oil being the cheapest. This massive increase of palm oil use in part explains the current expansion of industrial oil palm plantations, especially in Africa and Latin America, from the year 2000 onward, in addition to the existing vast plantations areas in Malaysia and Indonesia that also continue expanding.

On the ground, countless examples show that industrial oil palm plantations continue to be synonymous to violence and destruction for communities and forests. Communities’ experiences in the new industrial oil palm plantation frontiers, such as Gabon, Nigeria, Cameroon, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Peru, Honduras, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, are similar to past and ongoing community experiences in Indonesia and Malaysia.

RSPO creates a smokescreen that makes this violence invisible for consumers and financiers. Governments often fail to take regulatory action to stop the expansion of plantations and increasing demand of palm oil; they rely on RSPO to deliver an apparently sustainable flow of palm oil.

For example, in its public propaganda, RSPO claims it supports more than 100,000 small holders. But the profit from palm oil production is still disproportionally appropriated by the oil palm companies: in 2016, 88% of all certified palm oil came from corporate plantations and 99,6% of the production is corporate-controlled.

RSPO also claims that the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is key among its own Principles and Criteria. The right to FPIC implies, among others, that if a community denies the establishment of this monoculture in its territory, operations cannot be carried out. Reality shows us, however, that despite this, many projects go ahead.

Concessions are often guaranteed long before the company reaches out to the affected communities. Under these circumstances, to say that FPIC is central to RSPO is bluntly false and disrespectful.

RSPO also argues that where conflicts with the plantation companies arise, communities can always use its complaint mechanism. However, the mechanism is complex and it rarely solves the problems that communities face and want to resolve.

This becomes particularly apparent in relation to land legacy conflicts where the mechanism is biased against communities. It allows companies to continue exploiting community land until courts have come to a decision. This approach encourages companies to sit out such conflicts and count on court proceedings dragging on, often over decades.

Another argument used by RSPO is that industrial oil palm plantations have lifted millions of people out of poverty. That claim is certainly questionable, even more so considering that there is also an important number of people who have been displaced over the past decades to make space for plantations.

Indigenous communities have in fact lost their fertile land, forests and rivers to oil palm plantations, adversely affecting their food, culture and local economies.

The RSPO promise of “transformation” has turned into a powerful greenwashing tool for corporations in the palm oil industry. RSPO grants this industry, which remains responsible for violent land grabbing, environmental destruction, pollution through excessive use of agrotoxics and destruction of peasant and indigenous livelihoods, a “sustainable” image.

What’s more, RSPO membership seems to suffice for investors and companies to be able to claim that they are “responsible” actors. This greenwash is particularly stunning, since being a member does not guarantee much change on the ground. Only recently, a company became RSPO member after it was found to deforest over 27.000 hectares of rainforest in Papua, Indonesia.

Certification is structurally dependent on the very same policies and regulation that have given rise to the host of environmental devastation and community land rights violations associated with oil palm plantations. These systemic governance issues are part of the destructive economic model, and embedded in state power.

For this reason, voluntary certification schemes cannot provide adequate protection for forests, community rights, food sovereignty and guarantee sustainability. Governments and financiers need to take responsibility to stop the destructive palm oil expansion that violates the rights of local communities and Indigenous Peoples.

As immediate steps, governments need to:

• Put in place a moratorium on palm oil plantations expansion and use that as a breathing space to fix the policy frameworks;
• Drastically reduce demand for palm oil: stop using food for fuel;
• Strengthen and respect the rights of local communities and Indigenous Peoples to amongst others, self-determination and territorial control.
• Promote agro-ecology and community control of their forests, which strengthens local incomes, livelihoods and food sovereignty, instead of advancing industrial agro-businesses.

Signatures

• Aalamaram-NGOAcción Ecológica, Ecuador
• ActionAid, France
• AGAPAN
  Amics arbres
• Arbres amics
• Amis de la Terre France
• ARAARBA (Asociación para la Recuperación del Bosque Autóctono)
• Asociación Conservacionista YISKI, Costa Rica
  Asociación Gaia El Salvador
• Association Congo Actif, Paris
• Association Les Gens du Partage, Carrières-sous-Poissy
• Association pour le développement des aires protégées, Swizterland
• BASE IS
• Bézu St Eloi
• Boxberg OT Uhyst
• Bread for all
• Bruno Manser Fund
• CADDECAE, Ecuador
• Campaign to STOP GE Trees
• CAP, Center for Advocacy Practices
• Centar za životnu sredinu/ Friends of the Earth Bosnia and Herzegovina
• CESTA – FOE El Salvador
• CETRI – Centre tricontinental
• Climate Change Kenya
• Coalición de Tendencia Clasista. (CTC-VZLA)
• Colectivo de Investigación y Acompañmiento Comunitario
• Collectif pour la défense des terres malgaches – TANY, Madagascar
• Community Forest Watch, Nigeria
• Consumers Association of Penang
• Corporate Europe Observatory
• Cuttington University
• Down to Earth Consult
• El Campello
• Environmental Resources Management and Social Issue Centre (ERMSIC) Cameroon
• Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria
• FASE ES , Brazil
• Fédération romande des consommateurs
• FENEV, (Femmes Environnement nature Entrepreneuriat Vert).
• Focus on the Global South
• Forum Ökologie & Papier, Germany
• Friends of the Earth Ghana
• Friends of the Earth International
• GE Free NZ, New Zealand
• Global Alliance against REDD
• Global Justice Ecology Project
• Global Info
• Gobierno Territorial Autónomo de la Nación Wampís , Peru
• GRAIN
• Green Development Advocates (GDA)
• CameroonGreystones, Ireland
• Groupe International de Travail pour les Peuples Autochtones
  Grupo ETC
• Grupo Guayubira, Uruguay
• Instituto Mexicano de Gobernanza Medioambiental AC Instituto Mexicano de Gobernanza Medioambiental AC
• Integrated Program for the Development of the Pygmy People (PIDP), DRC
• Justica Ambiental
• Justicia Paz e Integridad de la Creacion. Costa Rica
• Kempityari
• Latin Ambiente, http://www.latinambiente.org
• Les gens du partage
• LOYOLA SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY, MANILA
• Maderas del Pueblo del Sureste, AC
• Maiouri nature, Guyane
• Mangrove Action Project
• Milieudefensie – Friends of the Earth Netherlands
• Movimento Amigos da Rua Gonçalo de Carvalho
• Muyissi Environnement, Gabon
• Nature-d-congo de la République du Congo
• New Wind Association from Finland
• NOAH-Friends of the Earth Denmark
• Oakland Institute
• OFRANEH, Honduras
• Ole Siosiomaga Society Incorporated (OLSSI)
• ONG OCEAN : Organisation Congolaise des Ecologistes et Amis de la Nature et sommes basés en RD Congo.
• OPIROMA, Brazil
• Otros Mundos A.C./Amigos de la Tierra México
• Paramo Guerrrero Zipaquira
• PROYECTO GRAN SIMIO (GAP/PGS-España)
• Quercus – ANCN, Portugal
• Radd (Reseau des Acteurs du Développement Durable) , Cameroon
• Rainforest Foundation UK
• Rainforest Relief
• ReAct – Alliances Transnationales
• RECOMA – Red latinoamericana contra los monocultivos de árboles
• Red de Coordinacion en Biodiversidad , Çosta Rica
• REFEB-Cote d’Ivoire
• Rettet den Regenwald, Germany
• ROBIN WOOD
• Sahabat Alam Malaysia (Friends of the Earth Malaysia)
• Salva la Selva
• School of Democratic Economics, Indonesia
• Serendipalm Company Limited
• Sherpa , The Netherlands
• SYNAPARCAM, Cameroon
• The Corner House, UK
  Towards Equitable Sustainable Holistic Development
• TRAFFED KIVU ,RD. CONGOUNIÓN UNIVERSAL DESARROLLO SOLIDARIO
  University of Sussex, UK
• UTB ColombiaWatch Indonesia!
• WESSA
  World Rainforest Movement
• Youth Volunteers for the Environment Ghana

Back to top ↑

Which RSPO members continue to cause deforestation?

Have a look at these quarterly and at-a-glance reports by Mighty Earth, they show the RSPO members (palm oil manfacturers, traders, processors and retail brands) at the centre of deforestation. Click on image to go to most recent report. This information below is a stark contrast to the greenwashing WWF Palm Oil Scorecard, which allocates many of these same brands with a ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ label and encourages people to buy from them! We call out this form of greenwashing and #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife!

Back to top ↑

Retailers and banks at the heart of palm oil deforestation

Source: Rainforest Action Network (RAN)’s March 2020 Whitepaper

Greenpeace:

The True Cost of Palm Oil & Wood Pulp (2019)

https://palmoildetectives.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/greenpeace-palm-oil-and-wood-pulp-2019.pdf

Greenpeace

How Unilever and other global brands continue to fuel Indonesia’s fires (2019)

https://palmoildetectives.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/mondelez-nestle-p-and-g-unilever-bad.pdf

Chain Reaction Research

Loopholes in the palm oil supply chain allow RSPO members to continue to destroy forests with fire July 2020

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlXmWWql6AM

Chain Reaction Research

Retailers and FMCG Giants do not take deforestation seriously enough to warrant change (2020)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2_uu4EOyqQ

Back to top ↑

Which brands cause deforestation, human rights abuses for palm oil?

Back to top ↑

Learn how to boycott palm oil this Halloween in America, the UK and Australia

Read more

PepsiCo

Read more

Procter & Gamble

Read more

PZ Cussons

Read more

Danone

Read more

Brands Using Deforestation Palm Oil

Read more

Kelloggs/Kellanova

Read more

Mondelēz

Read more

Johnson & Johnson

Read more

L’Oreal

Read more

Nestlé

Read more

Load more posts

Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.

Ecocide & Corruption Whistle-blowers on Twitter

With so much misinformation, greenwashing and BS out there. It is difficult to know who is telling the truth.

Here’s a list of NGOS, individuals and media outlets you can trust for clear information that exposes the corruption going on around so-called ‘sustainable’ palm oil, deforestation and many other issues.

Also these media outlets, individuals and NGOs regularly cover other topics like deforestation for soy, meat, gold, timber, cocoa, coffee and other commodities. They also expose corruption, abuse, violence and death of indigenous people, land grabs etc and how this links to global companies.

Back to top ↑

There are now literally thousands of people who are a passionate supporters and activists in the #Boycott4Wildlife – This list is not ignoring these people, you are all amazing people and the contribution you are making is very important!. However this list here focuses on people or NGOs who publish and produce news, research, books, photojournalism, podcasts or TV documentaries. So that everyone else knows who to listen to in the gigantic social media cacophony.

@AP

@amazonwatch

@AuroraGroupScot

@BarbaraNavarro

@BennyWenda

@BentalaRakyat

@bmfonds

@Cen4infoRes

@Cleve_Hicks

@CorpJusticeUK

@craigjones17

@crresearch

@degrowth_info

@drbirute

@earthsight

@EcocideLaw

@ECCHRBerlin

@EIA_News

Farm Land Grab (website)

@FOEInt

@Forests_Finance

@FreeWestPapua

@fnierula

@ForensicArchi

@geckoproj

@Global_Witness

@GRAIN_org

@greenpeaceUK

@GreenwashEarth

@georgecmcgavin

@GlobalCanopy

@HRW

@IfNotUs_ThenWho

@IllicitFlows

@INTERPOL_EC

@IsabellaGuerrin

@joceylnzuck

@KlausRiede

@LandConflicts

@macarangatweets

@merdeka_wp

@mongabay

@NZZ

@OFIOffice

@OCCRP

@Rainforest_RIN

@RichardSsuna

@robertocgatti

@sarawak_report

@StandMighty

@SteadyStateEcon

@StopEcocideNL

@sumofus

@the_ecologist

@TuK_Indonesia

@TruthinAd

@TraseEarth

@RettetRegenwald

@RainforestResq

@RainforestNORW

@UE

@wpinvestigates

@VeronicaKoman

@YaleE360

@WorldRainforest

@WinnieCheche

Back to top ↑

Use your wallet as a weapon and boycott the brands destroying rainforests for palm oil! It’s the #Boycott4Wildlife

Back to top ↑

Get brand changes in your inbox

Enter your email address

Sign Up

Back to top ↑

Palm Oil Detectives is 100% self-funded

Palm Oil Detectives is completely self-funded by its creator. All hosting and website fees and investigations into brands are self-funded by the creator of this online movement. If you like what I am doing, you and would like me to help meet costs, please send Palm Oil Detectives a thanks on Ko-Fi.

Back to top ↑

#auditFraud #Boycott4wildlife #BoycottPalmOil #brandMarketing #consumerBoycott #consumerRights #deforestation #ecocide #extinction #fraud #greenwashing #illegal #landRights #landgrabbing #palmoilTweet #research #RSPO #RSPOGreenwashing #slavery #violence #wildlife #wildlifeActivism