#consumerboycott — Public Fediverse posts

If you have been paying attention, you will be aware that the nation of #Israel is committing #Genocide in #Gaza against the people of #Palestine. You may nave seen the request today from the people of Gaza to use the term #Haulicost instead.

It has become clear in the last ten days that the Government of #Australia is continuing to provide parts for the #F35 aircraft to Israel, despite public statements to the contrary. Israel is using the F35 to fire missiles into Gaza and kill people.

You may be wondering … ‘well, what can I do?’

I have been using the ‘Boycat: Ethical Shopping’ app for a few shops now. It scans bar codes and immediately tells you if the company making the item is fine or if it supports Israel in some way. The company may sell into Israel, sell or donate to the #IDF, donate into Israel etc.

The app puts information in your hands at the time of purchase. You can then decide if you want to buy the item. You may still buy the item, but in making your decision, you have more information than before.

I recommend you download it onto your phone and give it a go. I got the hang of it by scanning a few items in my pantry before taking it to the shops.

#ConsumerBoycott
#AusPol

https://apps.apple.com/au/app/boycat-ethical-shopping/id6474510742

https://mastodon.social/@alexlunaview/114157235239211428

Wow. If true (no link provided) this is very big. A very big slap in the face to the US

#EU #ConsumerBoycott

@JoeChip @davetroy I thought I was the only one thinking about a possible silent revolution. #consumerboycott. I’m glad to hear I’m not alone. The problem is fear. It can be done safely in our homes legally and all we have to do is call in sick and not spend any money. One or two days to financially crush the 1% employers in this country and we the people are 97% labor force. We have the power.

@davetroy
GOP wreckers don't care about resolving problems. I fail to see any legislative strategy, other than abject surrender, that can forestall (temporarily) this outcome.

The only real option is a stay-at-home #GeneralStrike and #ConsumerBoycott.

If you hit the street, Trump will invoke the insurrection act. But even troops on the street can't force you to go back to work.

Terrifying Tale of Halloween: Palm Oil Ecocide in Your Treats!

This #Halloween, as you revel in terrifying tales and creepy costumes, remember that the most terrifying tale of all isn’t enjoyable folklore—it’s the horrifying truth about palm oil. This ingredient causes #deforestation, #ecocide, #humanrights abuses and #indigenous land-grabbing. The production of #palmoil casts a dark shadow over our planet, as it can only be grown on destroyed tropical rainforests. So-called “sustainable” palm oil used by the world’s biggest food brands like Nestle, Mondelez, Hersheys, Ferrero and Mars is a complete greenwashing lie. So don’t buy any of it! All palm oil threatens the very existence of wildlife, polluting our air and water, accelerates climate change, and tramples on the rights of indigenous communities worldwide. This Halloween, take action and use your wallet as a weapon. 🌍🌳🦍 #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife

https://youtu.be/Hccw9zCh9pw

What is #Halloween’s most terrifying tale? #Palmoil #greenwashing 🧐💰🤑👿 #ecocide contained in your favourite #chocolate ☠️🌴🪔☠️ and #candy! Take action for #wildlife when you #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2023/10/18/halloweens-most-terrifying-tale-palm-oil-greenwashing-and-ecocide-in-your-treats/

DYK so-called “sustainable” #palmoil is a #greenwashing lie that still causes #deforestation?🤯 Learn how to #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife this #Halloween 🎃👻🪦 Instead enjoy #palmoilfree and #vegan treats and #candy @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2023/10/18/halloweens-most-terrifying-tale-palm-oil-greenwashing-and-ecocide-in-your-treats/

Palm oil is commonly used in Halloween candies and treats for one reason only – it is cheap to manufacture.

The production of palm oil has severe environmental and social impacts. Deforestation and ecocide caused by palm oil production threatens wildlife habitats, contributes to air pollution and water pollution, is strongly linked to climate change, and infringes on the rights of indigenous peoples all over the tropical world.

A 2019 World Health Organisation (WHO) report into the palm oil industry and RSPO finds extensive greenwashing of palm oil deforestation and the murder of endangered animals (i.e. biodiversity loss)

Although proponents of palm oil claim that it helps farmers to earn a living wage, a 2021 report by Chain Reaction Research found that the world’s biggest brands earn the lion’s share of profit from palm oil, 66% or more of gross profit flows back to the world’s biggest FMCG companies such as Nestle, Unilever, Hersheys and Colgate-Palmolive. In contrast, almost 0% of profit flows back to farmers themselves.

The Problems with Palm Oil

Palm Oil Detectives is a website that gathers together evidence from dozens of different sources in order to clearly show the elaborate and widespread greenwashing of so-called “sustainable” palm oil. Take a look at the 10 forms of “sustainable” palm oil greenwashing to see how this works, using a network of zoos and fake NGOs in order to push the narrative of “sustainable” palm oil to consumers.

Research: Certifying Palm Oil as “Sustainable” Is No Panacea

University of Michigan research reveals that RSPO certification is associated with deforestation and human rights abuses in Guatemala. Boycott palm oil! The…

Certification Schemes Fail to Stop Palm Oil Deforestation

71 rights groups warn that certification schemes like RSPO and FSC fail to stop deforestation and abuses. Learn why they are called…

RSPO member SIAT leaves Nigerian farmers without food. Leases their illegally taken land for €1.23 Euros per hectare, per year

A 5-month investigation by Elfredah Kevin-Alerechi and Kevin Woke of Sahara Reporters reveals how RSPO member SIAT Nigeria Limited is involved in…

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.

This website also provides evidence in the form of many research papers and reports from many non-profits (those organisations not partnered with the palm oil supply chain). These reports expose the immense corruption, ecocide and greenwashing in the palm oil industry along with its human rights abuses, violence, land-grabbing and animal cruelty – all associated with RSPO members supposedly using “sustainable” palm oil.

Greenwashing: Manufacturing consumer demand for palm oil

Since its inception two decades ago, the global certification for palm oil the RSPO continues to promote “sustainable” palm oil. Yet not one of its supply chain members has actually eradicated deforestation or human rights abuses from their palm oil supply chains. This constant promotion of the palm oil industry in spite of evidence of its ongoing failures is clear evidence of the RSPO’s greenwashing.

The global demand for palm oil contributes significantly to deforestation, particularly in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, Colombia, Nigeria and Uganda. These regions are rich in biodiversity, and the loss of their rainforests impacts numerous species non-human beings of all shapes and sizes. This includes not only the poster child for palm oil ecocide – the three orangutan species, but also rare and endangered plants and animal species.

From the smallest insect to the most magnificent elephant, to exquisite and vibrantly coloured birds – all are under threat by palm oil’s relentless growth across all tropical regions of the world. Indigenous peoples with their unique cultures, customs and languages are also endangered by palm oil expansion as well.

The #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife movement starts with you

If this terrifying tale of palm oil has alarmed you, the good news is – there are actions you can take.

One powerful and effective way to help rare animals, plants and indigenous peoples is to use your wallet as a weapon and boycott palm oil. By learning how to identify palm oil in products and choosing products that are palm oil free, you can contribute to reducing demand for this destructive commodity.

A great place to start is by searching for palm oil-free alternatives on this website and also by promoting the #Boycottpalmoil and #Boycott4Wildlife on movement on social media.

Remember, every purchase you make has an impact. This Halloween, support the wildlife you love and use your wallet as a weapon.

Download your free Halloween infographic here

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

The reality of these chocolate and confectionery brands is the spookiest story you will ever hear this Halloween Learn how to boycott with handy lists for the US, Uk and Australia. Discover the spookiest story of #Halloween 🎃👻💀: “sustainable” #palmoil is not sustainable! Major brands continue to buy #palmoil infused with #ecocide. Make sure you…

Ultra-processed Foods: Trashing Health and The Planet

Our world is facing a huge challenge: we need to create enough high-quality, diverse and nutritious food to feed a growing population – and do so within the boundaries of our planet. This means significantly reducing the environmental impact of the global food system. Below is information about how you can identify ultra processed foods containing palm oil and other harmful ingredients in order to avoid them – for your own health and the health of the planet.

#Palmoil and #meat are ultra-processed unhealthy foods that are harmful to health and harmful to the planet. Here’s how to avoid them. Be #vegan for the animals, #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife

Tweet

Ultra processed foods containing #palmoil #meat and #dairy are harmful to health and linked to chronic disease and mortality. Here’s how to avoid them for environmental and #health reasons #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife

Tweet

There are more than 7,000 edible plant species which could be consumed for food. But today, 90% of global energy intake comes from 15 crop species, with more than half of the world’s population relying on just three cereal crops: rice, wheat and maize.

The rise of ultra-processed foods is likely playing a major role in this ongoing change, as our latest research notes. Thus, reducing our consumption and production of these foods offers a unique opportunity to improve both our health and the environmental sustainability of the food system.

Food agriculture is a major driver of environmental damage and ecocide

Agriculture is a major driver of environmental change. It is responsible for one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions and about 70% of freshwater use. It also uses 38% of global land and is the largest driver of biodiversity loss.

While research has highlighted how western diets containing excessive calories and livestock products tend to have large environmental impacts, there are also environmental concerns linked to ultra-processed foods.

The impacts of these foods on human health are well described, but the effects on the environment have been given less consideration. This is surprising, considering ultra-processed foods are a dominant component of the food supply in high-income countries (and sales are rapidly rising through low and middle-income countries too).

Our latest research, led by colleagues in Brazil, proposes that increasingly globalised diets high in ultra-processed foods come at the expense of the cultivation, manufacture and consumption of “traditional” foods.

How to spot ultra-processed foods

Ultra-processed foods are a group of foods defined as “formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, that result from a series of industrial processes”.

They typically contain cosmetic additives and little or no whole foods. You can think of them as foods you would struggle to create in your own kitchen. Examples include confectionery, soft drinks, chips, pre-prepared meals and restaurant fast-food products.

In contrast with this are “traditional” foods – such as fruits, vegetables, wholegrains, preserved legumes, dairy and meat products – which are minimally processed, or made using traditional processing methods.

While traditional processing, methods such as fermentation, canning and bottling are key to ensuring food safety and global food security. Ultra-processed foods, however, are processed beyond what is necessary for food safety.

Australians have particularly high rates of ultra-processed food consumption. These foods account for 39% of total energy intake among Australian adults. This is more than Belgium, Brazil, Columbia, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico and Spain – but less than the United States, where they account for 57.9% of adults’ dietary energy.

According to an analysis of the 2011-12 Australian Health Survey (the most recent national data available on this), the ultra-processed foods that contributed the most dietary energy for Australians aged two and above included ready-made meals, fast food, pastries, buns and cakes, breakfast cereals, fruit drinks, iced tea and confectionery.

What are the environmental impacts?

Ultra-processed foods also rely on a small number of crop species, which places burden on the environments in which these ingredients are grown.

Maize, wheat, soy and oil seed crops (such as palm oil) are good examples. These crops are chosen by food manufacturers because they are cheap to produce and high yielding, meaning they can be produced in large volumes.

Also, animal-derived ingredients in ultra-processed foods are sourced from animals which rely on these same crops as feed.

The rise of convenient and cheap ultra-processed foods has replaced a wide variety of minimally-processed wholefoods including fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, meat and dairy. This has reduced both the quality of our diet and food supply diversity.

In Australia, the most frequently used ingredients in the 2019 packaged food and drink supply were sugar (40.7%), wheat flour (15.6%), vegetable oil (12.8%) and milk (11.0%).

Some ingredients used in ultra-processed foods such as cocoa, sugar and some vegetable oils are also strongly associated with biodiversity loss.

What can be done?

The environmental impact of ultra-processed foods is avoidable. Not only are these foods harmful, they are also unnecessary for human nutrition. Diets high in ultra-processed foods are linked with poor health outcomes, including heart disease, type-2 diabetes, irritable bowel syndrome, cancer and depression, among others.

To counter this, food production resources across the world could be re-routed into producing healthier, less processed foods. For example, globally, significant quantities of cereals such as wheat, maize and rice are milled into refined flours to produce refined breads, cakes, donuts and other bakery products.

These could be rerouted into producing more nutritious foods such as wholemeal bread or pasta. This would contribute to improving global food security and also provide more buffer against natural disasters and conflicts in major breadbasket areas.

Other environmental resources could be saved by avoiding the use of certain ingredients altogether.

Demand for palm oil (a common ingredient in ultra-processed foods, and associated with deforestation in Southeast Asia) could be significantly reduced through consumers shifting their preferences towards healthier foods.

Reducing your consumption of ultra-processed foods is one way by which you can reduce your environmental footprint, while also improving your health.

Kim Anastasiou, Research Dietitian (CSIRO), PhD Candidate (Deakin University), Deakin University; Mark Lawrence, Professor of Public Health Nutrition, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University; Michalis Hadjikakou, Lecturer in Environmental Sustainability, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Engineering & Built Environment, Deakin University, and Phillip Baker, Research Fellow, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ENDS

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

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

Read more

Mel Lumby: Dedicated Devotee to Borneo’s Living Beings

Read more

Anthropologist and Author Dr Sophie Chao

Read more

Health Physician Dr Evan Allen

Read more

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

Read more

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

Read more

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

#BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4wildlife #BoycottPalmOil #brandBoycotts #consumerBoycott #consumerRights #dairy #deforestation #diet #health #meat #News #PalmOil #palmOilDeforestation #palmOilFree #palmoil #plantBasedDiet #vegan #veganism

Ultra-processed Foods: Trashing Health and The Planet

Our world is facing a huge challenge: we need to create enough high-quality, diverse and nutritious food to feed a growing population – and do so within the boundaries of our planet. This means significantly reducing the environmental impact of the global food system. Below is information about how you can identify ultra processed foods containing palm oil and other harmful ingredients in order to avoid them – for your own health and the health of the planet.

#Palmoil and #meat are ultra-processed unhealthy foods that are harmful to health and harmful to the planet. Here’s how to avoid them. Be #vegan for the animals, #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife

Tweet

Ultra processed foods containing #palmoil #meat and #dairy are harmful to health and linked to chronic disease and mortality. Here’s how to avoid them for environmental and #health reasons #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife

Tweet

There are more than 7,000 edible plant species which could be consumed for food. But today, 90% of global energy intake comes from 15 crop species, with more than half of the world’s population relying on just three cereal crops: rice, wheat and maize.

The rise of ultra-processed foods is likely playing a major role in this ongoing change, as our latest research notes. Thus, reducing our consumption and production of these foods offers a unique opportunity to improve both our health and the environmental sustainability of the food system.

Food agriculture is a major driver of environmental damage and ecocide

Agriculture is a major driver of environmental change. It is responsible for one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions and about 70% of freshwater use. It also uses 38% of global land and is the largest driver of biodiversity loss.

While research has highlighted how western diets containing excessive calories and livestock products tend to have large environmental impacts, there are also environmental concerns linked to ultra-processed foods.

The impacts of these foods on human health are well described, but the effects on the environment have been given less consideration. This is surprising, considering ultra-processed foods are a dominant component of the food supply in high-income countries (and sales are rapidly rising through low and middle-income countries too).

Our latest research, led by colleagues in Brazil, proposes that increasingly globalised diets high in ultra-processed foods come at the expense of the cultivation, manufacture and consumption of “traditional” foods.

How to spot ultra-processed foods

Ultra-processed foods are a group of foods defined as “formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, that result from a series of industrial processes”.

They typically contain cosmetic additives and little or no whole foods. You can think of them as foods you would struggle to create in your own kitchen. Examples include confectionery, soft drinks, chips, pre-prepared meals and restaurant fast-food products.

In contrast with this are “traditional” foods – such as fruits, vegetables, wholegrains, preserved legumes, dairy and meat products – which are minimally processed, or made using traditional processing methods.

While traditional processing, methods such as fermentation, canning and bottling are key to ensuring food safety and global food security. Ultra-processed foods, however, are processed beyond what is necessary for food safety.

Australians have particularly high rates of ultra-processed food consumption. These foods account for 39% of total energy intake among Australian adults. This is more than Belgium, Brazil, Columbia, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico and Spain – but less than the United States, where they account for 57.9% of adults’ dietary energy.

According to an analysis of the 2011-12 Australian Health Survey (the most recent national data available on this), the ultra-processed foods that contributed the most dietary energy for Australians aged two and above included ready-made meals, fast food, pastries, buns and cakes, breakfast cereals, fruit drinks, iced tea and confectionery.

What are the environmental impacts?

Ultra-processed foods also rely on a small number of crop species, which places burden on the environments in which these ingredients are grown.

Maize, wheat, soy and oil seed crops (such as palm oil) are good examples. These crops are chosen by food manufacturers because they are cheap to produce and high yielding, meaning they can be produced in large volumes.

Also, animal-derived ingredients in ultra-processed foods are sourced from animals which rely on these same crops as feed.

The rise of convenient and cheap ultra-processed foods has replaced a wide variety of minimally-processed wholefoods including fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, meat and dairy. This has reduced both the quality of our diet and food supply diversity.

In Australia, the most frequently used ingredients in the 2019 packaged food and drink supply were sugar (40.7%), wheat flour (15.6%), vegetable oil (12.8%) and milk (11.0%).

Some ingredients used in ultra-processed foods such as cocoa, sugar and some vegetable oils are also strongly associated with biodiversity loss.

What can be done?

The environmental impact of ultra-processed foods is avoidable. Not only are these foods harmful, they are also unnecessary for human nutrition. Diets high in ultra-processed foods are linked with poor health outcomes, including heart disease, type-2 diabetes, irritable bowel syndrome, cancer and depression, among others.

To counter this, food production resources across the world could be re-routed into producing healthier, less processed foods. For example, globally, significant quantities of cereals such as wheat, maize and rice are milled into refined flours to produce refined breads, cakes, donuts and other bakery products.

These could be rerouted into producing more nutritious foods such as wholemeal bread or pasta. This would contribute to improving global food security and also provide more buffer against natural disasters and conflicts in major breadbasket areas.

Other environmental resources could be saved by avoiding the use of certain ingredients altogether.

Demand for palm oil (a common ingredient in ultra-processed foods, and associated with deforestation in Southeast Asia) could be significantly reduced through consumers shifting their preferences towards healthier foods.

Reducing your consumption of ultra-processed foods is one way by which you can reduce your environmental footprint, while also improving your health.

Kim Anastasiou, Research Dietitian (CSIRO), PhD Candidate (Deakin University), Deakin University; Mark Lawrence, Professor of Public Health Nutrition, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University; Michalis Hadjikakou, Lecturer in Environmental Sustainability, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Engineering & Built Environment, Deakin University, and Phillip Baker, Research Fellow, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ENDS

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

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

Read more

Mel Lumby: Dedicated Devotee to Borneo’s Living Beings

Read more

Anthropologist and Author Dr Sophie Chao

Read more

Health Physician Dr Evan Allen

Read more

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

Read more

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

Read more

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

#BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4wildlife #BoycottPalmOil #brandBoycotts #consumerBoycott #consumerRights #dairy #deforestation #diet #health #meat #News #PalmOil #palmOilDeforestation #palmOilFree #palmoil #plantBasedDiet #vegan #veganism

Boycotts A Great Weapon to Fight Ecocidal Corporates

Bill Laurance, James Cook University

Campaigns and boycotts get the attention of large corporations, because they hit them where it hurts: their reputation and market share.

Campaigns and #boycotts against corrupt commodities like #palmoil and #meat are effective in getting attention of corporate giants because they hit their wallets and sully their reputations #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🪔🔥🙊⛔️#Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2022/02/27/boycotts-are-a-crucial-weapon-to-fight-environment-harming-firms/

In October 2000, I was driving through downtown Boise, Idaho, and nearly careered off the road. Just in front of me was a giant inflatable Godzilla-like dinosaur, well over 30m tall. It was towering over the headquarters of Boise Cascade, one of North America’s biggest wood products corporations. For years, the firm had been tangling with environmental groups who blamed the company’s logging practices for declines in the extent of old-growth forests across the globe.

The huge inflatable reptile was the inspired idea of the Rainforest Action Network, who used it to label Boise Cascade a dinosaur of the timber industry. The blow-up dinosaur was headline news across the United States and the label stuck. Although Boise Cascade tried to deny it was yielding to environmental pressure, it ultimately agreed to phase out all of its old-growth wood products.

Environmental campaigns such as this one have become an increasingly important arrow in the quiver of conservation groups, for a very good reason. The world has become hyper-corporatised and globalised, with the result that, as I reported in 2008, deforestation is now substantially driven by major industries rather than by the exploits of poor people trying to make a living off the land.

Last-ditch tactics

Boycotts are typically a last resort. The Rainforest Action Network tried for years to nudge, cajole and finally pressure Boise Cascade to phase out old-growth products, without success. Its gentler tactics worked fine with other big corporations such as Home Depot and Lowe’s, but it took a gigantic dinosaur to get Boise Cascade’s attention.

Globally, some of the most impressive environmental achievements have come via boycotts, or at least the threat of them. Just in the past year, four of the world’s biggest forest-destroying corporations have announced new “no deforestation” policies in response to such environmental pressures.

Among the worst of these was Asia Pulp & Paper, whose reputation had become so synonymous with rainforest destruction that the retailers selling its products began fleeing in droves. Today, the corporation has ostensibly turned over a new leaf and even thanked Greenpeace – one of its most persistent critics – for helping it to see the light.

Across the globe, boycotts have helped to rein in predatory behaviour by timber, oil palm, soy, seafood and other corporations. They have led to impressive environmental benefits.

Banning boycotts?

But now, the power of boycotts might be on the brink of being reined in, after the federal government floated the idea of banning organised boycotts of companies on environmental grounds.

The move has sparked apoplexy among free-speech advocates, and came as a surprise even to observers whose expectations had already been lowered by the Commonwealth’s plan to devolve environmental powers to the states and territories.

The Boycott4Wildlife is a boycott on brands directly involved in tropical deforestation (and therefore animal extinction)

Parliamentary agriculture secretary Richard Colbeck said the move would be aimed at “dishonest campaigns”, singling out the campaign against furniture retailer Harvey Norman, which activists accuse of logging native forests.

“They can say what they like, they can campaign about what they like, they can have a point of view, but they should not be able to run a specific business-focused or market-focused campaign, and they should not be able to say things that are not true,” Colbeck told Guardian Australia.

At odds with free speech

Predictably, environmental groups are unimpressed. Reece Turner, a forests campaigner with Greenpeace-Australia, told me:

This policy is at odds with the Liberal party’s professed commitment to uninhibited free speech. The Coalition is going to remarkable extremes to protect big industry from campaigns that are essentially focused on greater transparency of business practices. These campaigns are designed to inform consumer choices – something the Liberal party should be supporting.

One of the more notable aspects of the proposed ban is that it could directly conflict with the Coalition’s stated environmental priorities – one of which is a desire to slow global rainforest destruction as a means to combat global warming.

Of all the environmental actions undertaken to date, boycotts have probably had the greatest direct benefit for rainforests.

As an aside, the Coalition government has recently struggled to find a consistent line on both environmentalism and free speech. Straight after taking office it scuttled the Climate Commission, and is currently fighting to repeal a raft of other carbon policies. Yet it has also announced that Australia will use this year’s Brisbane G20 summit as a “catalyst” to help China, India, Europe and the United States to cut their carbon emissions.

At this early stage, it’s difficult to say whether or not the proposed ban on environmental boycotts will solidify into firm Coalition policy or merely fade away, its proponents having realised this could be too polarising an idea. Let’s hope for the latter. This is a scheme that deserves to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Bill Laurance, Distinguished Research Professor and Australian Laureate, James Cook University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How can I help the #Boycott4Wildlife?

1. Join the #Boycott4Wildlife: Share posts from this website to your own network on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook using the hashtags #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife.

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.

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.

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 or to help pay for ongoing running costs.

Enter your email address

Sign Up

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Instagram
• WordPress
• Mail

Share palm oil free purchases online and shame companies still using dirty palm oil!

Don’t forget to tag in #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4Wildlife to get shared

https://twitter.com/ECOWARRIORSS/status/1625103083175923713

https://twitter.com/MAPICC2021/status/1643269215929999360

https://twitter.com/netzfrauen/status/1806059662703222960

https://twitter.com/JosieAllan4/status/1716432333698392163

https://twitter.com/ChiweenieT14381/status/1872709841040687385

#boycottPalmOil #boycott4wildlife #boycottpalmoil #boycotts #brandBoycotts #conservation #consumerBoycott #consumerRights #consumerism #deforestation #ethicalConsumerism #meat #palmoil #rainforest #rainforestConservation #wildlifeActivism

10 reasons why ecolabels & commodity certification will never be a solution for importing tropical deforestation

In 2022, 71 environmental and #humanrights groups from around the world wrote to the EU Commission to warn that certification schemes and ecolabels were not sufficient to prevent human rights abuses and deforestation from entering the European Union. Although fast forward to 2025 and lobbyists have again watered down the #EUDR and #CSDDD, what the future holds is anybody’s guess!

In the UK, industry lobbyists including Ferrero and serial greenwashing outfit Orangutan Land Trust watered down the UK’s commitment to not importing deforestation into the UK. The new trade deal with #Malaysia paves the way for mass importation of palm oil ecocide.

#RSPO and #FSC have been shown for decades to be ineffective and corrupt. They have failed in preventing #corruption, human rights abuses, illegal #landgrabbing, #violence, #deforestation, #ecocide and species #extinction.

So here are 10 reasons why the world should not rely on weak and ineffective certification schemes like MSC, RSPO and FSC to enforce their own zero deforestation mandate. Originally published by GRAIN

https://vimeo.com/724165395

#Ecolabels eg. #RSPO #FSC do not prevent #deforestation. They have failed for decades and instead are only weak #greenwashing tools! Help rainforests, rainforest animals and rainforest peoples. #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🩸🚜🤮🚫 #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2022/06/18/10-reasons-why-ecolabels-commodity-certification-are-not-a-solution-to-stop-the-eu-importing-tropical-deforestation/

@EU_Commission should not trust #ecolabels: e.g. @RSPOtweets @FSC_IC to prevent #deforestation. Decades of failure to stop #humanrights abuses #deforestation shows their deep systemic weaknesses #Boycottpalmoil 🌴☠️🧐🚫 #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2022/06/18/10-reasons-why-ecolabels-commodity-certification-are-not-a-solution-to-stop-the-eu-importing-tropical-deforestation/

Jump to section

• 1. Certification is not designed to achieve the main objective of the regulation – preventing deforestation and other harms
• 2. Certification does not provide the information needed to comply with the EU regulation
• 3. Certification does not provide guarantees for the legality of the product
• 4. Certification does not identify or prevent harms. Audit teams lack time and expertise
• 5. Certification bodies and their auditors are not independent from the company they certify
• 6. Prevention of environmental and social harm cannot be outsourced.
• 7. Certification cannot guarantee Free, Prior and Informed Consent or prevent land grabbing of indigenous land
• 8. Certification provides opportunities for greenwashing and increases vested interests in and corporate power over natural resources.
• 9. Certification promotes the expansion of industrial agriculture and thereby prevents the transition needed to halt deforestation
• 10. Certification directs resources towards a million-dollar certification industry
• Signatories: 71 environmental and human rights NGOs

Considering the shortcomings of certification schemes that the European Commission itself has documented, we are deeply troubled by the current arguments coming from industry players advocating for a stronger role for certification in the regulation, including a way for companies to use these systems as proof of compliance with binding EU rules. Below are ten reasons why this should not happen.

1. Certification is not designed to achieve the main objective of the regulation – preventing deforestation and other harms

Back to top ↑

The EC’s own Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment (hereafter EC Impact Assessment) concludes that “the consensus is that [voluntary certification] schemes on their own have not been able to provide the changes needed to prevent deforestation”. This is the position defended by the European Parliament and by most NGOs. Certification schemes do not have a deforestation standard, or the standard does not meet the deforestation definition as proposed in the anti-deforestation regulation. For example, because companies are allowed to clear forests to establish plantations and remediate or compensate with conservation elsewhere.

Numerous studies conducted by WWF, FSCWatch, and Greenpeace and academic studies on Indonesia, have additionally concluded that certification on its own has not helped companies meet their commitments to exclude deforestation from their supply chains.

This led some actors such as WWF to lose faith in certification scheme Roundtable of Responsible Soy (RTRS), not only due to limited uptake, but more specifically, because in biomes where soy is produced, zero-deforestation commitments have so far failed to reduce deforestation. In support of this finding, the Dutch supermarket industry representative (CBL) stated that RTRS “has not appeared to be sufficient to halt [deforestation and conversion] developments and accelerate the transition to a sustainable soy chain”.

“Certification (or verification) schemes may, in some cases, contribute to achieving compliance with the due diligence requirement, however the use of certification does not automatically imply compliance with due diligence obligations. There is abundant literature on certification schemes shortcomings in terms of governance, transparency, clarity of standards, and reliability of monitoring systems”.

2. Certification does not provide the information needed to comply with the EU regulation

Back to top ↑

It does not create transparency of the supply chain or provide information on the geographical origin

As indicated in Article 8 of the Proposal, “because deforestation is linked to land-use change, monitoring requires a precise link between the commodity or product placed on or exported from the EU market and the plot of land where it was grown or raised.” Most certification schemes, however, require only a minimal level of traceability and transparency.

As indicated in the EC’s Study On Certification And Verification Schemes In The Forest Sector, schemes make use of Chain of Custody (CoC) models, but very few apply a traceability system, making it difficult to track the claims of certification, from the forest to the end buyer. One of the most common CoC models used is Mass Balance. This model allows uncertified and untraceable supplies to be physically mixed with certified supplies and end up in EU supply chains. For the most part, certification schemes do not include the systematic ability to verify transactions of volumes, species, and qualities between entities, thus leaving the systems vulnerable to manipulation and fraud.

3. Certification does not provide guarantees for the legality of the product

Back to top ↑

Certification schemes do not have the authority to confirm or enforce compliance with national laws precisely because they are voluntary.

Article 3 in the proposed anti-deforestation regulation states that products
are prohibited on the European market if they are not “produced in accordance with the relevant legislation of the country of production”.

However, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), for example, has explicitly stated its standards are voluntary and “do not extend to enforcing or confirming the legal standing of a company’s use of land (which is a mandate only held by the national authority)”.

4. Certification does not identify or prevent harms. Audit teams lack time and expertise

Back to top ↑

According to the EC “labour, environmental and human rights laws will need to be taken into account when assessing compliance” and identifying harms. However, multiple reports by Friends of the Earth Netherlands, the Environmental Investigation Agency, and ECCHR, reveal that auditing firms responsible for checking compliance are fundamentally failing to identify and mitigate unsustainable practices within certification schemes due to lack of time and lack of expertise. Proper audits on social and human rights issues require extensive consultation to gain full community perspectives on land use, conflicts, or environmental harm. Certification Body (CB) procedures do not allow for this (due to financial resources).

RSPO’s own analysis reads that “the credibility of the RSPO certification scheme has been consistently undermined by documentation of poor practice, and concerns of the extent to which the Assurance System is being implemented”.

Oppressed and stretched NGO groups and communities in the global South spend time and resources on these consultation processes. They face backlash for speaking out during consultations without any guarantee that their input is included in the certification assessment. The EU should not become complicit in exploitation of rightsholders and stakeholders in their monitoring role.

5. Certification bodies and their auditors are not independent from the company they certify

Back to top ↑

The lack of independent audits, considered to be key in ensuring the robustness of certification, was highlighted in the EC Impact Assessment as a key weakness of private certification schemes.

If clients (businesses) hire, supervise, and pay audit firms, they are exposed to a structural risk of conflict of interest, which may lead to a lower level of control.

Previous studies by Friends of the Earth, IUCN, RAN, and Environmental Investigation Agency have shown that, for example in the palm oil industry, when auditors and certification companies are directly hired by an audited company, independence is inhibited and the risk of violations increases.

Also, auditor dependence on company services such as transport and accommodation is problematic. The EC adds to this that these systems are sensitive to fraud given that certified companies may easily mislead their auditors even if the audit is conducted with the greatest care and according to all procedures.

“For example, a company may be selling products containing a volume of “certified” timber material that exceeds the volume of certified raw material that they are buying.”

6. Prevention of environmental and social harm cannot be outsourced, particularly because certification bodies are not liable for harms in the plantations they certify

Back to top ↑

The EU anti-deforestation regulation requires that operators shall exercise due diligence prior to placing relevant commodities on the Union market. Private certification may, in some cases, facilitate compliance with this requirement.

However, as reiterated by German human rights law firm ECCHR the control of compliance is outsourced to private certification bodies, in an unregulated audit and certification market, where CBs are not liable for potential harm.

This leads to inability to distinguish unreliable audits from reliable ones and to competition without rules, setting in motion a ‘race to the bottom’. Certification initiatives have increasingly received complaints for lack of proper due diligence.

For instance, the UK OECD National Contact Point has recently found that Bonsucro breached the Guidelines in relation to due diligence and leverage when reaccepting MPG-T as a member, and the Netherlands NCP handled a complaint about ING’s due diligence policies and practices regarding palm oil.

The OECD guidelines confirm that certification is not a proxy for due diligence, as well as various governments. As echoed by the EC Impact Assessment, “maintaining operators’ responsibility for correctly implementing due diligence obligations when they use certification, aims at ensuring that authorities remain empowered to monitor and sanction incompliant behaviour, as the reliability of those [certification] systems has repeatedly been challenged by evidence on the ground.”

7. Certification cannot guarantee Free, Prior and Informed Consent or prevent land grabbing of indigenous land

Back to top ↑

Indigenous Peoples and local communities have a recognised role in preserving the lands they own and manage, but insecure land tenure is a major driver of deforestation and forest degradation.

Certification bodies commit to investigating whether lands are subject to customary rights of indigenous peoples and whether land transfers have been developed with Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

However, assessing whether land user rights and consultation rights were respected needs to consider the historical context, a multi-actor perspective and deep understanding of local conflicts. Considering the apparent low level of knowledge of auditors on human rights and legal issues, assessing prior land use and conflicts is an impossible task for a team of international auditors with limited time.

In Malaysia communities are often not consulted before the issuance of the logging licences. MTCS certified concessions encroach on indigenous territories while the judiciary recognised indigenous customary land rights are a form of property rights protected by the Federal Constitution.

Additionally, certification schemes failed on numerous occasions to address complaints by communities whose land was taken by palm oil companies, including the case of oil palm giant Sime Darby in Indonesia and Socfin in Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. Certification will not lead to redress or resolution of problems linked to EU operators.

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…

Keep reading

8. Certification provides opportunities for greenwashing and increases vested interests in and corporate power over natural resources.

Back to top ↑

Critics have argued that improving the image of forest and ecosystem risk commodities stimulates demand. Certification risks enabling destructive businesses to continue operating as usual and expand their practices, thereby increasing the harm.

“If certification on its own is unable to guarantee that commodity production
is entirely free of deforestation or human rights abuses, there is little to suggest that using certification as a tool for proving compliance with legal requirements could solve the issues in supply chains and fulfil the legislation’s objectives.

In this context, recognising a particular certification scheme as a proof of compliance removes any incentive to improve the scheme or to replace it with a more reliable alternative, effectively contributing to the institutionalisation of greenwashing.”

For example, a number of recent logging industry scandals suggest that the Forest Stewardship Council label has at times served merely to “greenwash” or “launder” trafficking in illegal timber, compelling NGOs to demand systemic change. The difference between certified and non-certified plantations in South East Asia was not significant.

9. Certification promotes the expansion of industrial agriculture and thereby prevents the transition needed to halt deforestation

Back to top ↑

This prevents the transition towards community-based forest management and agro-ecology, with food sovereignty as a leading principle

There are multiple drivers of deforestation, but the evidence is clear in pointing to industrial agricultural expansion as one of the most important. Ultimately, certification initiatives fail to challenge the ideology underpinning the continuation of industrial commodity crop production, and can instead serve to greenwash
further agro-commodity expansion.

Corporations, along with their certifications, continue to seek legitimacy through a ‘feed the world’ narrative.

The “expansion is the only way”argument has long since been discredited by international institutions such as FAO; we produce enough to feed the projected world populations, much of this coming from small-scale peasant producers using a fraction of the resources. Moreover, as smallholders are directly impacted by deforestation and often depend on large operators and are hereby
forced to expand agricultural land and degrading their direct environment, they are therefore an essential part of the solution.

10. Certification directs resources towards a million-dollar certification industry

Back to top ↑

While community and smallholder forest and agriculture management are extremely underfunded.

As explained by the EC Impact Assessment, private certification can be a costly process and resources spent to certify operations and to support the various schemes’ managerial structures could be used for other ends. Considering that smallholders represent a large share of producers in the relevant sectors, they also represent a crucial part of the solution to deforestation.

The EU should stop financing and promoting improvements in a certification system, benefiting industrial forest and plantation companies, that has been proven to fail.

It would be a more effective use of public and private resources to pay smallholders adequately for their products and adhere to their calls if they seek technical or financial support.

To conclude, building on these arguments, we foresee that if decision makers give in to the lobby from industry and certification’s role is reconsidered or promoted in the current proposal, the EU anti-deforestation regulation will not deliver, as it will not only lose its potential to provide information needed to comply with the regulation but lose its ability to curb deforestation and forest degradation all together.

Back to top ↑

Signatories: 71 environmental and human rights NGOs

International

Global Witness
ClientEarth
Environmental Paper Network
International
GRAIN
Global Forest Coalition
Forest Peoples Programme

Indonesia

Friends of the Earth Indonesia; WALHI
Yayasan Pusaka Bentala Rakyat
Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan
Hukum Indonesia
Pantau Gambut
WALHI Papua
Teraju Foundation
Lingkar Hijau
KRuHA
Lepemawil, Mimika, Papua
PADI Indonesia

Cameroon

Synaparcam
Centre pour l’Environnement
et le Développment Chile
Colectivo Vientosur

Democratic Republic of the Congo

RIAO-RDC
Confédération Paysanne du
Congo-Principal Regroupement Paysan
Gabon
Muyissi Environnement

China

Snow Alliance
Blue Dalian
Green Longjiang
Scholar Tree Alliance
Wuhu Ecology Centre

Malaysia

SAVE Rivers
KERUAN
Sahabat Alam Malaysia

Liberia

Sustainable Development Institute

Nigeria

ERA; Friends of the Earth Nigeria

Mexico

Reentramados para la vida, defendiendo territorio
Otros Mundos Chiapas

Philippines

Unyon ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura- UMA

Sierra Leone

Green Scenery

United States

Friends of the Earth United States
The Oakland Institute
The Borneo Project

Europe

Bruno Manser Fonds
Canopée
Denkhausbremen
Dublin Friends of the Earth
Earthsight
Ecologistas en Acción
Environmental Investigation
Agency (EIA)
Fern
FIAN Belgium
Finnish Association for Nature Conservation
Forum Ökologie & Papier
Friends of Fertő lake Association
Friends of the Earth England,
Wales and Northern Ireland
Friends of the Earth Europe
Friends of the Earth Finland
Greenpeace EU

GYBN Europe
HEKS – Swiss Church Aid
Milieudefensie
NOAH – Friends of the Earth Denmark
Pro REGENWALD
Rainforest Foundation Norway

ReAct Transnational
Rettet den Regenwald
ROBIN WOOD
Salva la Selva
Save Estonias Forests (Päästame Eesti Metsad)
Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group
Water Justice and Gender
Working group Food Justice
ZERO – Associação Sistema
Terrestre Sustentável

Back to top ↑

Here are some other ways you can help by using your wallet as a weapon and joining the #Boycott4Wildlife

What is greenwashing?

Read more

Why join the #Boycott4Wildlife?

Read more

Greenwashing Tactic #4: Fake Labels

Read more

The Counterpunch: Consumer Solutions To Fight Extinction

Read more

Contribute to my Ko-Fi

Did you enjoy visiting this website?

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.

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.

#animalExtinction #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4wildlife #BoycottPalmOil #consumerBoycott #corruption #CSDDD #deforestation #ecocide #ecolabels #ethicalConsumerism #EUDR #extinction #FSC #greenwashing #humanRights #HumanRights #landgrabbing #Malaysia #MSC #PalmOil #palmOilDeforestation #RSPO #RSPOGreenwashing #violence

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

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

Boycotts A Great Weapon to Fight Ecocidal Corporates

Bill Laurance, James Cook University

Campaigns and boycotts get the attention of large corporations, because they hit them where it hurts: their reputation and market share.

Campaigns and #boycotts against corrupt commodities like #palmoil and #meat are effective in getting attention of corporate giants because they hit their wallets and sully their reputations #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🪔🔥🙊⛔️#Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2022/02/27/boycotts-are-a-crucial-weapon-to-fight-environment-harming-firms/

In October 2000, I was driving through downtown Boise, Idaho, and nearly careered off the road. Just in front of me was a giant inflatable Godzilla-like dinosaur, well over 30m tall. It was towering over the headquarters of Boise Cascade, one of North America’s biggest wood products corporations. For years, the firm had been tangling with environmental groups who blamed the company’s logging practices for declines in the extent of old-growth forests across the globe.

The huge inflatable reptile was the inspired idea of the Rainforest Action Network, who used it to label Boise Cascade a dinosaur of the timber industry. The blow-up dinosaur was headline news across the United States and the label stuck. Although Boise Cascade tried to deny it was yielding to environmental pressure, it ultimately agreed to phase out all of its old-growth wood products.

Environmental campaigns such as this one have become an increasingly important arrow in the quiver of conservation groups, for a very good reason. The world has become hyper-corporatised and globalised, with the result that, as I reported in 2008, deforestation is now substantially driven by major industries rather than by the exploits of poor people trying to make a living off the land.

Last-ditch tactics

Boycotts are typically a last resort. The Rainforest Action Network tried for years to nudge, cajole and finally pressure Boise Cascade to phase out old-growth products, without success. Its gentler tactics worked fine with other big corporations such as Home Depot and Lowe’s, but it took a gigantic dinosaur to get Boise Cascade’s attention.

Globally, some of the most impressive environmental achievements have come via boycotts, or at least the threat of them. Just in the past year, four of the world’s biggest forest-destroying corporations have announced new “no deforestation” policies in response to such environmental pressures.

Among the worst of these was Asia Pulp & Paper, whose reputation had become so synonymous with rainforest destruction that the retailers selling its products began fleeing in droves. Today, the corporation has ostensibly turned over a new leaf and even thanked Greenpeace – one of its most persistent critics – for helping it to see the light.

Across the globe, boycotts have helped to rein in predatory behaviour by timber, oil palm, soy, seafood and other corporations. They have led to impressive environmental benefits.

Banning boycotts?

But now, the power of boycotts might be on the brink of being reined in, after the federal government floated the idea of banning organised boycotts of companies on environmental grounds.

The move has sparked apoplexy among free-speech advocates, and came as a surprise even to observers whose expectations had already been lowered by the Commonwealth’s plan to devolve environmental powers to the states and territories.

The Boycott4Wildlife is a boycott on brands directly involved in tropical deforestation (and therefore animal extinction)

Parliamentary agriculture secretary Richard Colbeck said the move would be aimed at “dishonest campaigns”, singling out the campaign against furniture retailer Harvey Norman, which activists accuse of logging native forests.

“They can say what they like, they can campaign about what they like, they can have a point of view, but they should not be able to run a specific business-focused or market-focused campaign, and they should not be able to say things that are not true,” Colbeck told Guardian Australia.

At odds with free speech

Predictably, environmental groups are unimpressed. Reece Turner, a forests campaigner with Greenpeace-Australia, told me:

This policy is at odds with the Liberal party’s professed commitment to uninhibited free speech. The Coalition is going to remarkable extremes to protect big industry from campaigns that are essentially focused on greater transparency of business practices. These campaigns are designed to inform consumer choices – something the Liberal party should be supporting.

One of the more notable aspects of the proposed ban is that it could directly conflict with the Coalition’s stated environmental priorities – one of which is a desire to slow global rainforest destruction as a means to combat global warming.

Of all the environmental actions undertaken to date, boycotts have probably had the greatest direct benefit for rainforests.

As an aside, the Coalition government has recently struggled to find a consistent line on both environmentalism and free speech. Straight after taking office it scuttled the Climate Commission, and is currently fighting to repeal a raft of other carbon policies. Yet it has also announced that Australia will use this year’s Brisbane G20 summit as a “catalyst” to help China, India, Europe and the United States to cut their carbon emissions.

At this early stage, it’s difficult to say whether or not the proposed ban on environmental boycotts will solidify into firm Coalition policy or merely fade away, its proponents having realised this could be too polarising an idea. Let’s hope for the latter. This is a scheme that deserves to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Bill Laurance, Distinguished Research Professor and Australian Laureate, James Cook University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How can I help the #Boycott4Wildlife?

1. Join the #Boycott4Wildlife: Share posts from this website to your own network on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook using the hashtags #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife.

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.

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.

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 or to help pay for ongoing running costs.

Enter your email address

Sign Up

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Instagram
• WordPress
• Mail

Share palm oil free purchases online and shame companies still using dirty palm oil!

Don’t forget to tag in #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4Wildlife to get shared

https://twitter.com/ECOWARRIORSS/status/1625103083175923713

https://twitter.com/MAPICC2021/status/1643269215929999360

https://twitter.com/netzfrauen/status/1806059662703222960

https://twitter.com/JosieAllan4/status/1716432333698392163

https://twitter.com/ChiweenieT14381/status/1872709841040687385

#boycottPalmOil #boycott4wildlife #boycottpalmoil #boycotts #brandBoycotts #conservation #consumerBoycott #consumerRights #consumerism #deforestation #ethicalConsumerism #meat #palmoil #rainforest #rainforestConservation #wildlifeActivism

Boycotts A Great Weapon to Fight Ecocidal Corporates

Bill Laurance, James Cook University

Campaigns and boycotts get the attention of large corporations, because they hit them where it hurts: their reputation and market share.

Campaigns and #boycotts against corrupt commodities like #palmoil and #meat are effective in getting attention of corporate giants because they hit their wallets and sully their reputations #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🪔🔥🙊⛔️#Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2022/02/27/boycotts-are-a-crucial-weapon-to-fight-environment-harming-firms/

In October 2000, I was driving through downtown Boise, Idaho, and nearly careered off the road. Just in front of me was a giant inflatable Godzilla-like dinosaur, well over 30m tall. It was towering over the headquarters of Boise Cascade, one of North America’s biggest wood products corporations. For years, the firm had been tangling with environmental groups who blamed the company’s logging practices for declines in the extent of old-growth forests across the globe.

The huge inflatable reptile was the inspired idea of the Rainforest Action Network, who used it to label Boise Cascade a dinosaur of the timber industry. The blow-up dinosaur was headline news across the United States and the label stuck. Although Boise Cascade tried to deny it was yielding to environmental pressure, it ultimately agreed to phase out all of its old-growth wood products.

Environmental campaigns such as this one have become an increasingly important arrow in the quiver of conservation groups, for a very good reason. The world has become hyper-corporatised and globalised, with the result that, as I reported in 2008, deforestation is now substantially driven by major industries rather than by the exploits of poor people trying to make a living off the land.

Last-ditch tactics

Boycotts are typically a last resort. The Rainforest Action Network tried for years to nudge, cajole and finally pressure Boise Cascade to phase out old-growth products, without success. Its gentler tactics worked fine with other big corporations such as Home Depot and Lowe’s, but it took a gigantic dinosaur to get Boise Cascade’s attention.

Globally, some of the most impressive environmental achievements have come via boycotts, or at least the threat of them. Just in the past year, four of the world’s biggest forest-destroying corporations have announced new “no deforestation” policies in response to such environmental pressures.

Among the worst of these was Asia Pulp & Paper, whose reputation had become so synonymous with rainforest destruction that the retailers selling its products began fleeing in droves. Today, the corporation has ostensibly turned over a new leaf and even thanked Greenpeace – one of its most persistent critics – for helping it to see the light.

Across the globe, boycotts have helped to rein in predatory behaviour by timber, oil palm, soy, seafood and other corporations. They have led to impressive environmental benefits.

Banning boycotts?

But now, the power of boycotts might be on the brink of being reined in, after the federal government floated the idea of banning organised boycotts of companies on environmental grounds.

The move has sparked apoplexy among free-speech advocates, and came as a surprise even to observers whose expectations had already been lowered by the Commonwealth’s plan to devolve environmental powers to the states and territories.

The Boycott4Wildlife is a boycott on brands directly involved in tropical deforestation (and therefore animal extinction)

Parliamentary agriculture secretary Richard Colbeck said the move would be aimed at “dishonest campaigns”, singling out the campaign against furniture retailer Harvey Norman, which activists accuse of logging native forests.

“They can say what they like, they can campaign about what they like, they can have a point of view, but they should not be able to run a specific business-focused or market-focused campaign, and they should not be able to say things that are not true,” Colbeck told Guardian Australia.

At odds with free speech

Predictably, environmental groups are unimpressed. Reece Turner, a forests campaigner with Greenpeace-Australia, told me:

This policy is at odds with the Liberal party’s professed commitment to uninhibited free speech. The Coalition is going to remarkable extremes to protect big industry from campaigns that are essentially focused on greater transparency of business practices. These campaigns are designed to inform consumer choices – something the Liberal party should be supporting.

One of the more notable aspects of the proposed ban is that it could directly conflict with the Coalition’s stated environmental priorities – one of which is a desire to slow global rainforest destruction as a means to combat global warming.

Of all the environmental actions undertaken to date, boycotts have probably had the greatest direct benefit for rainforests.

As an aside, the Coalition government has recently struggled to find a consistent line on both environmentalism and free speech. Straight after taking office it scuttled the Climate Commission, and is currently fighting to repeal a raft of other carbon policies. Yet it has also announced that Australia will use this year’s Brisbane G20 summit as a “catalyst” to help China, India, Europe and the United States to cut their carbon emissions.

At this early stage, it’s difficult to say whether or not the proposed ban on environmental boycotts will solidify into firm Coalition policy or merely fade away, its proponents having realised this could be too polarising an idea. Let’s hope for the latter. This is a scheme that deserves to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Bill Laurance, Distinguished Research Professor and Australian Laureate, James Cook University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How can I help the #Boycott4Wildlife?

1. Join the #Boycott4Wildlife: Share posts from this website to your own network on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook using the hashtags #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife.

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.

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.

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 or to help pay for ongoing running costs.

Enter your email address

Sign Up

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Instagram
• WordPress
• Mail

Share palm oil free purchases online and shame companies still using dirty palm oil!

Don’t forget to tag in #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4Wildlife to get shared

https://twitter.com/ECOWARRIORSS/status/1625103083175923713

https://twitter.com/MAPICC2021/status/1643269215929999360

https://twitter.com/netzfrauen/status/1806059662703222960

https://twitter.com/JosieAllan4/status/1716432333698392163

https://twitter.com/ChiweenieT14381/status/1872709841040687385

#boycottPalmOil #boycott4wildlife #boycottpalmoil #boycotts #brandBoycotts #conservation #consumerBoycott #consumerRights #consumerism #deforestation #ethicalConsumerism #meat #palmoil #rainforest #rainforestConservation #wildlifeActivism

Boycotts A Great Weapon to Fight Ecocidal Corporates

Bill Laurance, James Cook University

Campaigns and boycotts get the attention of large corporations, because they hit them where it hurts: their reputation and market share.

Campaigns and #boycotts against corrupt commodities like #palmoil and #meat are effective in getting attention of corporate giants because they hit their wallets and sully their reputations #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🪔🔥🙊⛔️#Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2022/02/27/boycotts-are-a-crucial-weapon-to-fight-environment-harming-firms/

In October 2000, I was driving through downtown Boise, Idaho, and nearly careered off the road. Just in front of me was a giant inflatable Godzilla-like dinosaur, well over 30m tall. It was towering over the headquarters of Boise Cascade, one of North America’s biggest wood products corporations. For years, the firm had been tangling with environmental groups who blamed the company’s logging practices for declines in the extent of old-growth forests across the globe.

The huge inflatable reptile was the inspired idea of the Rainforest Action Network, who used it to label Boise Cascade a dinosaur of the timber industry. The blow-up dinosaur was headline news across the United States and the label stuck. Although Boise Cascade tried to deny it was yielding to environmental pressure, it ultimately agreed to phase out all of its old-growth wood products.

Environmental campaigns such as this one have become an increasingly important arrow in the quiver of conservation groups, for a very good reason. The world has become hyper-corporatised and globalised, with the result that, as I reported in 2008, deforestation is now substantially driven by major industries rather than by the exploits of poor people trying to make a living off the land.

Last-ditch tactics

Boycotts are typically a last resort. The Rainforest Action Network tried for years to nudge, cajole and finally pressure Boise Cascade to phase out old-growth products, without success. Its gentler tactics worked fine with other big corporations such as Home Depot and Lowe’s, but it took a gigantic dinosaur to get Boise Cascade’s attention.

Globally, some of the most impressive environmental achievements have come via boycotts, or at least the threat of them. Just in the past year, four of the world’s biggest forest-destroying corporations have announced new “no deforestation” policies in response to such environmental pressures.

Among the worst of these was Asia Pulp & Paper, whose reputation had become so synonymous with rainforest destruction that the retailers selling its products began fleeing in droves. Today, the corporation has ostensibly turned over a new leaf and even thanked Greenpeace – one of its most persistent critics – for helping it to see the light.

Across the globe, boycotts have helped to rein in predatory behaviour by timber, oil palm, soy, seafood and other corporations. They have led to impressive environmental benefits.

Banning boycotts?

But now, the power of boycotts might be on the brink of being reined in, after the federal government floated the idea of banning organised boycotts of companies on environmental grounds.

The move has sparked apoplexy among free-speech advocates, and came as a surprise even to observers whose expectations had already been lowered by the Commonwealth’s plan to devolve environmental powers to the states and territories.

The Boycott4Wildlife is a boycott on brands directly involved in tropical deforestation (and therefore animal extinction)

Parliamentary agriculture secretary Richard Colbeck said the move would be aimed at “dishonest campaigns”, singling out the campaign against furniture retailer Harvey Norman, which activists accuse of logging native forests.

“They can say what they like, they can campaign about what they like, they can have a point of view, but they should not be able to run a specific business-focused or market-focused campaign, and they should not be able to say things that are not true,” Colbeck told Guardian Australia.

At odds with free speech

Predictably, environmental groups are unimpressed. Reece Turner, a forests campaigner with Greenpeace-Australia, told me:

This policy is at odds with the Liberal party’s professed commitment to uninhibited free speech. The Coalition is going to remarkable extremes to protect big industry from campaigns that are essentially focused on greater transparency of business practices. These campaigns are designed to inform consumer choices – something the Liberal party should be supporting.

One of the more notable aspects of the proposed ban is that it could directly conflict with the Coalition’s stated environmental priorities – one of which is a desire to slow global rainforest destruction as a means to combat global warming.

Of all the environmental actions undertaken to date, boycotts have probably had the greatest direct benefit for rainforests.

As an aside, the Coalition government has recently struggled to find a consistent line on both environmentalism and free speech. Straight after taking office it scuttled the Climate Commission, and is currently fighting to repeal a raft of other carbon policies. Yet it has also announced that Australia will use this year’s Brisbane G20 summit as a “catalyst” to help China, India, Europe and the United States to cut their carbon emissions.

At this early stage, it’s difficult to say whether or not the proposed ban on environmental boycotts will solidify into firm Coalition policy or merely fade away, its proponents having realised this could be too polarising an idea. Let’s hope for the latter. This is a scheme that deserves to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Bill Laurance, Distinguished Research Professor and Australian Laureate, James Cook University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How can I help the #Boycott4Wildlife?

1. Join the #Boycott4Wildlife: Share posts from this website to your own network on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook using the hashtags #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife.

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.

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.

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 or to help pay for ongoing running costs.

Enter your email address

Sign Up

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Instagram
• WordPress
• Mail

Share palm oil free purchases online and shame companies still using dirty palm oil!

Don’t forget to tag in #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4Wildlife to get shared

https://twitter.com/ECOWARRIORSS/status/1625103083175923713

https://twitter.com/MAPICC2021/status/1643269215929999360

https://twitter.com/netzfrauen/status/1806059662703222960

https://twitter.com/JosieAllan4/status/1716432333698392163

https://twitter.com/ChiweenieT14381/status/1872709841040687385

#boycottPalmOil #boycott4wildlife #boycottpalmoil #boycotts #brandBoycotts #conservation #consumerBoycott #consumerRights #consumerism #deforestation #ethicalConsumerism #meat #palmoil #rainforest #rainforestConservation #wildlifeActivism

Boycotts A Great Weapon to Fight Ecocidal Corporates

Bill Laurance, James Cook University

Campaigns and boycotts get the attention of large corporations, because they hit them where it hurts: their reputation and market share.

Campaigns and #boycotts against corrupt commodities like #palmoil and #meat are effective in getting attention of corporate giants because they hit their wallets and sully their reputations #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🪔🔥🙊⛔️#Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2022/02/27/boycotts-are-a-crucial-weapon-to-fight-environment-harming-firms/

In October 2000, I was driving through downtown Boise, Idaho, and nearly careered off the road. Just in front of me was a giant inflatable Godzilla-like dinosaur, well over 30m tall. It was towering over the headquarters of Boise Cascade, one of North America’s biggest wood products corporations. For years, the firm had been tangling with environmental groups who blamed the company’s logging practices for declines in the extent of old-growth forests across the globe.

The huge inflatable reptile was the inspired idea of the Rainforest Action Network, who used it to label Boise Cascade a dinosaur of the timber industry. The blow-up dinosaur was headline news across the United States and the label stuck. Although Boise Cascade tried to deny it was yielding to environmental pressure, it ultimately agreed to phase out all of its old-growth wood products.

Environmental campaigns such as this one have become an increasingly important arrow in the quiver of conservation groups, for a very good reason. The world has become hyper-corporatised and globalised, with the result that, as I reported in 2008, deforestation is now substantially driven by major industries rather than by the exploits of poor people trying to make a living off the land.

Last-ditch tactics

Boycotts are typically a last resort. The Rainforest Action Network tried for years to nudge, cajole and finally pressure Boise Cascade to phase out old-growth products, without success. Its gentler tactics worked fine with other big corporations such as Home Depot and Lowe’s, but it took a gigantic dinosaur to get Boise Cascade’s attention.

Globally, some of the most impressive environmental achievements have come via boycotts, or at least the threat of them. Just in the past year, four of the world’s biggest forest-destroying corporations have announced new “no deforestation” policies in response to such environmental pressures.

Among the worst of these was Asia Pulp & Paper, whose reputation had become so synonymous with rainforest destruction that the retailers selling its products began fleeing in droves. Today, the corporation has ostensibly turned over a new leaf and even thanked Greenpeace – one of its most persistent critics – for helping it to see the light.

Across the globe, boycotts have helped to rein in predatory behaviour by timber, oil palm, soy, seafood and other corporations. They have led to impressive environmental benefits.

Banning boycotts?

But now, the power of boycotts might be on the brink of being reined in, after the federal government floated the idea of banning organised boycotts of companies on environmental grounds.

The move has sparked apoplexy among free-speech advocates, and came as a surprise even to observers whose expectations had already been lowered by the Commonwealth’s plan to devolve environmental powers to the states and territories.

The Boycott4Wildlife is a boycott on brands directly involved in tropical deforestation (and therefore animal extinction)

Parliamentary agriculture secretary Richard Colbeck said the move would be aimed at “dishonest campaigns”, singling out the campaign against furniture retailer Harvey Norman, which activists accuse of logging native forests.

“They can say what they like, they can campaign about what they like, they can have a point of view, but they should not be able to run a specific business-focused or market-focused campaign, and they should not be able to say things that are not true,” Colbeck told Guardian Australia.

At odds with free speech

Predictably, environmental groups are unimpressed. Reece Turner, a forests campaigner with Greenpeace-Australia, told me:

This policy is at odds with the Liberal party’s professed commitment to uninhibited free speech. The Coalition is going to remarkable extremes to protect big industry from campaigns that are essentially focused on greater transparency of business practices. These campaigns are designed to inform consumer choices – something the Liberal party should be supporting.

One of the more notable aspects of the proposed ban is that it could directly conflict with the Coalition’s stated environmental priorities – one of which is a desire to slow global rainforest destruction as a means to combat global warming.

Of all the environmental actions undertaken to date, boycotts have probably had the greatest direct benefit for rainforests.

As an aside, the Coalition government has recently struggled to find a consistent line on both environmentalism and free speech. Straight after taking office it scuttled the Climate Commission, and is currently fighting to repeal a raft of other carbon policies. Yet it has also announced that Australia will use this year’s Brisbane G20 summit as a “catalyst” to help China, India, Europe and the United States to cut their carbon emissions.

At this early stage, it’s difficult to say whether or not the proposed ban on environmental boycotts will solidify into firm Coalition policy or merely fade away, its proponents having realised this could be too polarising an idea. Let’s hope for the latter. This is a scheme that deserves to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Bill Laurance, Distinguished Research Professor and Australian Laureate, James Cook University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How can I help the #Boycott4Wildlife?

1. Join the #Boycott4Wildlife: Share posts from this website to your own network on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook using the hashtags #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife.

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.

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.

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 or to help pay for ongoing running costs.

Enter your email address

Sign Up

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Instagram
• WordPress
• Mail

Share palm oil free purchases online and shame companies still using dirty palm oil!

Don’t forget to tag in #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4Wildlife to get shared

https://twitter.com/ECOWARRIORSS/status/1625103083175923713

https://twitter.com/MAPICC2021/status/1643269215929999360

https://twitter.com/netzfrauen/status/1806059662703222960

https://twitter.com/JosieAllan4/status/1716432333698392163

https://twitter.com/ChiweenieT14381/status/1872709841040687385

#boycottPalmOil #boycott4wildlife #boycottpalmoil #boycotts #brandBoycotts #conservation #consumerBoycott #consumerRights #consumerism #deforestation #ethicalConsumerism #meat #palmoil #rainforest #rainforestConservation #wildlifeActivism

Why join the #Boycott4Wildlife?

According to a 2021 survey by Nestle of 1001 people, 17% of millennial shoppers (25-45 years old) completely avoid palm oil in the supermarket. 25% said that they actively check to see if products contain palmoil.

As a generation, we now have the opportunity to push our local communities and our children away from harmful palm oil towards buying products from local, small-scale businesses with small local supply chains.

We have the opportunity to rethink the out-of-control global food industry and using our wallet as a weapon to fight deforestation, greenwashing and illegal land-grabbing of rainforests from Indigenous peoples. On a personal basis, we have the ability to foster a healthier relationship to the things we buy – because the things we buy are destroying our planet!

The solution to the problem of palm oil is to get global brands to drop it completely because despite promises of WWF and The RSPO, after 18 years, the certification has failed to stop deforestation, many organisations have called the RSPO out for corruption and greenwashing. Palm oil, certified or not – is still destroying rainforests and sending thousands of rare and beautiful animals extinct, displacing Indigenous people and spewing massive plumes of Co2 into the atmosphere.

Industrial agriculture for other ingredients is doing exactly the same thing as palm oil – certification for these ingredients is also a greenwashing lie. So the #Boycott4Wildlife includes global supermarket brands that are causing tropical deforestation and Indigenous land-grabbing for soy, meat, palm oil, cocoa and any other ingredients.

Pledge your support now to the #Boycott4Wildlife

• Deforestation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Photo: Wikipedia.
• Orangutan defends her home deforestation
• Deforestation – Craig Jones Wildlife Photography
• Research: Palm Oil Deforestation and its connection to retail brands
• After a forest fire in Sumatra – Craig Jones Wildlife Photography
• meat agriculture and deforestation

A #Boycott4Wildlife is a #boycott on out-of-control industrial agriculture causing #deforestation for #soy #palmoil #meat #cocoa #coffee. Learn how to use your wallet as a weapon and hold corporate #greed to account.

Tweet

What’s the alternative?

New economic models such as Donut Economics and the Centre of the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE) offer hope and show a new way for industrial agriculture, the energy sector and other major polluting industries that is closely aligned to living in harmony and balance with ecosystems, animals, Indigenous peoples and with the finite, limited resources that we have on our planet. Learn more about this model here.

Economic growth” (GDP growth) encourages wasteful overconsumption. This adds to economic throughput and is considered good for the economy- boosting GDP. In a steady state economy, people consume enough to meet their needs and lead meaningful, joyful lives without undermining the life-support systems of the planet.

martin tye, director, Australian Regional Communities Division- CASSE

#Boycott4wildlife #brandBoycotts #consumerBoycott #consumerRights #consumerism #environment #indigenousRights #pollution #wildlife #wildlifeActivism

Why join the #Boycott4Wildlife?

According to a 2021 survey by Nestle of 1001 people, 17% of millennial shoppers (25-45 years old) completely avoid palm oil in the supermarket. 25% said that they actively check to see if products contain palmoil.

As a generation, we now have the opportunity to push our local communities and our children away from harmful palm oil towards buying products from local, small-scale businesses with small local supply chains.

We have the opportunity to rethink the out-of-control global food industry and using our wallet as a weapon to fight deforestation, greenwashing and illegal land-grabbing of rainforests from Indigenous peoples. On a personal basis, we have the ability to foster a healthier relationship to the things we buy – because the things we buy are destroying our planet!

The solution to the problem of palm oil is to get global brands to drop it completely because despite promises of WWF and The RSPO, after 18 years, the certification has failed to stop deforestation, many organisations have called the RSPO out for corruption and greenwashing. Palm oil, certified or not – is still destroying rainforests and sending thousands of rare and beautiful animals extinct, displacing Indigenous people and spewing massive plumes of Co2 into the atmosphere.

Industrial agriculture for other ingredients is doing exactly the same thing as palm oil – certification for these ingredients is also a greenwashing lie. So the #Boycott4Wildlife includes global supermarket brands that are causing tropical deforestation and Indigenous land-grabbing for soy, meat, palm oil, cocoa and any other ingredients.

Pledge your support now to the #Boycott4Wildlife

• Deforestation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Photo: Wikipedia.
• Orangutan defends her home deforestation
• Deforestation – Craig Jones Wildlife Photography
• Research: Palm Oil Deforestation and its connection to retail brands
• After a forest fire in Sumatra – Craig Jones Wildlife Photography
• meat agriculture and deforestation

A #Boycott4Wildlife is a #boycott on out-of-control industrial agriculture causing #deforestation for #soy #palmoil #meat #cocoa #coffee. Learn how to use your wallet as a weapon and hold corporate #greed to account.

Tweet

What’s the alternative?

New economic models such as Donut Economics and the Centre of the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE) offer hope and show a new way for industrial agriculture, the energy sector and other major polluting industries that is closely aligned to living in harmony and balance with ecosystems, animals, Indigenous peoples and with the finite, limited resources that we have on our planet. Learn more about this model here.

Economic growth” (GDP growth) encourages wasteful overconsumption. This adds to economic throughput and is considered good for the economy- boosting GDP. In a steady state economy, people consume enough to meet their needs and lead meaningful, joyful lives without undermining the life-support systems of the planet.

martin tye, director, Australian Regional Communities Division- CASSE

#Boycott4wildlife #brandBoycotts #consumerBoycott #consumerRights #consumerism #environment #indigenousRights #pollution #wildlife #wildlifeActivism

10 reasons why ecolabels & commodity certification will never be a solution for importing tropical deforestation

In 2022, 71 environmental and #humanrights groups from around the world wrote to the EU Commission to warn that certification schemes and ecolabels were not sufficient to prevent human rights abuses and deforestation from entering the European Union. Although fast forward to 2025 and lobbyists have again watered down the #EUDR and #CSDDD, what the future holds is anybody’s guess!

In the UK, industry lobbyists including Ferrero and serial greenwashing outfit Orangutan Land Trust watered down the UK’s commitment to not importing deforestation into the UK. The new trade deal with #Malaysia paves the way for mass importation of palm oil ecocide.

#RSPO and #FSC have been shown for decades to be ineffective and corrupt. They have failed in preventing #corruption, human rights abuses, illegal #landgrabbing, #violence, #deforestation, #ecocide and species #extinction.

So here are 10 reasons why the world should not rely on weak and ineffective certification schemes like MSC, RSPO and FSC to enforce their own zero deforestation mandate. Originally published by GRAIN

https://vimeo.com/724165395

#Ecolabels eg. #RSPO #FSC do not prevent #deforestation. They have failed for decades and instead are only weak #greenwashing tools! Help rainforests, rainforest animals and rainforest peoples. #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🩸🚜🤮🚫 #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2022/06/18/10-reasons-why-ecolabels-commodity-certification-are-not-a-solution-to-stop-the-eu-importing-tropical-deforestation/

@EU_Commission should not trust #ecolabels: e.g. @RSPOtweets @FSC_IC to prevent #deforestation. Decades of failure to stop #humanrights abuses #deforestation shows their deep systemic weaknesses #Boycottpalmoil 🌴☠️🧐🚫 #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2022/06/18/10-reasons-why-ecolabels-commodity-certification-are-not-a-solution-to-stop-the-eu-importing-tropical-deforestation/

Jump to section

• 1. Certification is not designed to achieve the main objective of the regulation – preventing deforestation and other harms
• 2. Certification does not provide the information needed to comply with the EU regulation
• 3. Certification does not provide guarantees for the legality of the product
• 4. Certification does not identify or prevent harms. Audit teams lack time and expertise
• 5. Certification bodies and their auditors are not independent from the company they certify
• 6. Prevention of environmental and social harm cannot be outsourced.
• 7. Certification cannot guarantee Free, Prior and Informed Consent or prevent land grabbing of indigenous land
• 8. Certification provides opportunities for greenwashing and increases vested interests in and corporate power over natural resources.
• 9. Certification promotes the expansion of industrial agriculture and thereby prevents the transition needed to halt deforestation
• 10. Certification directs resources towards a million-dollar certification industry
• Signatories: 71 environmental and human rights NGOs

Considering the shortcomings of certification schemes that the European Commission itself has documented, we are deeply troubled by the current arguments coming from industry players advocating for a stronger role for certification in the regulation, including a way for companies to use these systems as proof of compliance with binding EU rules. Below are ten reasons why this should not happen.

1. Certification is not designed to achieve the main objective of the regulation – preventing deforestation and other harms

Back to top ↑

The EC’s own Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment (hereafter EC Impact Assessment) concludes that “the consensus is that [voluntary certification] schemes on their own have not been able to provide the changes needed to prevent deforestation”. This is the position defended by the European Parliament and by most NGOs. Certification schemes do not have a deforestation standard, or the standard does not meet the deforestation definition as proposed in the anti-deforestation regulation. For example, because companies are allowed to clear forests to establish plantations and remediate or compensate with conservation elsewhere.

Numerous studies conducted by WWF, FSCWatch, and Greenpeace and academic studies on Indonesia, have additionally concluded that certification on its own has not helped companies meet their commitments to exclude deforestation from their supply chains.

This led some actors such as WWF to lose faith in certification scheme Roundtable of Responsible Soy (RTRS), not only due to limited uptake, but more specifically, because in biomes where soy is produced, zero-deforestation commitments have so far failed to reduce deforestation. In support of this finding, the Dutch supermarket industry representative (CBL) stated that RTRS “has not appeared to be sufficient to halt [deforestation and conversion] developments and accelerate the transition to a sustainable soy chain”.

“Certification (or verification) schemes may, in some cases, contribute to achieving compliance with the due diligence requirement, however the use of certification does not automatically imply compliance with due diligence obligations. There is abundant literature on certification schemes shortcomings in terms of governance, transparency, clarity of standards, and reliability of monitoring systems”.

2. Certification does not provide the information needed to comply with the EU regulation

Back to top ↑

It does not create transparency of the supply chain or provide information on the geographical origin

As indicated in Article 8 of the Proposal, “because deforestation is linked to land-use change, monitoring requires a precise link between the commodity or product placed on or exported from the EU market and the plot of land where it was grown or raised.” Most certification schemes, however, require only a minimal level of traceability and transparency.

As indicated in the EC’s Study On Certification And Verification Schemes In The Forest Sector, schemes make use of Chain of Custody (CoC) models, but very few apply a traceability system, making it difficult to track the claims of certification, from the forest to the end buyer. One of the most common CoC models used is Mass Balance. This model allows uncertified and untraceable supplies to be physically mixed with certified supplies and end up in EU supply chains. For the most part, certification schemes do not include the systematic ability to verify transactions of volumes, species, and qualities between entities, thus leaving the systems vulnerable to manipulation and fraud.

3. Certification does not provide guarantees for the legality of the product

Back to top ↑

Certification schemes do not have the authority to confirm or enforce compliance with national laws precisely because they are voluntary.

Article 3 in the proposed anti-deforestation regulation states that products
are prohibited on the European market if they are not “produced in accordance with the relevant legislation of the country of production”.

However, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), for example, has explicitly stated its standards are voluntary and “do not extend to enforcing or confirming the legal standing of a company’s use of land (which is a mandate only held by the national authority)”.

4. Certification does not identify or prevent harms. Audit teams lack time and expertise

Back to top ↑

According to the EC “labour, environmental and human rights laws will need to be taken into account when assessing compliance” and identifying harms. However, multiple reports by Friends of the Earth Netherlands, the Environmental Investigation Agency, and ECCHR, reveal that auditing firms responsible for checking compliance are fundamentally failing to identify and mitigate unsustainable practices within certification schemes due to lack of time and lack of expertise. Proper audits on social and human rights issues require extensive consultation to gain full community perspectives on land use, conflicts, or environmental harm. Certification Body (CB) procedures do not allow for this (due to financial resources).

RSPO’s own analysis reads that “the credibility of the RSPO certification scheme has been consistently undermined by documentation of poor practice, and concerns of the extent to which the Assurance System is being implemented”.

Oppressed and stretched NGO groups and communities in the global South spend time and resources on these consultation processes. They face backlash for speaking out during consultations without any guarantee that their input is included in the certification assessment. The EU should not become complicit in exploitation of rightsholders and stakeholders in their monitoring role.

5. Certification bodies and their auditors are not independent from the company they certify

Back to top ↑

The lack of independent audits, considered to be key in ensuring the robustness of certification, was highlighted in the EC Impact Assessment as a key weakness of private certification schemes.

If clients (businesses) hire, supervise, and pay audit firms, they are exposed to a structural risk of conflict of interest, which may lead to a lower level of control.

Previous studies by Friends of the Earth, IUCN, RAN, and Environmental Investigation Agency have shown that, for example in the palm oil industry, when auditors and certification companies are directly hired by an audited company, independence is inhibited and the risk of violations increases.

Also, auditor dependence on company services such as transport and accommodation is problematic. The EC adds to this that these systems are sensitive to fraud given that certified companies may easily mislead their auditors even if the audit is conducted with the greatest care and according to all procedures.

“For example, a company may be selling products containing a volume of “certified” timber material that exceeds the volume of certified raw material that they are buying.”

6. Prevention of environmental and social harm cannot be outsourced, particularly because certification bodies are not liable for harms in the plantations they certify

Back to top ↑

The EU anti-deforestation regulation requires that operators shall exercise due diligence prior to placing relevant commodities on the Union market. Private certification may, in some cases, facilitate compliance with this requirement.

However, as reiterated by German human rights law firm ECCHR the control of compliance is outsourced to private certification bodies, in an unregulated audit and certification market, where CBs are not liable for potential harm.

This leads to inability to distinguish unreliable audits from reliable ones and to competition without rules, setting in motion a ‘race to the bottom’. Certification initiatives have increasingly received complaints for lack of proper due diligence.

For instance, the UK OECD National Contact Point has recently found that Bonsucro breached the Guidelines in relation to due diligence and leverage when reaccepting MPG-T as a member, and the Netherlands NCP handled a complaint about ING’s due diligence policies and practices regarding palm oil.

The OECD guidelines confirm that certification is not a proxy for due diligence, as well as various governments. As echoed by the EC Impact Assessment, “maintaining operators’ responsibility for correctly implementing due diligence obligations when they use certification, aims at ensuring that authorities remain empowered to monitor and sanction incompliant behaviour, as the reliability of those [certification] systems has repeatedly been challenged by evidence on the ground.”

7. Certification cannot guarantee Free, Prior and Informed Consent or prevent land grabbing of indigenous land

Back to top ↑

Indigenous Peoples and local communities have a recognised role in preserving the lands they own and manage, but insecure land tenure is a major driver of deforestation and forest degradation.

Certification bodies commit to investigating whether lands are subject to customary rights of indigenous peoples and whether land transfers have been developed with Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

However, assessing whether land user rights and consultation rights were respected needs to consider the historical context, a multi-actor perspective and deep understanding of local conflicts. Considering the apparent low level of knowledge of auditors on human rights and legal issues, assessing prior land use and conflicts is an impossible task for a team of international auditors with limited time.

In Malaysia communities are often not consulted before the issuance of the logging licences. MTCS certified concessions encroach on indigenous territories while the judiciary recognised indigenous customary land rights are a form of property rights protected by the Federal Constitution.

Additionally, certification schemes failed on numerous occasions to address complaints by communities whose land was taken by palm oil companies, including the case of oil palm giant Sime Darby in Indonesia and Socfin in Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. Certification will not lead to redress or resolution of problems linked to EU operators.

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…

Keep reading

8. Certification provides opportunities for greenwashing and increases vested interests in and corporate power over natural resources.

Back to top ↑

Critics have argued that improving the image of forest and ecosystem risk commodities stimulates demand. Certification risks enabling destructive businesses to continue operating as usual and expand their practices, thereby increasing the harm.

“If certification on its own is unable to guarantee that commodity production
is entirely free of deforestation or human rights abuses, there is little to suggest that using certification as a tool for proving compliance with legal requirements could solve the issues in supply chains and fulfil the legislation’s objectives.

In this context, recognising a particular certification scheme as a proof of compliance removes any incentive to improve the scheme or to replace it with a more reliable alternative, effectively contributing to the institutionalisation of greenwashing.”

For example, a number of recent logging industry scandals suggest that the Forest Stewardship Council label has at times served merely to “greenwash” or “launder” trafficking in illegal timber, compelling NGOs to demand systemic change. The difference between certified and non-certified plantations in South East Asia was not significant.

9. Certification promotes the expansion of industrial agriculture and thereby prevents the transition needed to halt deforestation

Back to top ↑

This prevents the transition towards community-based forest management and agro-ecology, with food sovereignty as a leading principle

There are multiple drivers of deforestation, but the evidence is clear in pointing to industrial agricultural expansion as one of the most important. Ultimately, certification initiatives fail to challenge the ideology underpinning the continuation of industrial commodity crop production, and can instead serve to greenwash
further agro-commodity expansion.

Corporations, along with their certifications, continue to seek legitimacy through a ‘feed the world’ narrative.

The “expansion is the only way”argument has long since been discredited by international institutions such as FAO; we produce enough to feed the projected world populations, much of this coming from small-scale peasant producers using a fraction of the resources. Moreover, as smallholders are directly impacted by deforestation and often depend on large operators and are hereby
forced to expand agricultural land and degrading their direct environment, they are therefore an essential part of the solution.

10. Certification directs resources towards a million-dollar certification industry

Back to top ↑

While community and smallholder forest and agriculture management are extremely underfunded.

As explained by the EC Impact Assessment, private certification can be a costly process and resources spent to certify operations and to support the various schemes’ managerial structures could be used for other ends. Considering that smallholders represent a large share of producers in the relevant sectors, they also represent a crucial part of the solution to deforestation.

The EU should stop financing and promoting improvements in a certification system, benefiting industrial forest and plantation companies, that has been proven to fail.

It would be a more effective use of public and private resources to pay smallholders adequately for their products and adhere to their calls if they seek technical or financial support.

To conclude, building on these arguments, we foresee that if decision makers give in to the lobby from industry and certification’s role is reconsidered or promoted in the current proposal, the EU anti-deforestation regulation will not deliver, as it will not only lose its potential to provide information needed to comply with the regulation but lose its ability to curb deforestation and forest degradation all together.

Back to top ↑

Signatories: 71 environmental and human rights NGOs

International

Global Witness
ClientEarth
Environmental Paper Network
International
GRAIN
Global Forest Coalition
Forest Peoples Programme

Indonesia

Friends of the Earth Indonesia; WALHI
Yayasan Pusaka Bentala Rakyat
Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan
Hukum Indonesia
Pantau Gambut
WALHI Papua
Teraju Foundation
Lingkar Hijau
KRuHA
Lepemawil, Mimika, Papua
PADI Indonesia

Cameroon

Synaparcam
Centre pour l’Environnement
et le Développment Chile
Colectivo Vientosur

Democratic Republic of the Congo

RIAO-RDC
Confédération Paysanne du
Congo-Principal Regroupement Paysan
Gabon
Muyissi Environnement

China

Snow Alliance
Blue Dalian
Green Longjiang
Scholar Tree Alliance
Wuhu Ecology Centre

Malaysia

SAVE Rivers
KERUAN
Sahabat Alam Malaysia

Liberia

Sustainable Development Institute

Nigeria

ERA; Friends of the Earth Nigeria

Mexico

Reentramados para la vida, defendiendo territorio
Otros Mundos Chiapas

Philippines

Unyon ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura- UMA

Sierra Leone

Green Scenery

United States

Friends of the Earth United States
The Oakland Institute
The Borneo Project

Europe

Bruno Manser Fonds
Canopée
Denkhausbremen
Dublin Friends of the Earth
Earthsight
Ecologistas en Acción
Environmental Investigation
Agency (EIA)
Fern
FIAN Belgium
Finnish Association for Nature Conservation
Forum Ökologie & Papier
Friends of Fertő lake Association
Friends of the Earth England,
Wales and Northern Ireland
Friends of the Earth Europe
Friends of the Earth Finland
Greenpeace EU

GYBN Europe
HEKS – Swiss Church Aid
Milieudefensie
NOAH – Friends of the Earth Denmark
Pro REGENWALD
Rainforest Foundation Norway

ReAct Transnational
Rettet den Regenwald
ROBIN WOOD
Salva la Selva
Save Estonias Forests (Päästame Eesti Metsad)
Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group
Water Justice and Gender
Working group Food Justice
ZERO – Associação Sistema
Terrestre Sustentável

Back to top ↑

Here are some other ways you can help by using your wallet as a weapon and joining the #Boycott4Wildlife

What is greenwashing?

Read more

Why join the #Boycott4Wildlife?

Read more

Greenwashing Tactic #4: Fake Labels

Read more

The Counterpunch: Consumer Solutions To Fight Extinction

Read more

Contribute to my Ko-Fi

Did you enjoy visiting this website?

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.

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.

#animalExtinction #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4wildlife #BoycottPalmOil #consumerBoycott #corruption #CSDDD #deforestation #ecocide #ecolabels #ethicalConsumerism #EUDR #extinction #FSC #greenwashing #humanRights #HumanRights #landgrabbing #Malaysia #MSC #PalmOil #palmOilDeforestation #RSPO #RSPOGreenwashing #violence

10 reasons why ecolabels & commodity certification will never be a solution for importing tropical deforestation

In 2022, 71 environmental and #humanrights groups from around the world wrote to the EU Commission to warn that certification schemes and ecolabels were not sufficient to prevent human rights abuses and deforestation from entering the European Union. Although fast forward to 2025 and lobbyists have again watered down the #EUDR and #CSDDD, what the future holds is anybody’s guess!

In the UK, industry lobbyists including Ferrero and serial greenwashing outfit Orangutan Land Trust watered down the UK’s commitment to not importing deforestation into the UK. The new trade deal with #Malaysia paves the way for mass importation of palm oil ecocide.

#RSPO and #FSC have been shown for decades to be ineffective and corrupt. They have failed in preventing #corruption, human rights abuses, illegal #landgrabbing, #violence, #deforestation, #ecocide and species #extinction.

So here are 10 reasons why the world should not rely on weak and ineffective certification schemes like MSC, RSPO and FSC to enforce their own zero deforestation mandate. Originally published by GRAIN

https://vimeo.com/724165395

#Ecolabels eg. #RSPO #FSC do not prevent #deforestation. They have failed for decades and instead are only weak #greenwashing tools! Help rainforests, rainforest animals and rainforest peoples. #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🩸🚜🤮🚫 #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2022/06/18/10-reasons-why-ecolabels-commodity-certification-are-not-a-solution-to-stop-the-eu-importing-tropical-deforestation/

@EU_Commission should not trust #ecolabels: e.g. @RSPOtweets @FSC_IC to prevent #deforestation. Decades of failure to stop #humanrights abuses #deforestation shows their deep systemic weaknesses #Boycottpalmoil 🌴☠️🧐🚫 #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2022/06/18/10-reasons-why-ecolabels-commodity-certification-are-not-a-solution-to-stop-the-eu-importing-tropical-deforestation/

Jump to section

• 1. Certification is not designed to achieve the main objective of the regulation – preventing deforestation and other harms
• 2. Certification does not provide the information needed to comply with the EU regulation
• 3. Certification does not provide guarantees for the legality of the product
• 4. Certification does not identify or prevent harms. Audit teams lack time and expertise
• 5. Certification bodies and their auditors are not independent from the company they certify
• 6. Prevention of environmental and social harm cannot be outsourced.
• 7. Certification cannot guarantee Free, Prior and Informed Consent or prevent land grabbing of indigenous land
• 8. Certification provides opportunities for greenwashing and increases vested interests in and corporate power over natural resources.
• 9. Certification promotes the expansion of industrial agriculture and thereby prevents the transition needed to halt deforestation
• 10. Certification directs resources towards a million-dollar certification industry
• Signatories: 71 environmental and human rights NGOs

Considering the shortcomings of certification schemes that the European Commission itself has documented, we are deeply troubled by the current arguments coming from industry players advocating for a stronger role for certification in the regulation, including a way for companies to use these systems as proof of compliance with binding EU rules. Below are ten reasons why this should not happen.

1. Certification is not designed to achieve the main objective of the regulation – preventing deforestation and other harms

Back to top ↑

The EC’s own Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment (hereafter EC Impact Assessment) concludes that “the consensus is that [voluntary certification] schemes on their own have not been able to provide the changes needed to prevent deforestation”. This is the position defended by the European Parliament and by most NGOs. Certification schemes do not have a deforestation standard, or the standard does not meet the deforestation definition as proposed in the anti-deforestation regulation. For example, because companies are allowed to clear forests to establish plantations and remediate or compensate with conservation elsewhere.

Numerous studies conducted by WWF, FSCWatch, and Greenpeace and academic studies on Indonesia, have additionally concluded that certification on its own has not helped companies meet their commitments to exclude deforestation from their supply chains.

This led some actors such as WWF to lose faith in certification scheme Roundtable of Responsible Soy (RTRS), not only due to limited uptake, but more specifically, because in biomes where soy is produced, zero-deforestation commitments have so far failed to reduce deforestation. In support of this finding, the Dutch supermarket industry representative (CBL) stated that RTRS “has not appeared to be sufficient to halt [deforestation and conversion] developments and accelerate the transition to a sustainable soy chain”.

“Certification (or verification) schemes may, in some cases, contribute to achieving compliance with the due diligence requirement, however the use of certification does not automatically imply compliance with due diligence obligations. There is abundant literature on certification schemes shortcomings in terms of governance, transparency, clarity of standards, and reliability of monitoring systems”.

2. Certification does not provide the information needed to comply with the EU regulation

Back to top ↑

It does not create transparency of the supply chain or provide information on the geographical origin

As indicated in Article 8 of the Proposal, “because deforestation is linked to land-use change, monitoring requires a precise link between the commodity or product placed on or exported from the EU market and the plot of land where it was grown or raised.” Most certification schemes, however, require only a minimal level of traceability and transparency.

As indicated in the EC’s Study On Certification And Verification Schemes In The Forest Sector, schemes make use of Chain of Custody (CoC) models, but very few apply a traceability system, making it difficult to track the claims of certification, from the forest to the end buyer. One of the most common CoC models used is Mass Balance. This model allows uncertified and untraceable supplies to be physically mixed with certified supplies and end up in EU supply chains. For the most part, certification schemes do not include the systematic ability to verify transactions of volumes, species, and qualities between entities, thus leaving the systems vulnerable to manipulation and fraud.

3. Certification does not provide guarantees for the legality of the product

Back to top ↑

Certification schemes do not have the authority to confirm or enforce compliance with national laws precisely because they are voluntary.

Article 3 in the proposed anti-deforestation regulation states that products
are prohibited on the European market if they are not “produced in accordance with the relevant legislation of the country of production”.

However, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), for example, has explicitly stated its standards are voluntary and “do not extend to enforcing or confirming the legal standing of a company’s use of land (which is a mandate only held by the national authority)”.

4. Certification does not identify or prevent harms. Audit teams lack time and expertise

Back to top ↑

According to the EC “labour, environmental and human rights laws will need to be taken into account when assessing compliance” and identifying harms. However, multiple reports by Friends of the Earth Netherlands, the Environmental Investigation Agency, and ECCHR, reveal that auditing firms responsible for checking compliance are fundamentally failing to identify and mitigate unsustainable practices within certification schemes due to lack of time and lack of expertise. Proper audits on social and human rights issues require extensive consultation to gain full community perspectives on land use, conflicts, or environmental harm. Certification Body (CB) procedures do not allow for this (due to financial resources).

RSPO’s own analysis reads that “the credibility of the RSPO certification scheme has been consistently undermined by documentation of poor practice, and concerns of the extent to which the Assurance System is being implemented”.

Oppressed and stretched NGO groups and communities in the global South spend time and resources on these consultation processes. They face backlash for speaking out during consultations without any guarantee that their input is included in the certification assessment. The EU should not become complicit in exploitation of rightsholders and stakeholders in their monitoring role.

5. Certification bodies and their auditors are not independent from the company they certify

Back to top ↑

The lack of independent audits, considered to be key in ensuring the robustness of certification, was highlighted in the EC Impact Assessment as a key weakness of private certification schemes.

If clients (businesses) hire, supervise, and pay audit firms, they are exposed to a structural risk of conflict of interest, which may lead to a lower level of control.

Previous studies by Friends of the Earth, IUCN, RAN, and Environmental Investigation Agency have shown that, for example in the palm oil industry, when auditors and certification companies are directly hired by an audited company, independence is inhibited and the risk of violations increases.

Also, auditor dependence on company services such as transport and accommodation is problematic. The EC adds to this that these systems are sensitive to fraud given that certified companies may easily mislead their auditors even if the audit is conducted with the greatest care and according to all procedures.

“For example, a company may be selling products containing a volume of “certified” timber material that exceeds the volume of certified raw material that they are buying.”

6. Prevention of environmental and social harm cannot be outsourced, particularly because certification bodies are not liable for harms in the plantations they certify

Back to top ↑

The EU anti-deforestation regulation requires that operators shall exercise due diligence prior to placing relevant commodities on the Union market. Private certification may, in some cases, facilitate compliance with this requirement.

However, as reiterated by German human rights law firm ECCHR the control of compliance is outsourced to private certification bodies, in an unregulated audit and certification market, where CBs are not liable for potential harm.

This leads to inability to distinguish unreliable audits from reliable ones and to competition without rules, setting in motion a ‘race to the bottom’. Certification initiatives have increasingly received complaints for lack of proper due diligence.

For instance, the UK OECD National Contact Point has recently found that Bonsucro breached the Guidelines in relation to due diligence and leverage when reaccepting MPG-T as a member, and the Netherlands NCP handled a complaint about ING’s due diligence policies and practices regarding palm oil.

The OECD guidelines confirm that certification is not a proxy for due diligence, as well as various governments. As echoed by the EC Impact Assessment, “maintaining operators’ responsibility for correctly implementing due diligence obligations when they use certification, aims at ensuring that authorities remain empowered to monitor and sanction incompliant behaviour, as the reliability of those [certification] systems has repeatedly been challenged by evidence on the ground.”

7. Certification cannot guarantee Free, Prior and Informed Consent or prevent land grabbing of indigenous land

Back to top ↑

Indigenous Peoples and local communities have a recognised role in preserving the lands they own and manage, but insecure land tenure is a major driver of deforestation and forest degradation.

Certification bodies commit to investigating whether lands are subject to customary rights of indigenous peoples and whether land transfers have been developed with Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

However, assessing whether land user rights and consultation rights were respected needs to consider the historical context, a multi-actor perspective and deep understanding of local conflicts. Considering the apparent low level of knowledge of auditors on human rights and legal issues, assessing prior land use and conflicts is an impossible task for a team of international auditors with limited time.

In Malaysia communities are often not consulted before the issuance of the logging licences. MTCS certified concessions encroach on indigenous territories while the judiciary recognised indigenous customary land rights are a form of property rights protected by the Federal Constitution.

Additionally, certification schemes failed on numerous occasions to address complaints by communities whose land was taken by palm oil companies, including the case of oil palm giant Sime Darby in Indonesia and Socfin in Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. Certification will not lead to redress or resolution of problems linked to EU operators.

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…

Keep reading

8. Certification provides opportunities for greenwashing and increases vested interests in and corporate power over natural resources.

Back to top ↑

Critics have argued that improving the image of forest and ecosystem risk commodities stimulates demand. Certification risks enabling destructive businesses to continue operating as usual and expand their practices, thereby increasing the harm.

“If certification on its own is unable to guarantee that commodity production
is entirely free of deforestation or human rights abuses, there is little to suggest that using certification as a tool for proving compliance with legal requirements could solve the issues in supply chains and fulfil the legislation’s objectives.

In this context, recognising a particular certification scheme as a proof of compliance removes any incentive to improve the scheme or to replace it with a more reliable alternative, effectively contributing to the institutionalisation of greenwashing.”

For example, a number of recent logging industry scandals suggest that the Forest Stewardship Council label has at times served merely to “greenwash” or “launder” trafficking in illegal timber, compelling NGOs to demand systemic change. The difference between certified and non-certified plantations in South East Asia was not significant.

9. Certification promotes the expansion of industrial agriculture and thereby prevents the transition needed to halt deforestation

Back to top ↑

This prevents the transition towards community-based forest management and agro-ecology, with food sovereignty as a leading principle

There are multiple drivers of deforestation, but the evidence is clear in pointing to industrial agricultural expansion as one of the most important. Ultimately, certification initiatives fail to challenge the ideology underpinning the continuation of industrial commodity crop production, and can instead serve to greenwash
further agro-commodity expansion.

Corporations, along with their certifications, continue to seek legitimacy through a ‘feed the world’ narrative.

The “expansion is the only way”argument has long since been discredited by international institutions such as FAO; we produce enough to feed the projected world populations, much of this coming from small-scale peasant producers using a fraction of the resources. Moreover, as smallholders are directly impacted by deforestation and often depend on large operators and are hereby
forced to expand agricultural land and degrading their direct environment, they are therefore an essential part of the solution.

10. Certification directs resources towards a million-dollar certification industry

Back to top ↑

While community and smallholder forest and agriculture management are extremely underfunded.

As explained by the EC Impact Assessment, private certification can be a costly process and resources spent to certify operations and to support the various schemes’ managerial structures could be used for other ends. Considering that smallholders represent a large share of producers in the relevant sectors, they also represent a crucial part of the solution to deforestation.

The EU should stop financing and promoting improvements in a certification system, benefiting industrial forest and plantation companies, that has been proven to fail.

It would be a more effective use of public and private resources to pay smallholders adequately for their products and adhere to their calls if they seek technical or financial support.

To conclude, building on these arguments, we foresee that if decision makers give in to the lobby from industry and certification’s role is reconsidered or promoted in the current proposal, the EU anti-deforestation regulation will not deliver, as it will not only lose its potential to provide information needed to comply with the regulation but lose its ability to curb deforestation and forest degradation all together.

Back to top ↑

Signatories: 71 environmental and human rights NGOs

International

Global Witness
ClientEarth
Environmental Paper Network
International
GRAIN
Global Forest Coalition
Forest Peoples Programme

Indonesia

Friends of the Earth Indonesia; WALHI
Yayasan Pusaka Bentala Rakyat
Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan
Hukum Indonesia
Pantau Gambut
WALHI Papua
Teraju Foundation
Lingkar Hijau
KRuHA
Lepemawil, Mimika, Papua
PADI Indonesia

Cameroon

Synaparcam
Centre pour l’Environnement
et le Développment Chile
Colectivo Vientosur

Democratic Republic of the Congo

RIAO-RDC
Confédération Paysanne du
Congo-Principal Regroupement Paysan
Gabon
Muyissi Environnement

China

Snow Alliance
Blue Dalian
Green Longjiang
Scholar Tree Alliance
Wuhu Ecology Centre

Malaysia

SAVE Rivers
KERUAN
Sahabat Alam Malaysia

Liberia

Sustainable Development Institute

Nigeria

ERA; Friends of the Earth Nigeria

Mexico

Reentramados para la vida, defendiendo territorio
Otros Mundos Chiapas

Philippines

Unyon ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura- UMA

Sierra Leone

Green Scenery

United States

Friends of the Earth United States
The Oakland Institute
The Borneo Project

Europe

Bruno Manser Fonds
Canopée
Denkhausbremen
Dublin Friends of the Earth
Earthsight
Ecologistas en Acción
Environmental Investigation
Agency (EIA)
Fern
FIAN Belgium
Finnish Association for Nature Conservation
Forum Ökologie & Papier
Friends of Fertő lake Association
Friends of the Earth England,
Wales and Northern Ireland
Friends of the Earth Europe
Friends of the Earth Finland
Greenpeace EU

GYBN Europe
HEKS – Swiss Church Aid
Milieudefensie
NOAH – Friends of the Earth Denmark
Pro REGENWALD
Rainforest Foundation Norway

ReAct Transnational
Rettet den Regenwald
ROBIN WOOD
Salva la Selva
Save Estonias Forests (Päästame Eesti Metsad)
Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group
Water Justice and Gender
Working group Food Justice
ZERO – Associação Sistema
Terrestre Sustentável

Back to top ↑

Here are some other ways you can help by using your wallet as a weapon and joining the #Boycott4Wildlife

What is greenwashing?

Read more

Why join the #Boycott4Wildlife?

Read more

Greenwashing Tactic #4: Fake Labels

Read more

The Counterpunch: Consumer Solutions To Fight Extinction

Read more

Contribute to my Ko-Fi

Did you enjoy visiting this website?

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.

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.

#animalExtinction #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4wildlife #BoycottPalmOil #consumerBoycott #corruption #CSDDD #deforestation #ecocide #ecolabels #ethicalConsumerism #EUDR #extinction #FSC #greenwashing #humanRights #HumanRights #landgrabbing #Malaysia #MSC #PalmOil #palmOilDeforestation #RSPO #RSPOGreenwashing #violence

10 reasons why ecolabels & commodity certification will never be a solution for importing tropical deforestation

In 2022, 71 environmental and #humanrights groups from around the world wrote to the EU Commission to warn that certification schemes and ecolabels were not sufficient to prevent human rights abuses and deforestation from entering the European Union. Although fast forward to 2025 and lobbyists have again watered down the #EUDR and #CSDDD, what the future holds is anybody’s guess!

In the UK, industry lobbyists including Ferrero and serial greenwashing outfit Orangutan Land Trust watered down the UK’s commitment to not importing deforestation into the UK. The new trade deal with #Malaysia paves the way for mass importation of palm oil ecocide.

#RSPO and #FSC have been shown for decades to be ineffective and corrupt. They have failed in preventing #corruption, human rights abuses, illegal #landgrabbing, #violence, #deforestation, #ecocide and species #extinction.

So here are 10 reasons why the world should not rely on weak and ineffective certification schemes like MSC, RSPO and FSC to enforce their own zero deforestation mandate. Originally published by GRAIN

https://vimeo.com/724165395

#Ecolabels eg. #RSPO #FSC do not prevent #deforestation. They have failed for decades and instead are only weak #greenwashing tools! Help rainforests, rainforest animals and rainforest peoples. #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🩸🚜🤮🚫 #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2022/06/18/10-reasons-why-ecolabels-commodity-certification-are-not-a-solution-to-stop-the-eu-importing-tropical-deforestation/

@EU_Commission should not trust #ecolabels: e.g. @RSPOtweets @FSC_IC to prevent #deforestation. Decades of failure to stop #humanrights abuses #deforestation shows their deep systemic weaknesses #Boycottpalmoil 🌴☠️🧐🚫 #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2022/06/18/10-reasons-why-ecolabels-commodity-certification-are-not-a-solution-to-stop-the-eu-importing-tropical-deforestation/

Jump to section

• 1. Certification is not designed to achieve the main objective of the regulation – preventing deforestation and other harms
• 2. Certification does not provide the information needed to comply with the EU regulation
• 3. Certification does not provide guarantees for the legality of the product
• 4. Certification does not identify or prevent harms. Audit teams lack time and expertise
• 5. Certification bodies and their auditors are not independent from the company they certify
• 6. Prevention of environmental and social harm cannot be outsourced.
• 7. Certification cannot guarantee Free, Prior and Informed Consent or prevent land grabbing of indigenous land
• 8. Certification provides opportunities for greenwashing and increases vested interests in and corporate power over natural resources.
• 9. Certification promotes the expansion of industrial agriculture and thereby prevents the transition needed to halt deforestation
• 10. Certification directs resources towards a million-dollar certification industry
• Signatories: 71 environmental and human rights NGOs

Considering the shortcomings of certification schemes that the European Commission itself has documented, we are deeply troubled by the current arguments coming from industry players advocating for a stronger role for certification in the regulation, including a way for companies to use these systems as proof of compliance with binding EU rules. Below are ten reasons why this should not happen.

1. Certification is not designed to achieve the main objective of the regulation – preventing deforestation and other harms

Back to top ↑

The EC’s own Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment (hereafter EC Impact Assessment) concludes that “the consensus is that [voluntary certification] schemes on their own have not been able to provide the changes needed to prevent deforestation”. This is the position defended by the European Parliament and by most NGOs. Certification schemes do not have a deforestation standard, or the standard does not meet the deforestation definition as proposed in the anti-deforestation regulation. For example, because companies are allowed to clear forests to establish plantations and remediate or compensate with conservation elsewhere.

Numerous studies conducted by WWF, FSCWatch, and Greenpeace and academic studies on Indonesia, have additionally concluded that certification on its own has not helped companies meet their commitments to exclude deforestation from their supply chains.

This led some actors such as WWF to lose faith in certification scheme Roundtable of Responsible Soy (RTRS), not only due to limited uptake, but more specifically, because in biomes where soy is produced, zero-deforestation commitments have so far failed to reduce deforestation. In support of this finding, the Dutch supermarket industry representative (CBL) stated that RTRS “has not appeared to be sufficient to halt [deforestation and conversion] developments and accelerate the transition to a sustainable soy chain”.

“Certification (or verification) schemes may, in some cases, contribute to achieving compliance with the due diligence requirement, however the use of certification does not automatically imply compliance with due diligence obligations. There is abundant literature on certification schemes shortcomings in terms of governance, transparency, clarity of standards, and reliability of monitoring systems”.

2. Certification does not provide the information needed to comply with the EU regulation

Back to top ↑

It does not create transparency of the supply chain or provide information on the geographical origin

As indicated in Article 8 of the Proposal, “because deforestation is linked to land-use change, monitoring requires a precise link between the commodity or product placed on or exported from the EU market and the plot of land where it was grown or raised.” Most certification schemes, however, require only a minimal level of traceability and transparency.

As indicated in the EC’s Study On Certification And Verification Schemes In The Forest Sector, schemes make use of Chain of Custody (CoC) models, but very few apply a traceability system, making it difficult to track the claims of certification, from the forest to the end buyer. One of the most common CoC models used is Mass Balance. This model allows uncertified and untraceable supplies to be physically mixed with certified supplies and end up in EU supply chains. For the most part, certification schemes do not include the systematic ability to verify transactions of volumes, species, and qualities between entities, thus leaving the systems vulnerable to manipulation and fraud.

3. Certification does not provide guarantees for the legality of the product

Back to top ↑

Certification schemes do not have the authority to confirm or enforce compliance with national laws precisely because they are voluntary.

Article 3 in the proposed anti-deforestation regulation states that products
are prohibited on the European market if they are not “produced in accordance with the relevant legislation of the country of production”.

However, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), for example, has explicitly stated its standards are voluntary and “do not extend to enforcing or confirming the legal standing of a company’s use of land (which is a mandate only held by the national authority)”.

4. Certification does not identify or prevent harms. Audit teams lack time and expertise

Back to top ↑

According to the EC “labour, environmental and human rights laws will need to be taken into account when assessing compliance” and identifying harms. However, multiple reports by Friends of the Earth Netherlands, the Environmental Investigation Agency, and ECCHR, reveal that auditing firms responsible for checking compliance are fundamentally failing to identify and mitigate unsustainable practices within certification schemes due to lack of time and lack of expertise. Proper audits on social and human rights issues require extensive consultation to gain full community perspectives on land use, conflicts, or environmental harm. Certification Body (CB) procedures do not allow for this (due to financial resources).

RSPO’s own analysis reads that “the credibility of the RSPO certification scheme has been consistently undermined by documentation of poor practice, and concerns of the extent to which the Assurance System is being implemented”.

Oppressed and stretched NGO groups and communities in the global South spend time and resources on these consultation processes. They face backlash for speaking out during consultations without any guarantee that their input is included in the certification assessment. The EU should not become complicit in exploitation of rightsholders and stakeholders in their monitoring role.

5. Certification bodies and their auditors are not independent from the company they certify

Back to top ↑

The lack of independent audits, considered to be key in ensuring the robustness of certification, was highlighted in the EC Impact Assessment as a key weakness of private certification schemes.

If clients (businesses) hire, supervise, and pay audit firms, they are exposed to a structural risk of conflict of interest, which may lead to a lower level of control.

Previous studies by Friends of the Earth, IUCN, RAN, and Environmental Investigation Agency have shown that, for example in the palm oil industry, when auditors and certification companies are directly hired by an audited company, independence is inhibited and the risk of violations increases.

Also, auditor dependence on company services such as transport and accommodation is problematic. The EC adds to this that these systems are sensitive to fraud given that certified companies may easily mislead their auditors even if the audit is conducted with the greatest care and according to all procedures.

“For example, a company may be selling products containing a volume of “certified” timber material that exceeds the volume of certified raw material that they are buying.”

6. Prevention of environmental and social harm cannot be outsourced, particularly because certification bodies are not liable for harms in the plantations they certify

Back to top ↑

The EU anti-deforestation regulation requires that operators shall exercise due diligence prior to placing relevant commodities on the Union market. Private certification may, in some cases, facilitate compliance with this requirement.

However, as reiterated by German human rights law firm ECCHR the control of compliance is outsourced to private certification bodies, in an unregulated audit and certification market, where CBs are not liable for potential harm.

This leads to inability to distinguish unreliable audits from reliable ones and to competition without rules, setting in motion a ‘race to the bottom’. Certification initiatives have increasingly received complaints for lack of proper due diligence.

For instance, the UK OECD National Contact Point has recently found that Bonsucro breached the Guidelines in relation to due diligence and leverage when reaccepting MPG-T as a member, and the Netherlands NCP handled a complaint about ING’s due diligence policies and practices regarding palm oil.

The OECD guidelines confirm that certification is not a proxy for due diligence, as well as various governments. As echoed by the EC Impact Assessment, “maintaining operators’ responsibility for correctly implementing due diligence obligations when they use certification, aims at ensuring that authorities remain empowered to monitor and sanction incompliant behaviour, as the reliability of those [certification] systems has repeatedly been challenged by evidence on the ground.”

7. Certification cannot guarantee Free, Prior and Informed Consent or prevent land grabbing of indigenous land

Back to top ↑

Indigenous Peoples and local communities have a recognised role in preserving the lands they own and manage, but insecure land tenure is a major driver of deforestation and forest degradation.

Certification bodies commit to investigating whether lands are subject to customary rights of indigenous peoples and whether land transfers have been developed with Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

However, assessing whether land user rights and consultation rights were respected needs to consider the historical context, a multi-actor perspective and deep understanding of local conflicts. Considering the apparent low level of knowledge of auditors on human rights and legal issues, assessing prior land use and conflicts is an impossible task for a team of international auditors with limited time.

In Malaysia communities are often not consulted before the issuance of the logging licences. MTCS certified concessions encroach on indigenous territories while the judiciary recognised indigenous customary land rights are a form of property rights protected by the Federal Constitution.

Additionally, certification schemes failed on numerous occasions to address complaints by communities whose land was taken by palm oil companies, including the case of oil palm giant Sime Darby in Indonesia and Socfin in Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. Certification will not lead to redress or resolution of problems linked to EU operators.

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…

Keep reading

8. Certification provides opportunities for greenwashing and increases vested interests in and corporate power over natural resources.

Back to top ↑

Critics have argued that improving the image of forest and ecosystem risk commodities stimulates demand. Certification risks enabling destructive businesses to continue operating as usual and expand their practices, thereby increasing the harm.

“If certification on its own is unable to guarantee that commodity production
is entirely free of deforestation or human rights abuses, there is little to suggest that using certification as a tool for proving compliance with legal requirements could solve the issues in supply chains and fulfil the legislation’s objectives.

In this context, recognising a particular certification scheme as a proof of compliance removes any incentive to improve the scheme or to replace it with a more reliable alternative, effectively contributing to the institutionalisation of greenwashing.”

For example, a number of recent logging industry scandals suggest that the Forest Stewardship Council label has at times served merely to “greenwash” or “launder” trafficking in illegal timber, compelling NGOs to demand systemic change. The difference between certified and non-certified plantations in South East Asia was not significant.

9. Certification promotes the expansion of industrial agriculture and thereby prevents the transition needed to halt deforestation

Back to top ↑

This prevents the transition towards community-based forest management and agro-ecology, with food sovereignty as a leading principle

There are multiple drivers of deforestation, but the evidence is clear in pointing to industrial agricultural expansion as one of the most important. Ultimately, certification initiatives fail to challenge the ideology underpinning the continuation of industrial commodity crop production, and can instead serve to greenwash
further agro-commodity expansion.

Corporations, along with their certifications, continue to seek legitimacy through a ‘feed the world’ narrative.

The “expansion is the only way”argument has long since been discredited by international institutions such as FAO; we produce enough to feed the projected world populations, much of this coming from small-scale peasant producers using a fraction of the resources. Moreover, as smallholders are directly impacted by deforestation and often depend on large operators and are hereby
forced to expand agricultural land and degrading their direct environment, they are therefore an essential part of the solution.

10. Certification directs resources towards a million-dollar certification industry

Back to top ↑

While community and smallholder forest and agriculture management are extremely underfunded.

As explained by the EC Impact Assessment, private certification can be a costly process and resources spent to certify operations and to support the various schemes’ managerial structures could be used for other ends. Considering that smallholders represent a large share of producers in the relevant sectors, they also represent a crucial part of the solution to deforestation.

The EU should stop financing and promoting improvements in a certification system, benefiting industrial forest and plantation companies, that has been proven to fail.

It would be a more effective use of public and private resources to pay smallholders adequately for their products and adhere to their calls if they seek technical or financial support.

To conclude, building on these arguments, we foresee that if decision makers give in to the lobby from industry and certification’s role is reconsidered or promoted in the current proposal, the EU anti-deforestation regulation will not deliver, as it will not only lose its potential to provide information needed to comply with the regulation but lose its ability to curb deforestation and forest degradation all together.

Back to top ↑

Signatories: 71 environmental and human rights NGOs

International

Global Witness
ClientEarth
Environmental Paper Network
International
GRAIN
Global Forest Coalition
Forest Peoples Programme

Indonesia

Friends of the Earth Indonesia; WALHI
Yayasan Pusaka Bentala Rakyat
Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan
Hukum Indonesia
Pantau Gambut
WALHI Papua
Teraju Foundation
Lingkar Hijau
KRuHA
Lepemawil, Mimika, Papua
PADI Indonesia

Cameroon

Synaparcam
Centre pour l’Environnement
et le Développment Chile
Colectivo Vientosur

Democratic Republic of the Congo

RIAO-RDC
Confédération Paysanne du
Congo-Principal Regroupement Paysan
Gabon
Muyissi Environnement

China

Snow Alliance
Blue Dalian
Green Longjiang
Scholar Tree Alliance
Wuhu Ecology Centre

Malaysia

SAVE Rivers
KERUAN
Sahabat Alam Malaysia

Liberia

Sustainable Development Institute

Nigeria

ERA; Friends of the Earth Nigeria

Mexico

Reentramados para la vida, defendiendo territorio
Otros Mundos Chiapas

Philippines

Unyon ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura- UMA

Sierra Leone

Green Scenery

United States

Friends of the Earth United States
The Oakland Institute
The Borneo Project

Europe

Bruno Manser Fonds
Canopée
Denkhausbremen
Dublin Friends of the Earth
Earthsight
Ecologistas en Acción
Environmental Investigation
Agency (EIA)
Fern
FIAN Belgium
Finnish Association for Nature Conservation
Forum Ökologie & Papier
Friends of Fertő lake Association
Friends of the Earth England,
Wales and Northern Ireland
Friends of the Earth Europe
Friends of the Earth Finland
Greenpeace EU

GYBN Europe
HEKS – Swiss Church Aid
Milieudefensie
NOAH – Friends of the Earth Denmark
Pro REGENWALD
Rainforest Foundation Norway

ReAct Transnational
Rettet den Regenwald
ROBIN WOOD
Salva la Selva
Save Estonias Forests (Päästame Eesti Metsad)
Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group
Water Justice and Gender
Working group Food Justice
ZERO – Associação Sistema
Terrestre Sustentável

Back to top ↑

Here are some other ways you can help by using your wallet as a weapon and joining the #Boycott4Wildlife

What is greenwashing?

Read more

Why join the #Boycott4Wildlife?

Read more

Greenwashing Tactic #4: Fake Labels

Read more

The Counterpunch: Consumer Solutions To Fight Extinction

Read more

Contribute to my Ko-Fi

Did you enjoy visiting this website?

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.

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.

#animalExtinction #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4wildlife #BoycottPalmOil #consumerBoycott #corruption #CSDDD #deforestation #ecocide #ecolabels #ethicalConsumerism #EUDR #extinction #FSC #greenwashing #humanRights #HumanRights #landgrabbing #Malaysia #MSC #PalmOil #palmOilDeforestation #RSPO #RSPOGreenwashing #violence

10 reasons why ecolabels & commodity certification will never be a solution for importing tropical deforestation

In 2022, 71 environmental and #humanrights groups from around the world wrote to the EU Commission to warn that certification schemes and ecolabels were not sufficient to prevent human rights abuses and deforestation from entering the European Union. Although fast forward to 2025 and lobbyists have again watered down the #EUDR and #CSDDD, what the future holds is anybody’s guess!

In the UK, industry lobbyists including Ferrero and serial greenwashing outfit Orangutan Land Trust watered down the UK’s commitment to not importing deforestation into the UK. The new trade deal with #Malaysia paves the way for mass importation of palm oil ecocide.

#RSPO and #FSC have been shown for decades to be ineffective and corrupt. They have failed in preventing #corruption, human rights abuses, illegal #landgrabbing, #violence, #deforestation, #ecocide and species #extinction.

So here are 10 reasons why the world should not rely on weak and ineffective certification schemes like MSC, RSPO and FSC to enforce their own zero deforestation mandate. Originally published by GRAIN

https://vimeo.com/724165395

#Ecolabels eg. #RSPO #FSC do not prevent #deforestation. They have failed for decades and instead are only weak #greenwashing tools! Help rainforests, rainforest animals and rainforest peoples. #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🩸🚜🤮🚫 #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2022/06/18/10-reasons-why-ecolabels-commodity-certification-are-not-a-solution-to-stop-the-eu-importing-tropical-deforestation/

@EU_Commission should not trust #ecolabels: e.g. @RSPOtweets @FSC_IC to prevent #deforestation. Decades of failure to stop #humanrights abuses #deforestation shows their deep systemic weaknesses #Boycottpalmoil 🌴☠️🧐🚫 #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2022/06/18/10-reasons-why-ecolabels-commodity-certification-are-not-a-solution-to-stop-the-eu-importing-tropical-deforestation/

Jump to section

• 1. Certification is not designed to achieve the main objective of the regulation – preventing deforestation and other harms
• 2. Certification does not provide the information needed to comply with the EU regulation
• 3. Certification does not provide guarantees for the legality of the product
• 4. Certification does not identify or prevent harms. Audit teams lack time and expertise
• 5. Certification bodies and their auditors are not independent from the company they certify
• 6. Prevention of environmental and social harm cannot be outsourced.
• 7. Certification cannot guarantee Free, Prior and Informed Consent or prevent land grabbing of indigenous land
• 8. Certification provides opportunities for greenwashing and increases vested interests in and corporate power over natural resources.
• 9. Certification promotes the expansion of industrial agriculture and thereby prevents the transition needed to halt deforestation
• 10. Certification directs resources towards a million-dollar certification industry
• Signatories: 71 environmental and human rights NGOs

Considering the shortcomings of certification schemes that the European Commission itself has documented, we are deeply troubled by the current arguments coming from industry players advocating for a stronger role for certification in the regulation, including a way for companies to use these systems as proof of compliance with binding EU rules. Below are ten reasons why this should not happen.

1. Certification is not designed to achieve the main objective of the regulation – preventing deforestation and other harms

Back to top ↑

The EC’s own Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment (hereafter EC Impact Assessment) concludes that “the consensus is that [voluntary certification] schemes on their own have not been able to provide the changes needed to prevent deforestation”. This is the position defended by the European Parliament and by most NGOs. Certification schemes do not have a deforestation standard, or the standard does not meet the deforestation definition as proposed in the anti-deforestation regulation. For example, because companies are allowed to clear forests to establish plantations and remediate or compensate with conservation elsewhere.

Numerous studies conducted by WWF, FSCWatch, and Greenpeace and academic studies on Indonesia, have additionally concluded that certification on its own has not helped companies meet their commitments to exclude deforestation from their supply chains.

This led some actors such as WWF to lose faith in certification scheme Roundtable of Responsible Soy (RTRS), not only due to limited uptake, but more specifically, because in biomes where soy is produced, zero-deforestation commitments have so far failed to reduce deforestation. In support of this finding, the Dutch supermarket industry representative (CBL) stated that RTRS “has not appeared to be sufficient to halt [deforestation and conversion] developments and accelerate the transition to a sustainable soy chain”.

“Certification (or verification) schemes may, in some cases, contribute to achieving compliance with the due diligence requirement, however the use of certification does not automatically imply compliance with due diligence obligations. There is abundant literature on certification schemes shortcomings in terms of governance, transparency, clarity of standards, and reliability of monitoring systems”.

2. Certification does not provide the information needed to comply with the EU regulation

Back to top ↑

It does not create transparency of the supply chain or provide information on the geographical origin

As indicated in Article 8 of the Proposal, “because deforestation is linked to land-use change, monitoring requires a precise link between the commodity or product placed on or exported from the EU market and the plot of land where it was grown or raised.” Most certification schemes, however, require only a minimal level of traceability and transparency.

As indicated in the EC’s Study On Certification And Verification Schemes In The Forest Sector, schemes make use of Chain of Custody (CoC) models, but very few apply a traceability system, making it difficult to track the claims of certification, from the forest to the end buyer. One of the most common CoC models used is Mass Balance. This model allows uncertified and untraceable supplies to be physically mixed with certified supplies and end up in EU supply chains. For the most part, certification schemes do not include the systematic ability to verify transactions of volumes, species, and qualities between entities, thus leaving the systems vulnerable to manipulation and fraud.

3. Certification does not provide guarantees for the legality of the product

Back to top ↑

Certification schemes do not have the authority to confirm or enforce compliance with national laws precisely because they are voluntary.

Article 3 in the proposed anti-deforestation regulation states that products
are prohibited on the European market if they are not “produced in accordance with the relevant legislation of the country of production”.

However, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), for example, has explicitly stated its standards are voluntary and “do not extend to enforcing or confirming the legal standing of a company’s use of land (which is a mandate only held by the national authority)”.

4. Certification does not identify or prevent harms. Audit teams lack time and expertise

Back to top ↑

According to the EC “labour, environmental and human rights laws will need to be taken into account when assessing compliance” and identifying harms. However, multiple reports by Friends of the Earth Netherlands, the Environmental Investigation Agency, and ECCHR, reveal that auditing firms responsible for checking compliance are fundamentally failing to identify and mitigate unsustainable practices within certification schemes due to lack of time and lack of expertise. Proper audits on social and human rights issues require extensive consultation to gain full community perspectives on land use, conflicts, or environmental harm. Certification Body (CB) procedures do not allow for this (due to financial resources).

RSPO’s own analysis reads that “the credibility of the RSPO certification scheme has been consistently undermined by documentation of poor practice, and concerns of the extent to which the Assurance System is being implemented”.

Oppressed and stretched NGO groups and communities in the global South spend time and resources on these consultation processes. They face backlash for speaking out during consultations without any guarantee that their input is included in the certification assessment. The EU should not become complicit in exploitation of rightsholders and stakeholders in their monitoring role.

5. Certification bodies and their auditors are not independent from the company they certify

Back to top ↑

The lack of independent audits, considered to be key in ensuring the robustness of certification, was highlighted in the EC Impact Assessment as a key weakness of private certification schemes.

If clients (businesses) hire, supervise, and pay audit firms, they are exposed to a structural risk of conflict of interest, which may lead to a lower level of control.

Previous studies by Friends of the Earth, IUCN, RAN, and Environmental Investigation Agency have shown that, for example in the palm oil industry, when auditors and certification companies are directly hired by an audited company, independence is inhibited and the risk of violations increases.

Also, auditor dependence on company services such as transport and accommodation is problematic. The EC adds to this that these systems are sensitive to fraud given that certified companies may easily mislead their auditors even if the audit is conducted with the greatest care and according to all procedures.

“For example, a company may be selling products containing a volume of “certified” timber material that exceeds the volume of certified raw material that they are buying.”

6. Prevention of environmental and social harm cannot be outsourced, particularly because certification bodies are not liable for harms in the plantations they certify

Back to top ↑

The EU anti-deforestation regulation requires that operators shall exercise due diligence prior to placing relevant commodities on the Union market. Private certification may, in some cases, facilitate compliance with this requirement.

However, as reiterated by German human rights law firm ECCHR the control of compliance is outsourced to private certification bodies, in an unregulated audit and certification market, where CBs are not liable for potential harm.

This leads to inability to distinguish unreliable audits from reliable ones and to competition without rules, setting in motion a ‘race to the bottom’. Certification initiatives have increasingly received complaints for lack of proper due diligence.

For instance, the UK OECD National Contact Point has recently found that Bonsucro breached the Guidelines in relation to due diligence and leverage when reaccepting MPG-T as a member, and the Netherlands NCP handled a complaint about ING’s due diligence policies and practices regarding palm oil.

The OECD guidelines confirm that certification is not a proxy for due diligence, as well as various governments. As echoed by the EC Impact Assessment, “maintaining operators’ responsibility for correctly implementing due diligence obligations when they use certification, aims at ensuring that authorities remain empowered to monitor and sanction incompliant behaviour, as the reliability of those [certification] systems has repeatedly been challenged by evidence on the ground.”

7. Certification cannot guarantee Free, Prior and Informed Consent or prevent land grabbing of indigenous land

Back to top ↑

Indigenous Peoples and local communities have a recognised role in preserving the lands they own and manage, but insecure land tenure is a major driver of deforestation and forest degradation.

Certification bodies commit to investigating whether lands are subject to customary rights of indigenous peoples and whether land transfers have been developed with Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

However, assessing whether land user rights and consultation rights were respected needs to consider the historical context, a multi-actor perspective and deep understanding of local conflicts. Considering the apparent low level of knowledge of auditors on human rights and legal issues, assessing prior land use and conflicts is an impossible task for a team of international auditors with limited time.

In Malaysia communities are often not consulted before the issuance of the logging licences. MTCS certified concessions encroach on indigenous territories while the judiciary recognised indigenous customary land rights are a form of property rights protected by the Federal Constitution.

Additionally, certification schemes failed on numerous occasions to address complaints by communities whose land was taken by palm oil companies, including the case of oil palm giant Sime Darby in Indonesia and Socfin in Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. Certification will not lead to redress or resolution of problems linked to EU operators.

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…

Keep reading

8. Certification provides opportunities for greenwashing and increases vested interests in and corporate power over natural resources.

Back to top ↑

Critics have argued that improving the image of forest and ecosystem risk commodities stimulates demand. Certification risks enabling destructive businesses to continue operating as usual and expand their practices, thereby increasing the harm.

“If certification on its own is unable to guarantee that commodity production
is entirely free of deforestation or human rights abuses, there is little to suggest that using certification as a tool for proving compliance with legal requirements could solve the issues in supply chains and fulfil the legislation’s objectives.

In this context, recognising a particular certification scheme as a proof of compliance removes any incentive to improve the scheme or to replace it with a more reliable alternative, effectively contributing to the institutionalisation of greenwashing.”

For example, a number of recent logging industry scandals suggest that the Forest Stewardship Council label has at times served merely to “greenwash” or “launder” trafficking in illegal timber, compelling NGOs to demand systemic change. The difference between certified and non-certified plantations in South East Asia was not significant.

9. Certification promotes the expansion of industrial agriculture and thereby prevents the transition needed to halt deforestation

Back to top ↑

This prevents the transition towards community-based forest management and agro-ecology, with food sovereignty as a leading principle

There are multiple drivers of deforestation, but the evidence is clear in pointing to industrial agricultural expansion as one of the most important. Ultimately, certification initiatives fail to challenge the ideology underpinning the continuation of industrial commodity crop production, and can instead serve to greenwash
further agro-commodity expansion.

Corporations, along with their certifications, continue to seek legitimacy through a ‘feed the world’ narrative.

The “expansion is the only way”argument has long since been discredited by international institutions such as FAO; we produce enough to feed the projected world populations, much of this coming from small-scale peasant producers using a fraction of the resources. Moreover, as smallholders are directly impacted by deforestation and often depend on large operators and are hereby
forced to expand agricultural land and degrading their direct environment, they are therefore an essential part of the solution.

10. Certification directs resources towards a million-dollar certification industry

Back to top ↑

While community and smallholder forest and agriculture management are extremely underfunded.

As explained by the EC Impact Assessment, private certification can be a costly process and resources spent to certify operations and to support the various schemes’ managerial structures could be used for other ends. Considering that smallholders represent a large share of producers in the relevant sectors, they also represent a crucial part of the solution to deforestation.

The EU should stop financing and promoting improvements in a certification system, benefiting industrial forest and plantation companies, that has been proven to fail.

It would be a more effective use of public and private resources to pay smallholders adequately for their products and adhere to their calls if they seek technical or financial support.

To conclude, building on these arguments, we foresee that if decision makers give in to the lobby from industry and certification’s role is reconsidered or promoted in the current proposal, the EU anti-deforestation regulation will not deliver, as it will not only lose its potential to provide information needed to comply with the regulation but lose its ability to curb deforestation and forest degradation all together.

Back to top ↑

Signatories: 71 environmental and human rights NGOs

International

Global Witness
ClientEarth
Environmental Paper Network
International
GRAIN
Global Forest Coalition
Forest Peoples Programme

Indonesia

Friends of the Earth Indonesia; WALHI
Yayasan Pusaka Bentala Rakyat
Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan
Hukum Indonesia
Pantau Gambut
WALHI Papua
Teraju Foundation
Lingkar Hijau
KRuHA
Lepemawil, Mimika, Papua
PADI Indonesia

Cameroon

Synaparcam
Centre pour l’Environnement
et le Développment Chile
Colectivo Vientosur

Democratic Republic of the Congo

RIAO-RDC
Confédération Paysanne du
Congo-Principal Regroupement Paysan
Gabon
Muyissi Environnement

China

Snow Alliance
Blue Dalian
Green Longjiang
Scholar Tree Alliance
Wuhu Ecology Centre

Malaysia

SAVE Rivers
KERUAN
Sahabat Alam Malaysia

Liberia

Sustainable Development Institute

Nigeria

ERA; Friends of the Earth Nigeria

Mexico

Reentramados para la vida, defendiendo territorio
Otros Mundos Chiapas

Philippines

Unyon ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura- UMA

Sierra Leone

Green Scenery

United States

Friends of the Earth United States
The Oakland Institute
The Borneo Project

Europe

Bruno Manser Fonds
Canopée
Denkhausbremen
Dublin Friends of the Earth
Earthsight
Ecologistas en Acción
Environmental Investigation
Agency (EIA)
Fern
FIAN Belgium
Finnish Association for Nature Conservation
Forum Ökologie & Papier
Friends of Fertő lake Association
Friends of the Earth England,
Wales and Northern Ireland
Friends of the Earth Europe
Friends of the Earth Finland
Greenpeace EU

GYBN Europe
HEKS – Swiss Church Aid
Milieudefensie
NOAH – Friends of the Earth Denmark
Pro REGENWALD
Rainforest Foundation Norway

ReAct Transnational
Rettet den Regenwald
ROBIN WOOD
Salva la Selva
Save Estonias Forests (Päästame Eesti Metsad)
Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group
Water Justice and Gender
Working group Food Justice
ZERO – Associação Sistema
Terrestre Sustentável

Back to top ↑

Here are some other ways you can help by using your wallet as a weapon and joining the #Boycott4Wildlife

What is greenwashing?

Read more

Why join the #Boycott4Wildlife?

Read more

Greenwashing Tactic #4: Fake Labels

Read more

The Counterpunch: Consumer Solutions To Fight Extinction

Read more

Contribute to my Ko-Fi

Did you enjoy visiting this website?

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.

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.

#animalExtinction #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4wildlife #BoycottPalmOil #consumerBoycott #corruption #CSDDD #deforestation #ecocide #ecolabels #ethicalConsumerism #EUDR #extinction #FSC #greenwashing #humanRights #HumanRights #landgrabbing #Malaysia #MSC #PalmOil #palmOilDeforestation #RSPO #RSPOGreenwashing #violence