JBS Scorecard
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
JBS Scorecard FAILED How the biggest meat company on the planet is still slaughtering the Amazon CONTENTS 3 Introduction 4 Table 1: JBS scorecard on the cattle agreement 5 Partners in crime: Brazilian government support fuels deforestation 6 From the Amazon to the market: the meat on our shelves 7 Demands 8 Figures & Tables 11 Endnotes 2 | JBS SCORECARD – FAILED © Greenpeace / Daniel Beltra © Greenpeace INTRODUCTION 1 8 Brazil’s advance as the world’s largest meat exporter to the contrary . This scorecard matches the conditions has taken its toll on the Amazon rainforest. The expansion of the Cattle Agreement with JBS ’s own statements of cattle ranching in the Amazon region is currently the and Greenpeace Brazil field research over the past 18 biggest driver of deforestation in the country and largely months and JBS fails on every count. For instance, the responsible for the place it occupies among the top Cattle Agreement was signed with a six-month timeframe five emitters of greenhouse gases in the world2. Of the in which to stop the purchase of cattle derived from new 766,000 or more square kilometres of Amazonian jungle (i.e. post 2009) areas of deforestation. This was largely that has been lost over the past 40 years3, 62%4 has been based on the successful implementation of a similar converted to pastureland for cattle. agreement with the soya industry9. However, JBS says now its objective is to "guarantee our clients and society In 2009, Greenpeace exposed how the cattle industry at large that we source all our livestock from suppliers was involved in deforestation, invasion of protected and that have not been involved in illegal deforestation"10 indigenous lands, land disputes and slave labour.5 The This statement reduces JBS ’s commitment to such an report also showed how products derived from cattle extent that now it does little more than merely follow raised in the Amazon were making their way into food, Brazilian law, something it should be doing already. This shoes, furniture and cars across the world. means there is no action currently being taken by JBS to eliminate deforestation from its supply chain, despite its Following strong reaction from both international and commitment to do so [see table 1 no. 1]. domestic consumers of Brazilian beef and leather, the four largest beef and leather companies in the country Monitoring is also an area of great concern with JBS . In at the time – JBS /Friboi, Bertin6, Minerva and Marfrig – order to understand what a cattle rancher is doing on their signed a public agreement in October 2009 committing farm and whether they are involved in deforestation, the to minimum criteria for industry practice. These included boundaries and ownership of that farm must be known. It provisions that would cease the purchase of cattle from was a fundamental cornerstone of the Cattle Agreement ranches that had recently deforested or ranches that are that these farm boundaries would be registered so that located in indigenous lands or within protected areas, or farms involved in new deforestation or illegalities would involved with slave labour 7. be removed from the supply chain and such efforts could be monitored, verified and reported [see table 1 clause Nearly three years later, progress in implementing the 5]. Until now, JBS has required just one GPS reference agreement has been unacceptably slow. In particular, JBS from its farmers. But this is insufficient to determine – the world’s largest market player – is failing to prevent whether the supplier is involved in deforestation, since it cattle from deforested land or illegal activities from does not provide boundary information. If deforestation entering its supply chain, in stark contrast to its claims has occurred, it is impossible to know if it is inside or outside the farm in question. Moreover, in researching JBS’s business practices, Greenpeace has found, once again, numerous new cases of JBS purchasing cattle directly and indirectly from farms involved in illegal deforestation, invasion of protected areas and indigenous lands, and also of farms using slave labour. Greenpeace can show that this contaminated beef is still entering the supply chain of major companies in the EU and Brazil. Consumers buying cattle products from JBS cannot be sure that these products have not contributed to deforestation. For this reason, Greenpeace is calling on responsible companies not to buy cattle products from JBS until they have demonstrated compliance with the Cattle Agreement in a transparent and auditable manner. © Greenpeace / Daniel Beltra GREENPEACE | 3 Table 1: TTLE AGREEMENT JBS SCORECARD ON THE CA WHAT JBS SIGNED PASS/FAIL CURRENT STATUS 1. ZERO DEFORESTATION IN JBS has failed to do even the bare minimum to ensure that deforestation does not THE SUPPLY CHAIN: enter its supply chain. no new deforestation for cattle • Illegal deforestation: ranching will be accepted after 11 4 October 2009. Greenpeace has found that JBS purchased animals from 3 farms accused of illegal deforestation by the federal environmental agency, IBAMA, (see figure 1 and table 2) between June and December 2011. This continues the trend of illegal purchases that FAILED was exposed by Greenpeace12 in Mato Grosso between January and May 2011. DIRECT SUPPLY • Absence of effort against all deforestation: To be implemented by 4 April 2010, subsequently extended JBS is only communicating to other companies and the public on the issue of illegal until 4 October 2010 deforestation. In March 2012, JBS told their clients that its objective is to ‘source all 13 our livestock from suppliers that have not been involved in illegal deforestation’ CLAUSE 1.b. JBS is not monitoring its indirect suppliers. Table 3 and figure 2 demonstrate how INDIRECT SUPPLY the web of indirect supply leads back to JBS . Clause 1.b. in the agreement sought to close this precise loophole – where farms are essentially ‘laundering’ their dirty To be implemented by October FAILED supply via a third party which then sells produce on to JBS . 2011 CLAUSE 1.c. Indirect supply was never reassessed or renegotiated REASSESSMENT OF FAILED For direct supply the deadline was extended by an additional six months. One and INDIRECT SUPPLY TIMELINE a half years after the extension deadline, commitments remain unfulfilled. CLAUSE 1.d. RESTITUTION JBS has not made any claim or provided evidence to show compliance with this FAILED commitment. CLAUSE 2. Every time Greenpeace investigates, JBS is caught buying cattle from farms inside REJECTION OF INVASION OF indigenous land. In fact, research from Greenpeace shows that the purchase of INDIGENOUS LANDS AND cattle reared illegally in indigenous lands is ingrained within the JBS supply chain. PROTECTED AREAS Between June and September 2011, JBS purchased hundreds of animals from farms14 FAILED located within the limits of the Marãiwatsede indigenous land (table 4 and figure 3). In early 2011, the JBS unit in Tucuma, Para purchased animals from Pantera farm15 located within the Apyterewa indigenous land16. CLAUSE 3. JBS is indirectly purchasing animals from farms accused of slave labour (figure 4). REJECTION OF Greenpeace has already exposed a case of direct supply to JBS from a farm SLAVERY WORK FAILED involved in slave labour in February last year 17. CLAUSE 4. REJECTION OF JBS has not made any claim or provided evidence to show compliance with this LAND GRABBING AND LAND commitment. CONFLICTS FAILED CLAUSE 5. JBS claims to have conducted third party audits but has not so far made any audit A MONITORABLE, reports available for analysis. Neither is any information that can be monitored, VERIFIABLE AND verified and reported available on their systems, as required by the agreement: REPORTABLE TRACKING SYSTEM a. JBS has not provided the geo-referenced polygons for the boundaries of all of its supply farms. In recent communications18, JBS refers only to the single GPS coordinate from each supplier in its monitoring system. Ensuring farms did not FAILED deforest after 2009 requires all boundary information so that cleared areas can be compared over time. One coordinate gives no certainty that JBS knows what its suppliers are doing with their forested land. b. JBS has not presented evidence that all its suppliers are registered with the relevant state environmental secretaries. When registered, data on farm boundaries and ownership are available online, which enables a transparent monitoring system. CLAUSE 6. IMPLEMENTATION JBS has not worked collaboratively with other companies, and left the group set up OF THE SUPPLY CHAIN FAILED to work on the Cattle Agreement at the end of 2009. Instead, they hired their own COMMITMENTS consultancy company, Apoio, to implement the Cattle Agreement commitments. > The full text of MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR INDUSTRIAL SCALE CATTLE OPERATIONS IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON BIOME can be accessed in: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2009/10/minimum-criteria-for-industria.pdf 4 | JBS SCORECARD – FAILED Modern day slavery Since 2004, the Ministry of Labor and Employment has made information public on all farms that have been found to have workers living in situations akin to slavery. By the end of December 2011, 294 farms were on its website19 and an estimated 7,736 people were released by the government’s Mobile Task Force against Slavery20. Most of these people were working in cattle farms in the Amazon, cutting trees, burning forests and seeding pasture21. These workers were bonded to the farms through debts and forced to live in very poor conditions without proper food, water and sanitation22. The threat of violence and the presence of gunmen prevented them from being able to leave23. N GOVERNMENT PARTNERS IN CRIME: BRAZilia © Greenpeace / Daniel Beltra © Greenpeace SUppORT FUels defOResTATION Brazil remains one of the countries with the highest On top of this, the Brazilian government plays a big role rate of forest loss globally.