Industrial Livestock https://www.iatp.org/ en Tue, 15 Nov 2022 20:48:42 +0000 Emissions Impossible: Methane Edition https://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible-methane-edition <div class="node node--type-document node--view-mode-rss field-primary-category-industrial-livestock has-field-primary-category has-field-teaser-image title-not-empty ds-1col clearfix"> <h3 > How emissions from big meat and dairy are heating up the planet</h3> <div class="field field--name-field-author-text field--type-text-long field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Author (free form)</div> <div class="field--item"><p>The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) and the Changing Markets Foundation </p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-media field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field--items"> <div class="field--item"><div> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <img src="/sites/default/files/styles/feat/public/2022-11/CM.%20-%20Cover%20Image%20ok%20%20-%20Emission%20Impossible%20-%20Social%20Media%20-%20squared%20tile%20-%20Final.jpg?itok=pbrvCF91" width="950" height="590" alt="EI Methane cover" loading="lazy" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><em>The information in this document has been obtained from sources believed reliable and in good faith but any potential interpretation of this report as making an allegation against a specific company or companies named would be misleading and incorrect. The authors accept no liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from the use of this document or its contents. </em></p> <p><em>This report was written and researched by the Changing Markets Foundation and Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy, in collaboration with independent researchers. We would like to thank all our contributors and reviewers.</em></p> <h2>Executive summary</h2> <p>This report for the first time estimates the methane emissions of five of the largest meat corporations and ten of the largest dairy corporations. Their combined methane emissions are roughly 12.8 million tonnes, which equates to over 80% of the European Union’s entire methane footprint. These companies’ emissions represent around 3.4% of all global anthropogenic methane emissions and 11.1% of the world’s livestock-related methane. The report also provides the latest estimates for the overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the same companies, which amount to around 734 million tonnes of CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent – higher than the emissions of Germany. The report calls for urgent and ambitious legislation to address the significant climate impacts of global meat and dairy corporations and for governments to support a just transition for the transformation of industrial animal agriculture towards agroecology.</p> <p>Climate change is wreaking havoc globally through more frequent and extreme weather events (floods, wildfires) and the slow-onset climate processes, such as droughts, desertification and sea level rise. Climate disruption is already affecting farmers everywhere, as our agricultural systems are uniquely dependent on stable climatic conditions. The higher global temperatures rise, the more alarming the disruptions to food production will become.</p> <p>Rapid emissions cuts this decade are critical in preventing catastrophic climate change, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).<sup>1</sup> Methane emissions cuts have been identified in particular as key levers to avert both temperature overshoot and dangerous tipping points. Methane is a short-lived but extremely potent gas: it has around 80 times more warming potential than CO<sub>2</sub> over a 20-year timespan, but only lives in the atmosphere for around a decade.<sup>2</sup></p> <p>According to the United Nations Environment Programme’s Global Methane Assessment, methane emissions should be reduced by at least 40-45% in this critical decade of climate action.<sup>3</sup> Livestock agriculture is the single largest source of methane, responsible for around 32% of anthropogenic methane emissions.<sup>4</sup> In this report we investigate the emissions of some of the biggest meat and dairy companies.</p> <h2>Key findings:</h2> <p>Our estimates show that the combined methane emissions of these 15 companies far exceed the entire methane footprint of many countries, including Russia, Canada, Australia and Germany. Their methane emissions are 52% higher than the livestock-related methane emissions of the EU and 47% higher than those of the US.</p> <ul><li><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Individual</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>companies’</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>methane</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>emissions</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>are</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>also</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>comparable</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>to</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>countries’</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>livestock-related </span></span></span></span><span><span><span>methane emissions. For instance, Marfrig’s methane emissions rival those of Australia’s entire </span></span></span><span><span><span>livestock sector, Tyson’s are comparable to the Russian Federation’s, and Dairy Farmers of America’s</span></span></span><span><span><span> to the livestock methane of the UK.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>JBS’s</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>methane</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>emissions</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>far</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>outpace</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>all</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>other</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>companies.</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>Its</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>methane</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>emissions</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>exceed</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>the </span></span></span></span><span><span><span>combined livestock methane emissions of France, Germany, Canada and New Zealand or compare </span></span></span><span><span><span>to 55% of US livestock methane.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>When calculated over a 20-year timescale, the more relevant scale for climate action, these emissions are even more significant, comprising anywhere from nearly half to three-quarters of these </span></span></span><span><span><span><span>companies’</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>estimated</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>GHG</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>footprint,</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>highlighting</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>urgent</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>need</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>for</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>action</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>on</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>methane.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Their total overall GHG emissions are also significant, slightly higher than the emissions of Germany.</span></span></span><span><span><span> If these 15 companies were treated as a country, they would be the tenth largest GHG-emitting </span></span></span><span><span><span><span>jurisdiction in the world.</span></span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span><span>5</span></span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span><span><span><span>Their combined emissions also</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>exceed those of oil</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>companies such as </span></span></span></span><span><span><span>ExxonMobil, BP and Shell.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>In spite of their massive climate impact, the majority of companies fail to report either total GHGs or methane-specific emissions. Nine out of 15 companies (60%) either do not report their emissions or do not report their total supply chain (scope 3) emissions. None of the companies reported their </span></span></span><span><span><span>supply chain methane emissions.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ul><h2><span><span><span><span><span>Governments</span></span> <span><span>dragging</span></span> <span><span>their</span></span> <span><span>feet</span></span> <span><span>on</span></span> <span><span>livestock</span></span> <span><span>methane</span></span> <span><span>emissions</span></span></span></span></span></h2> <p><span><span><span>At COP26 in Glasgow, more than 110 countries committed to the Global Methane Pledge (‘the Pledge’), with the collective goal of reducing global methane emissions by 30% by 2030. The 15 companies analysed in this report are headquartered in ten countries around the world. All of them, with the exception of China, are signatories to the Pledge. Five of these countries have increased their livestock methane emissions over the last ten years as reported to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: US (over 5%), Brazil (over 6%), China (over 17%), New Zealand (over 3%) and the Netherlands (almost 2%). Five countries (Canada, Germany, Denmark, <span>Switzerland</span> <span>and</span> <span>France)</span> <span>have</span> <span>achieved</span> <span>small</span> <span>reductions</span> <span>of</span> <span>livestock</span> <span>methane,</span> <span>but</span> <span>the</span> <span>pace</span> <span>of</span> <span>reductions</span> <span>is </span>not in line with the Pledge. The only country with a reported decrease of more than 5% over the last decade is France, the biggest livestock methane emitter in the EU. Effective regulation of industrial livestock production is key to achieving required methane cuts and embarking on the transformation of the food system needed to meet global climate goals.</span></span></span></p> <h2><span><span><span><span><span>The</span></span> <span><span>way</span></span> <span><span>forward</span></span></span></span></span></h2> <p><span><span><span>Four years after the release of the first report in the <em><span>Emissions</span></em><em><span> Impossible </span></em>series, publicly available data on corporate emissions remains incomplete, not comparable between companies or years and, in the majority of cases, <span>absent.</span> <span>Basic</span> <span>information</span> <span>for</span> <span>independent</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>calculations</span> <span>like</span> <span>companies’</span> <span>annual</span> <span>production</span> <span>figures </span><span>for</span> <span>meat</span> <span>and</span> <span>milk</span> <span>per</span> <span>region</span> <span>are</span> <span>either</span> <span>not</span> <span>published</span> <span>by</span> <span>companies</span> <span>or</span> <span>inconsistently</span> <span>reported</span> <span>over</span> <span>time.</span> <span>In </span>the absence of strong disclosure rules, voluntary climate targets and reporting are leading to pervasive levels of greenwashing. Mandatory reporting and independent verification are essential to gauge whether corporate net <span>zero and other climate targets are even in the ballpark of limiting warming to 1.5°C. Potential new rules in the US </span>and the EU for disclosure of emissions, climate risk and the prevention of greenwashing climate claims may be opportunities for change.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Time is of the essence in cutting back methane this decade. Yet policymakers have identified solutions that tinker around the edges of this extractive system of animal agriculture. Governments are limiting action to techno fixes without serious consideration of systemic transformations needed in the production, trade and consumption of <span>livestock products. Acting on livestock methane requires a holistic understanding of the drivers of mass industrial </span>animal production and multiple policy interventions to reduce the number of animals used for meat and dairy <span>production.</span> <span>A</span> <span>comprehensive</span> <span>set</span> <span>of</span> <span>regulations</span> <span>is</span> <span>needed</span> <span>to</span> <span>ensure</span> <span>that</span> <span>the</span> <span>burden</span> <span>for</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>reduction </span>rests on corporations that shape and drive the supply chain. Farmers within and outside these corporate supply <span>chains</span> <span>must</span> <span>be</span> <span>supported</span> <span>to</span> <span>play</span> <span>a</span> <span>critical</span> <span>role</span> <span>in</span> <span>a</span> <span>sequenced,</span> <span>deliberate</span> <span>and</span> <span>just</span> <span>transition</span> <span>out</span> <span>of</span> <span>mass</span> <span>industrial </span><span>livestock</span> <span>production</span> <span>towards</span> <span>agroecological</span> <span>systems</span> <span>that</span> <span>are</span> <span>healthy</span> <span>for</span> <span>the</span> <span>planet</span> <span>and</span> <span>people.</span></span></span></span></p> <h3>IATP and Changing Markets’ recommendations for governments:</h3> <ul><li> <p>Set binding GHG and methane reduction targets for the agriculture sector in line with the global goal of limiting temperature increase to 1.5°C.</p> </li> <li> <p>Require companies to consistently and comprehensively report their GHG emissions, including scope 3, and set emission-reduction targets in line with science, including a system of independent third-party verification. Methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions must be reported separately.</p> </li> <li> <p>Enact a phased and bottom-up transition for farms to reduce animal numbers in line with a just transition policy for the transformation of the animal agriculture sector.</p> </li> <li> <p>Regulate all pollutants (besides methane) from mass industrial livestock production to facilitate a transition from this model of animal agriculture towards agroecology.</p> </li> <li> <p>Reform agriculture policy (the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, the US’ Farm Bill, etc.) to support higher environmental and social outcomes and drive an agroecological transformation of the sector, away from mass industrial livestock production towards livestock systems that are healthy for the planet and people. This includes removing subsidies for mass production of feed grains and making farm support dependent on positive environmental and social outcomes.</p> </li> </ul><h3>Recommendations for companies:</h3> <ul><li> <p>Set emissions reduction targets and action plans in line with the global goal of limiting temperature increase to 1.5°C. The focus must be on reducing the company’s absolute emissions, rather than emissions intensity, including scope 3 emissions. Companies should also include transparent reporting, including slaughter numbers and milk intake, to enable independent verification of their climate-related disclosures.</p> </li> <li> <p>Establish separate methane reduction targets and action plans to meet them, including separate reporting of methane emissions. Reporting should also include disclosure of investments in climate mitigation and adaptation measures.</p> </li> <li> <p>Reduce the number of animals in global supply chains and create a bottom-up just transition plan with farmers and workers in your global supply chains.</p> </li> <li> <p>Support progressive climate, environmental and health policies that will drive a shift to healthier and more environmentally sustainable diets.</p> </li> </ul><p><img alt="Infographic 1_Emissions of meat and dairy companies" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b89c8cb6-1d67-4052-9343-998fd7d60ebd" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/Infographic%201_Emissions%20of%20meat%20and%20dairy%20companies.jpg" /></p> <h2><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>1. I</span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>ntroduction:</span></span> <span><span>the</span></span> <span><span>urgency</span></span> <span><span>of </span></span><span>addressing livestock methane</span></span></span></span></span></span></h2> <blockquote><p><span><span><span>“We are at a crossroads. The decisions we make now can secure a liveable future. We have the tools and know-how required to limit warming.”</span></span></span></p> </blockquote> <p><span><span><span>These were the words of Hoesung Lee, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in April 2022.<sup><span><span><span><span>6</span></span></span></span></sup> The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment report on mitigation went further to state that deep greenhouse gas (GHG) <span>emissions reductions, particularly in methane, in the next decade would ‘lower peak warming, reduce the </span><span>likelihood</span> <span>of</span> <span>overshooting</span> <span>warming</span> <span>limits</span> <span>and</span> <span>lead</span> <span>to</span> <span>less</span> <span>reliance</span> <span>on</span> <span>net</span> <span>negative</span> <span>CO<sub>2</sub></span> <span>emissions’</span> <span>post-2050.</span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>7</span></span></span></span></span></sup></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Methane persists in the atmosphere for around a decade, but despite its relatively short lifespan, it is a potent greenhouse gas – around 80 times more powerful than CO<sub>2</sub> over a 20-year timeframe.<span><span><span><span><sup>8</sup></span></span></span></span>Concentrations of methane in the atmosphere are 2.5 times higher than pre-industrial levels (1850s) and methane is responsible for around a quarter of global warming since then.<sup><span><span><span><span>9</span></span></span></span></sup> These unique properties have led climate scientists to call for rapid cuts in methane this decade. This would buy us valuable time to avoid dangerous climate tipping points and to give humanity a chance to stay under a 1.5°C temperature increase while societies act to transition to zero emissions. <span>Animal</span> <span>agriculture</span> <span>contributes</span> <span>32%</span> <span>of</span> <span>the</span> <span>world’s</span> <span>methane</span> <span>emissions,</span> <span>making</span> <span>it</span> <span>the</span> <span>single</span> <span>largest</span> <span>source</span> <span>of </span>human-made methane emissions.<sup><span><span><span><span>10</span></span></span></span></sup></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Although animal agriculture has started to get more attention for its contribution to climate change, the emissions of big meat and dairy companies remain below the radar for urgent climate action. Animal agriculture is <span>responsible</span> <span>for</span> <span>57%</span> <span>of</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>linked</span> <span>to</span> <span>agricultural</span> <span>production,</span> <span>which</span> <span>accounts</span> <span>for</span> <span>an</span> <span>estimated</span> <span>37%</span> <span>of </span><span>all</span> <span>global</span> <span>emissions.</span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>11</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span>Even</span> <span>if</span> <span>the</span> <span>world</span> <span>immediately</span> <span>stopped</span> <span>using</span> <span>all</span> <span>fossil</span> <span>fuels,</span> <span>scientists</span> <span>say</span> <span>that</span> <span>current </span>emissions from the global food system would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to <span>realise</span> <span>the</span> <span>2°C</span> <span>target.</span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>12</span></span></span></span></span></sup></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>This report, for the first time, estimates the methane footprint of some of the biggest meat and dairy corporations and provides comparisons to methane emissions of countries. The report also provides the latest GHG estimates for these companies and compares them with the carbon footprint of oil companies. Meat and dairy corporations are responsible for massive quantities of methane emissions as they process millions of animals around <span>the </span></span></span></span>world. In spite of their enormous climate impact, meat and dairy companies continue to operate in a regulatory <span>vacuum,</span> <span>when</span> <span>it</span> <span>comes</span> <span>to</span> <span>reporting</span> <span>and</span> <span>reducing</span> <span>their</span> <span>GHG</span> <span>emissions.</span></p> <p><span><span><span>To highlight the scale of these companies’ emissions and their lack of climate action, the Institute for Agriculture <span>and</span> <span>Trade</span> <span>Policy</span> <span>(IATP)</span> <span>published</span> <span>its</span> <span>first</span> <em><span><span>Emissions</span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span>Impossible</span></span></em><em> </em><span>report</span> <span>with</span> <span>GRAIN</span> <span>in</span> <span>2018.</span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>13</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span>The</span> <span>first</span> <span>report </span>estimated livestock-related GHG emissions of 35 of the largest global meat and dairy corporations.<sup><span><span><span><span>14</span></span></span></span></sup> The report also concluded that ‘publicly available data on [corporate] emissions [is] incomplete, not comparable between <span>companies</span> <span>or</span> <span>years</span> <span>and,</span> <span>in</span> <span>the</span> <span>majority</span> <span>of</span> <span>cases,</span> <span>simply</span> <span>absent.’</span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>15</span></span></span></span></span></sup></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Since 2018, IATP has published two further reports in its <em><span>Emissions</span></em><em><span> Impossible </span></em>series.<sup><span><span><span><span>A</span></span></span></span></sup> This fourth report in the <span>series, published jointly with the Changing Markets Foundation, analyses the magnitude of the methane and total </span>livestock emissions of ten global dairy and five global meat processing corporations. We selected companies with headquarters in the leading livestock-producing countries as a representative sample of the livestock industry’s <span>efforts</span> <span>to</span> <span>address</span> <span>methane</span> <span>and</span> <span>overall</span> <span>GHG</span> <span>emissions.</span> <span>See</span> <span>Box</span> <span>1</span> <span>for</span> <span>a</span> <span>short</span> <span>description</span> <span>of</span> <span>our</span> <span>methodology.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><img alt="Emissions Impossible page 12" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="12ff06db-533c-4e52-b347-3c9ac88ab594" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/Page%2012%20image.jpg" /></span></span></span></span></p> <p><em><span><span><span><span>Credit: Shutterstock</span></span></span></span></em></p> <hr /><hr /><h2><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Box</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>1.1:</span></span></span></span> <strong><span><span><span><span>Methodology</span></span></span></span></strong><strong> </strong><strong><span><span><span><span>–</span></span></span></span></strong><strong> </strong><strong><span><span><span><span>in</span></span></span></span></strong><strong> </strong><strong><span><span><span><span>brief</span></span></span></span></strong></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></h2> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>In this report, the Changing Markets Foundation and IATP use the same basic methodology for calculating corporate livestock emissions that was first developed by GRAIN and IATP for the 2018 </span></span></span></span><em><span><span><span><span>Emissions Impossible </span></span></span></span></em><span><span><span><span>report.</span></span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>B</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span><span><span><span><span>We</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>used</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>UN</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>Food</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>and</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>Agriculture</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>Organization</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>(FAO)</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>Global</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>Livestock</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>Environmental</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>Assessment</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>Model (GLEAM),</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>a</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>globally</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>recognised</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>model</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>developed</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>in</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>collaboration</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>with</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>livestock</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>industry</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>for</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>our</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>emissions </span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span>calculations.</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>For</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>a</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>detailed</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>description</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>of</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>methodology,</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>see</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>Annex</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>1.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>We included double the number of dairy corporations compared to meat, given the relative difficulty of obtaining consistent, or at times </span></span></span></span><em><span><span><span><span>any</span></span></span></span></em><span><span><span><span>, public data on animal slaughter from the biggest meat corporations. We chose five </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span>meat</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>corporations</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>based</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>on</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>size</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>of</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>their</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>operations</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>and</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>regional</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>representation.</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>Only</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>two</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>of</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>these</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>com</span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>panies published their 2021 slaughter numbers (number of animals that were processed in that year). JBS, the world’s largest meat company, Marfrig, the second largest beef producer and Tyson, the world’s second largest meat company did not publish their slaughter numbers. For these companies, we used their slaughter processing </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span>capacity data, adjusted by utilisation rate (see also Box 3). In contrast, the milk intake data of the top 20 dairy </span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>processing corporations is published by the IFCN Dairy Research Network every two years.</span></span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>16</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span><span><span><span>We chose ten of the companies listed in the IFCN Dairy Research ranking 2020, to represent a geographically diverse sample of dairy </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span>companies.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>We contacted all companies selected for this report at the end of August 2022, asking them to provide information on total volumes and regional breakdown of their milk intake or slaughter data, including any GHG emission estimates for their operations for the years 2020 and 2021. Any relevant information that was provided has been </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>incorporated in our analysis.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>GHG emissions for each company were calculated by combining regional production estimates with regional </span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>average GHG emissions intensity data for meat (cattle, pigs and chickens) and milk production from GLEAM, the </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span>most up-to-date values available from the FAO’s livestock emissions model at the time of writing.</span></span></span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span><span>C</span></span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span><span><span><span><span>The GLEAM </span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>emissions factors are disaggregated by emissions source and by GHG, allowing emissions of CO</span></span></span></span><sub><span><span><span>2</span></span></span></sub><span><span><span><span>, methane and </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span>nitrous oxide to be estimated and expressed in terms of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO</span></span></span></span></span><sub><span><span><span><span>2</span></span></span></span></sub><span><span><span><span><span>e) emissions. </span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>We have made one specific modification to the GLEAM methodology in this report: we have updated methane’s global warming potential (GWP) with the factors provided in the latest IPCC report (AR6) to reflect the most up-</span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span>to-date</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>science</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>on</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>methane’s</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>contribution</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>to</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>global</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>warming</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>(see</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>also</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>Box</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>2).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Our calculations serve as indicators of the scale of these corporations’ livestock-related emissions. Precise esti</span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span>mates</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>of</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>corporate</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>emissions</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>can</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>only</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>be</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>achieved</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>through</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>full</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>disclosure</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>and</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>third-party</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>independent</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>verifi</span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span>cation of company data, including the number of animals in their global operations. The aim of this report is to </span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>highlight the magnitude of their emissions and the urgency for governments to enact mandatory reporting and </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>emissions reductions from the livestock industry.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <hr /><hr /><h2><img alt="The Science of Methane infographic" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="1d09c62b-9903-4c27-942b-ea5e6081e749" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/science%20of%20methane.jpg" /></h2> <h2><span><span><span><span><span><span>2. The staggering scale of livestock <span>methane</span></span> <span><span>emissions</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></h2> <h3><span><span><span><span><span><span>2.1 Why</span></span> <span><span>is</span></span> <span><span>livestock</span></span> <span><span>methane</span></span> <span><span>a</span></span> <span><span>problem?</span></span></span></span></span></span></h3> <p><span><span><span>It is urgent to reduce warming in the short term, yet methane emissions increased by 9% between 2008 to 2017 <span>compared</span> <span>to</span> <span>the</span> <span>previous</span> <span>decade.</span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>17</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span>Under</span> <span>current</span> <span>policy</span> <span>scenarios,</span> <span>anthropogenic</span> <span>methane</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>are</span> <span>ex</span>pected to increase by 30% between 2015 and 2050.<sup><span><span><span><span>18</span></span></span></span></sup> The single largest source of manmade methane is manure management and enteric fermentation in ruminant animals, a process where micro-organisms create methane <span>in</span> <span>the</span> <span>stomachs</span> <span>of</span> <span>animals</span> <span>such</span> <span>as</span> <span>cows,</span> <span>sheep</span> <span>and</span> <span>goats.</span> <span>As</span> <span>Infographic</span> <span>2</span> <span>shows,</span> <span>methane</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>from </span><span>manure</span> <span>and</span> <span>enteric</span> <span>fermentation</span> <span>are</span> <span>even</span> <span>greater</span> <span>than</span> <span>from</span> <span>oil</span> <span>and</span> <span>gas</span> <span>production.</span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>19</span></span></span></span></span></sup></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>To tackle these emissions in a substantive manner, the number of animals in mass industrial systems of pro<span>duction</span> <span>must</span> <span>be</span> <span>dramatically</span> <span>reduced.</span> <span>This</span> <span>is</span> <span>the</span> <span>most</span> <span>effective</span> <span>measure</span> <span>to</span> <span>reduce</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>from</span> <span>animals </span>themselves and emissions from their manure. Though it emits less methane into the atmosphere than enteric fermentation, largescale production and dispersal of manure (associated with industrial pork, dairy and beef <span>production)</span> <span>is</span> <span>highly</span> <span>polluting.</span> <span>It</span> <span>contaminates</span> <span>soil,</span> <span>water</span> <span>and</span> <span>air</span> <span>with</span> <span>nitrates</span> <span>and</span> <span>ammonia.</span> <span>Manure</span> <span>also emits</span> <span>nitrous</span> <span>oxide,</span> <span>which</span> <span>is</span> <span>a</span> <span>greenhouse</span> <span>gas</span> <span>273</span> <span>times</span> <span>more</span> <span>potent</span> <span>than</span> <span>CO<sub>2</sub></span> <span>over</span> <span>both</span> <span>a</span> <span>20-</span> <span>and</span> <span>100-year </span>time horizon (see Table 5 in Annex 1).<sup><span><span><span><span>20</span></span></span></span></sup></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><img alt="Factory Farm" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="750b6bfb-7899-4adb-a750-8f5db70a0593" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/page%2014.jpg" /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><em><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Credits: Jo-Anne McArthur/We Animals Media</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></em></p> <h3><img alt="Figure 2_Total Methane Emissions of Key Countries " data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="c35fe689-0e37-4358-97ca-22d64e5495c9" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/Figure%202_Total%20Methane%20Emissions%20of%20Key%20Countries.PNG" /></h3> <p><em><strong>Sources</strong>: Meat and dairy companies: calculated by Changing Markets and IATP (2020–1); Regions: UNFCC greenhouse gas inventory (2020) <a href="https://di.unfccc.int">https://di.unfccc.int</a></em></p> <p><img alt="Figure 3_Methane emissions from enteric fermentation and manure management" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="ff1b5ec0-faed-4915-ad3b-fa1505b67161" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/Figure%203_Methane%20emissions%20from%20enteric%20fermentation%20and%20manure%20management.PNG" /></p> <p><em><strong>Sources</strong>: Meat and dairy companies: calculated by Changing Markets and IATP (2020–1); Regions: UNFCC greenhouse gas inventory (2020) <a href="https://di.unfccc.int">https://di.unfccc.int</a></em></p> <h3>2.2 <span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Methane</span></span> <span><span>giants:</span></span> <span><span>How</span></span> <span><span>big</span></span> <span><span>meat</span></span> <span><span>and</span></span> <span><span>dairy</span></span> <span><span>companies’</span></span> <span><span>methane </span></span><span>emissions compare with countries</span></span></span></span></span></span></h3> <p><span><span><span>Our estimates show that the combined methane emissions<sup><span><span><span><span>D</span></span></span></span></sup> of these 15 companies far exceed the entire methane footprint of many countries, including Russia, Canada, Australia or Germany (see Figure 2). The methane footprint of a country includes methane from three major methane-emitting sectors: fossil fuels, waste and agriculture. Total methane emissions from the 15 companies are equal, for instance, to 83% of the total methane emissions of the European Union.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>We also compared these companies’ methane emissions with livestock-specific methane emissions from the EU and other countries. The US and the EU are some of the highest livestock methane emitters in the world. Figure 3 shows that the emissions of the 15 companies combined are 52% greater than the EU’s livestock-related methane emissions and 47% greater than those of the US. Without regulating the scale of these companies’ methane emissions, countries cannot realistically reduce their agricultural methane emissions in a meaningful manner.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>It is also true that some of the EU and US livestock methane emissions come from these companies. However, these companies are multinationals with global operations, so their emissions also occur in other regions around the world. We compare company emissions to country emissions to illustrate the significant scale of these emis<span>sions</span> <span>as</span> <span>they</span> <span>relate</span> <span>to</span> <span>livestock-producing</span> <span>countries.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Methane</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>of</span> <span>individual</span> <span>companies</span> <span>are</span> <span>also</span> <span>comparable</span> <span>to</span> <span>livestock</span> <span>methane</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>from</span> <span>entire </span><span>countries. Figure 4 shows that the methane emissions of JBS – the world’s largest meat processor – are the largest </span>of any company, and larger than those of many countries. In fact, JBS’s methane footprint exceeds the combined livestock emissions of France, Germany, Canada and New Zealand. They amount to 55% of livestock emissions in the US. Marfrig’s emissions are in the same range as the livestock emissions of Australia, while Tyson’s emissions are roughly comparable to the Russian Federation. The largest-emitting dairy company, the Dairy Farmers of America, produces emissions comparable to the UK’s livestock emissions. Even the German company DMK, <span>which</span> <span>was</span> <span>the</span> <span>smallest</span> <span>dairy</span> <span>producer</span> <span>analysed,</span> <span>has</span> <span>methane</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>similar</span> <span>to</span> <span>those</span> <span>of</span> <span>Austria.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><img alt="Figure 4_Methane emissions of individual companies" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="0ddaa0d0-2227-4b35-8333-03a97055c93e" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/Figure%204_Methane%20emissions%20of%20individual%20companies.PNG" /></p> <p><em><span><span><span><span><strong>Sources</strong>: Meat and dairy companies: calculated by Changing Markets and IATP (2020–1); Regions: UNFCC greenhouse gas inventory (2020) <a href="https://di.unfccc.int">https://di.unfccc.int</a></span></span></span></span></em></p> <h3><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>2.3 An</span></span> <span><span>urgent</span></span> <span><span>issue:</span></span> <span><span>The</span></span> <span><span>need</span></span> <span><span>to</span></span> <span><span>measure</span></span> <span><span>methane’s</span></span> <span><span>short-term </span></span><span>climate impact</span></span></span></span></span></span></h3> <p><span><span><span>In its latest reports, the IPCC urged governments to rapidly cut GHG emissions, in particular methane, over this decade. The key reason is that the current trajectory of warming brings us ‘perilously close to tipping points that could lead to cascading and irreversible climate impacts’.<sup><span><span><span><span>21</span></span></span></span></sup> To reduce this risk, science tells us we must focus on actions that reduce the rate of warming within 10 years. Within this timeframe, methane is 90-115 times more <span>powerful than CO<sub>2</sub>,</span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>22</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span>so methane</span> <span>reductions are our best tool to</span> <span>reduce the rate of warming</span> <span>and avoid tipping </span>points. Given this context, the GWP20 emissions factor (warming impact over a 20-year time horizon) is a more <span>relevant</span> <span>metric</span> <span>to</span> <span>compare</span> <span>the</span> <span>effectiveness</span> <span>of</span> <span>actions</span> <span>within</span> <span>this</span> <span>timeframe.</span> <span>For</span> <span>this</span> <span>reason,</span> <span>we</span> <span>use</span> <span>GWP20 </span>alongside the more established GWP<span><span><span><span>100 </span></span></span></span>to estimate methane emissions of meat and dairy companies (see Box 2).</span></span></span></p> <hr /><hr /><h2>Box 2.1: <strong>Global</strong><strong> </strong><strong>warming</strong><strong> </strong><strong>potential(s)</strong><strong> </strong><strong>of</strong><strong> </strong><strong>methane</strong><strong> </strong><strong>emissions</strong></h2> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>Since every greenhouse gas traps heat in the atmosphere to a different degree, the concept of global warming potential (GWP) was developed to measure how much heat a given greenhouse gas traps in the atmosphere over a period of time compared to CO</span></span></span><sub><span><span><span><span>2</span></span></span></span></sub><span><span><span>. In essence, GWP measures how potent a </span></span></span><span><span><span><span>gas</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>is</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>in</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>its</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>contribution</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>to</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>global</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>temperature</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>increase</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>within</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>a</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>given</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>timeframe.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>CO</span></span><sub><span><span><span>2</span></span></span></sub><span><span>is defined as having a GWP of 1. Because some gases are more persistent in the atmosphere than others, the relative contributions of different gases </span></span><span><span><span>to warming changes over time. GWP metrics can compare the warming potential of gases over any time horizon; however, the 100-year time span – GWP</span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span><span>100</span></span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span>– has been formally adopted as the metric for global warming potential in international climate policy. Most companies and countries therefore </span></span></span><span><span>report their emissions using the GWP</span></span><span><span><span><span><span>100 </span></span></span></span></span><span><span>reference.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>While CO</span></span><sub><span><span><span>2</span></span></span></sub><span><span>stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years, methane only stays in the atmosphere for around a decade. However, methane is a much more </span></span><span><span><span>potent greenhouse gas. Making decisions based only on the 100-year GWP of methane therefore understates the real dangers of short-term warming </span></span></span><span><span><span>impacts.</span></span></span> <span><span><span>Rising</span></span></span> <span><span><span>emissions</span></span></span> <span><span><span>in</span></span></span> <span><span><span>the</span></span></span> <span><span><span>next</span></span></span> <span><span><span>ten</span></span></span> <span><span><span>years</span></span></span> <span><span><span>could</span></span></span> <span><span><span>unleash</span></span></span> <span><span><span>tipping</span></span></span> <span><span><span>points</span></span></span> <span><span><span>(large</span></span></span> <span><span><span>and</span></span></span> <span><span><span>possibly</span></span></span> <span><span><span>irreversible</span></span></span> <span><span><span>changes</span></span></span> <span><span><span>in</span></span></span> <span><span><span>response</span></span></span> <span><span><span>to</span></span></span> <span><span><span>environmental</span></span></span> <span><span><span>or anthropogenic</span></span></span> <span><span><span>disturbances</span></span></span> <span><span><span>once</span></span></span> <span><span><span>a</span></span></span> <span><span><span>certain</span></span></span> <span><span><span>critical</span></span></span> <span><span><span>threshold</span></span></span> <span><span><span>is</span></span></span> <span><span><span>reached),</span></span></span> <span><span><span>including</span></span></span> <span><span><span>the</span></span></span> <span><span><span>destabilisation</span></span></span> <span><span><span>of</span></span></span> <span><span><span>Arctic</span></span></span> <span><span><span>and</span></span></span> <span><span><span>West</span></span></span> <span><span><span>Antarctic</span></span></span> <span><span><span>icesheets.</span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span><span>23</span></span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span><span><span>Several </span></span></span><span><span>IPCC reports clearly state that we have until 2030 to prevent temperature overshoot.</span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>24</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span><span>Given the urgency of the problem, we consider the 20-year time accounting frame as more relevant.</span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>25</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span><span>For this reason, in addition to calculating emissions using GWP</span></span><span><span><span><span><span>100,</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span>we have also calculated methane emissions using </span></span><span><span><span>GWP</span></span></span><span><span><span><span>20</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span>to</span></span></span> <span><span><span>reflect</span></span></span> <span><span><span>the</span></span></span> <span><span><span>climate</span></span></span> <span><span><span>emergency</span></span></span> <span><span><span>and</span></span></span> <span><span><span>highlight</span></span></span> <span><span><span>the</span></span></span> <span><span><span>short-term</span></span></span> <span><span><span>benefit</span></span></span> <span><span><span>of</span></span></span> <span><span><span>methane</span></span></span> <span><span><span>reductions</span></span></span> <span><span><span>on</span></span></span> <span><span><span>slowing</span></span></span> <span><span><span>warming</span></span></span> <span><span><span>rates.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>We have used GWP</span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span>20</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>and GWP</span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>100</span></span></span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>for non-fossil methane (see Table 1). These are the most up-to-date values according to the latest IPCC AR6 report. </span></span></span></span><span><span><span>The small difference between fossil and non-fossil methane factors accounts for the fact that the CO</span></span></span><sub><span><span><span><span>2</span></span></span></span></sub><span><span><span>for non-fossil sources was already present in the </span></span></span><span><span><span><span>atmosphere</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>and</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>therefore</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>is</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>not</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>additional,</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>as</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>it</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>would</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>be</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>with</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>methane</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>emitted</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>from</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>fossil</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>sources</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>(oil,</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>gas</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>and</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>coal).</span></span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>26</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></sup></span></span></span></p> <table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width: 500px;"><caption><strong>Table 1: IPCC AR6 Factors for Methane Emissions</strong></caption> <tbody><tr><td> </td> <td><strong>GWP 20</strong></td> <td><strong>GWP 100</strong></td> </tr><tr><td>Non-fossil methane</td> <td>79.7</td> <td>27.0</td> </tr><tr><td>Fossil methane</td> <td>82.5</td> <td>29.8</td> </tr></tbody></table><hr /><hr /><p><span><span><span>As illustrated in Figure 5, the emissions of meat and dairy companies become even more significant when meth<span>ane is calculated for a 20-year</span> <span>time horizon to reflect the</span> <span>climate emergency. On a 20-year</span> <span>basis, one tonne of </span><span>methane</span> <span>is</span> <span>equivalent</span> <span>to</span> <span>nearly</span> <span>three</span> <span>times</span> <span>more</span> <span>carbon</span> <span>dioxide</span> <span>than</span> <span>it</span> <span>is</span> <span>on</span> <span>a</span> <span>100-year</span> <span>basis.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Applying the GWP20 metric almost doubles the companies’ emissions, when translated into CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent (see <span>Figure 5). For example, JBS’s total CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent emissions rise from 287.9 million tonnes using GWP</span><span><span><span><span>100</span></span></span></span> <span>to</span> <span>540.6 </span><span>million</span> <span>tonnes</span> <span>using</span> <span>GWP20.</span> <span>The</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>of</span> <span>Marfrig,</span> <span>the</span> <span>second</span> <span>biggest</span> <span>emitter,</span> <span>nearly</span> <span>double</span> <span>from</span> <span>102.6 </span>million tonnes to 201.8 million tonnes. For the biggest dairy producer, Dairy Farmers of America, emissions go <span>from</span> <span>roughly</span> <span>45.6</span> <span>million</span> <span>tonnes</span> <span>to</span> <span>97.8</span> <span>million</span> <span>tonnes</span> <span>of</span> <span>CO<sub>2</sub></span> <span>equivalent.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Methane represents a significant share of meat and dairy companies’ total estimated emissions linked to livestock production. Even over a 100 year time horizon, methane is a significant part of these companies overall greenhouse gas footprint. The combined methane emissions of the 15 companies constituted nearly half (47%) of these companies’ total emissions over a 100-year time horizon (GWP<span><span><span>100</span></span></span>). As illustrated in Figure 6, methane represents more than 40% of beef and dairy companies’ overall emissions over a 100-year time horizon, while for two companies that specialise in pork production (WH Group and Danish Crown) methane represents over 25% of emissions.</span></span></span></p> <p><img alt="Figure 5_Difference in GHG emissions by major meat and dairy companies" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="8da04a83-6c6f-4d93-bb1b-dabcb03593e1" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/Figure%205_Difference%20in%20GHG%20emissions%20by%20major%20meat%20and%20dairy%20companies.PNG" /></p> <p><img alt="Figure 6_Percentage of methane contributing to overall emissions " data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="41cc783e-676e-46f9-824c-edd818c7e737" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/Figure%206_Percentage%20of%20methane%20contributing%20to%20overall%20emissions.PNG" /></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>The</span> <span>share</span> <span>of</span> <span>methane</span> <span>in</span> <span>these</span> <span>companies’</span> <span>total</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>becomes</span> <span>significantly</span> <span>higher</span> <span>when</span> <span>calculating</span> <span>the </span>warming potential using a 20-year time horizon (GWP20), rising to 72% on average. For Canada’s Saputo and the <span>US-based</span> <span>Dairy</span> <span>Farmers</span> <span>of</span> <span>America,</span> <span>methane</span> <span>constituted</span> <span>over</span> <span>80%</span> <span>of</span> <span>total</span> <span>emissions,</span> <span>while</span> <span>pork</span> <span>producer </span>Danish Crown’s methane emissions accounted for slightly over half its total emissions under a GWP20 <span>estimate.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>This highlights the need for companies to demonstrate how they will transition to a low methane pathway. It <span>also underscores the need</span> <span>for</span> <span>these</span> <span>companies</span> <span>to</span> <span>separately</span> <span>report</span> <span>on</span> <span>all</span> <span>non-CO<sub>2</sub> emissions</span> <span>stemming</span> <span>from </span><span>their</span> <span>supply</span> <span>chain,</span> <span>such</span> <span>as</span> <span>methane,</span> <span>nitrous</span> <span>oxide</span> <span>and</span> <span>ammonia.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <h3>2.4 <span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Carbon</span></span> <span><span>majors:</span></span> <span><span>Total</span></span> <span><span>GHG</span></span> <span><span>emissions</span></span> <span><span>of</span></span> <span><span>major</span></span> <span><span>meat</span></span> <span><span>and</span></span> <span><span>dairy </span></span><span>companies rival countries and oil companies</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></h3> <p><span><span><span><span>The 15 dairy and meat companies examined in this report produce a staggering quantity of emissions, <span>amount</span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span>ing to approximately 734 million tonnes of CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent<sup><span><span><span><span>E</span></span></span></span></sup> (Figure 7). This is roughly the same as the total GHG emissions (excluding land-use emissions) of Germany, the world’s fourth largest economy. Their emissions are <span>more than those of Australia, Canada, the UK or France.</span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>27</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span>In fact, if these 15 companies were treated as a country, </span>they would be the tenth largest GHG emitting jurisdiction in the world.<sup><span><span><span><span>28</span></span></span></span></sup> If we calculated their emissions using <span>GWP20</span> <span>factors,</span> <span>their</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>would</span> <span>go</span> <span>up</span> <span>to</span> <span>1,408</span> <span>million</span> <span>tonnes</span> <span>of</span> <span>CO<sub>2</sub></span> <span>equivalent.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>One</span> <span>meat</span> <span>company</span> <span>alone,</span> <span>JBS,</span> <span>is</span> <span>responsible</span> <span>for</span> <span>nearly</span> <span>40%</span> <span>of</span> <span>the</span> <span>estimated</span> <span>livestock</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>by</span> <span>these </span>corporations. Its 287.9 million tonnes of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions equivalent exceed the emissions of Spain (see Box 3).<sup><span><span><span><span>29</span></span></span></span></sup></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><sup><span><span><span><span><img alt="Page 22_Credit_Shutterstock" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="f28077e4-7a90-4418-8273-8d2fbd854ca4" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/Page%2022_Credit_Shutterstock.jpg" /></span></span></span></span></sup></span></span></span></p> <p><em>Credit: Shutterstock</em></p> <hr /><hr /><h2><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Box</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>2.2:</span></span></span></span> <span><span>JBS,</span></span> <span><span>Marfrig</span></span> <span><span>and</span></span> <span><span>lack</span></span> <span><span>of</span></span> <span><span>transparency</span></span> <span><span>in</span></span> <span><span>the</span></span> <span><span>livestock</span></span> <span><span>industry</span></span></span></span></span></h2> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>JBS</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>is</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>world’s</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>largest</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>meat</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>producer,</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>earning</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>a</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>revenue</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>of</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>65.3</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>billion </span></span></span></span><span><span><span>EUR in 2021 (see Infographics 1). It ranked third out of the top 100 food and </span></span></span><span><span><span><span>beverage</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>companies</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>by</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>sales</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>in</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>2021.</span></span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>30</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span><span><span><span>Marfrig</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>is</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>world’s</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>second</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>larg</span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>est</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>beef</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>producer</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>and</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>fifth</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>biggest</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>meat</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>company</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>by</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>sales</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>volume.</span></span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>31</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span><span><span><span>Both</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>are</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>headquartered</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>in</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>Brazil</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>with</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>global</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>operations.</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>JBS</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>has</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>declared a</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>net-zero</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>climate</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>target</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>by</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>2040,</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>ten</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>years</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>earlier</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>than</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>many</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>of</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>its</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>counterparts.</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>Like</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>JBS,</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>Marfrig</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>has</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>also</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>‘committed’</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>to</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>a</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>net-zero</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>target,</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>work</span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>ing</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>with</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>Science-Based</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>Targets</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>initiative.</span></span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>32</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span><span><span><span>Neither</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>has</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>published</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>the </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>actual number of animals it slaughtered in 2021. This makes it difficult to </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>independently</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>verify</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>claims</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>they</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>make</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>on</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>their</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>emissions</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>given</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>that </span></span></span></span><span><span><span>the number of animals they slaughter accounts for more than 90% of these </span></span></span><span><span><span>companies’ supply chain emissions.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>We estimate JBS’s 2021 GHG emissions as 287.9 million tonnes CO</span></span></span><sub><span><span>2</span></span></sub><span><span><span>equiv</span></span></span><span><span><span>alent,</span></span></span> <span><span><span>and</span></span></span> <span><span><span>Marfrig’s</span></span></span> <span><span><span>as</span></span></span> <span><span><span>102.6</span></span></span> <span><span><span>million</span></span></span> <span><span><span>tonnes</span></span></span> <span><span><span>CO<sub>2</sub></span></span></span> <span><span><span>equivalent</span></span></span> <span><span><span>(GWP</span></span></span> <span><span><span>basis).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span> See Annex 1 on our detailed methodology. Their emissions could be substantially higher – if both companies utilised 100% of their declared slaughter capacity 365 days a year, JBS’s livestock emissions could be as high as 383.3 million tonnes CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent and Marfrig’s 136.3 million tonnes CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent – or lower if their slaughter capacity utilisation is less than estimated. Narrowing this range would require the companies to be transparent about their operations. This includes revealing their complete slaughter figures from all the regions in which they operate. At a minimum, these companies should reveal the annual rate at which they use their slaughter capacity for all their meat products in all regions.</p> <p>IATP and Changing Markets’ updated estimate for JBS’s absolute emissions is lower than the 421.6 million tonnes CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent emissions that IATP, DeSmog and Feedback estimated in an April 2022 study.<sup>33</sup> The discrepancy is due to three main factors:</p> <ul><li>New science: We updated the estimates in this report based on new values that express the global warming potential of greenhouse gases compared to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions factors, published in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6).<sup>34</sup> Using AR6 has had a significant impact on the overall emissions estimates because methane – produced in huge quantities by the livestock industry – is expressed in CO<sub>2</sub> equivalents. For example, the current estimate of 287.9 million tonnes CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent becomes 327.8 million tonnes CO<sub>2 </sub>equivalent if we use methane emissions factors from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), which were used in the April 2022 study.</li> <li>New information on slaughter numbers: The April 2022 estimate was based on “per day” figures published in JBS’s Institutional Presentation to investors.<sup>35</sup> Since publishing this estimate, new JBS documentation<sup>36</sup> has led us to conclude that this figure is not the number of animals that JBS slaughters but the number of animals its factories have the capacity to slaughter (its total processing capacity). In light of this new information, we have updated our estimates. We have done so by estimating the rate at which JBS uses its slaughter capacity based on publicly available information. For details, see our methodology in Annex 1.</li> <li>More conservative estimate of number of days which slaughterhouses are operational: Given the need to establish the rate at which JBS uses its slaughter capacity, we revisited how many days JBS plants might be in operation worldwide. No definitive information is available on the number of days JBS facilities are open per year, and conversations with trade unions and industry experts suggest a large amount of variation between countries and factories (with factories operational between five and seven days a week and holiday closures between six and eleven days a year). The April 2022 estimate assumes JBS facilities operate seven days a week with closures for eleven days of public holidays. Based on the additional research conducted for this study we have based the current estimate on a more conservative assumption that the company’s facilities operate six days a week with eleven holiday days per year. While the new estimate of JBS’s total emissions is lower than that published in April it does not change the fact that JBS is still the biggest polluter in the livestock sector – responsible for around 40% of the total emissions produced by the 15 companies assessed in this report – and that its emissions continue to increase at an alarming rate.<sup>F</sup></li> </ul><h4>Avoiding public scrutiny</h4> <p>Due to the endemic lack of transparency and a profound accountability vacuum in which these companies operate, independent estimates of livestock company emissions can only be understood as best-estimate benchmarks using available information. This is a critical reason why governments must require consistent and comprehensive emissions reporting and independent verification of these emissions. While reasonable assumptions on operational days and capacity utilisation can be adopted based on limited public information on livestock industry norms, only the companies themselves know how many animals they actually slaughter and how much meat they actually produce annually. Without a fundamental change in the disclosure requirements for these companies, public scrutiny of their livestock emissions will always be dependent on a combination of background research, new information and informed guesswork.</p> <p>It is equally difficult to interpret these and other livestock companies’ climate claims and verify their reported emissions. For instance, JBS’s reported emissions change dramatically from its 2020 annual report to its 2021 report. In the 2020 report, JBS reported 588,523 tonnes CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent for its scope 3 emissions.<sup>37</sup> In the 2021 report, its 2020 emissions are reported as 61,121,337 tonnes CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent<sup>38</sup>– a significant increase, but considerably lower than our revised estimate of JBS’s emissions. JBS states in its 2021 report that “data [was] altered in relation to previous years,”<sup>39</sup> due to its expansion of scope 3 emissions monitoring. JBS clarifies that it does not yet include scope 3 emissions from livestock in its reporting, except for its European operations, but that this is ‘in progress’.<sup>40</sup> While JBS has expanded the number of emission sources considered in its scope 3 reporting, it is difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from its scope 3 reporting based on partial and inconsistent data and without full disclosure of emissions and animal processing data.</p> <p>For this reason, we are calling for governments to require companies such as JBS to disclose animal slaughter data, their full scope of emissions and independent verification of all their climate reporting.</p> <hr /><hr /><p><img alt="FIGURE 7: ESTIMATED LIVESTOCK EMISSIONS BY MAJOR COMPANIES AND TOTAL EMISSIONS BY SELECTED ANNEX I COUNTRIES (T CO2e)" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="9398ab31-5665-4952-a0de-331cab9520ab" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/FIGURE%207_ESTIMATED%20LIVESTOCK%20EMISSIONS%20BY%20MAJOR%20COMPANIES%20AND%20TOTAL%20EMISSIONS%20BY%20SELECTED%20ANNEX%20I%20COUNTRIES.PNG" /></p> <p><em><strong>Sources: </strong>Meat and dairy companies: calculated by CMF and IATP; Countries: UNFCC greenhouse gas inventory, 2020 (excluding LULUCF): <a href="https://di.unfccc.int/time_series">https://di.unfccc.int/time_series</a></em></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>While</span> <span>big</span> <span>oil</span> <span>and</span> <span>gas</span> <span>companies</span> <span>have</span> <span>been</span> <span>under</span> <span>sustained</span> <span>public</span> <span>pressure</span> <span>to</span> <span>reduce</span> <span>their</span> <span>emissions,</span> <span>meat </span>and dairy companies have not received the same level of scrutiny despite their comparable emissions. The <span>total </span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span>livestock emissions estimates of the 15 meat and dairy companies combined exceed the emissions of major fossil fuel companies such as ExxonMobil, BP and Shell (see Figure 8).<sup><span><span><span><span>41</span></span></span></span></sup> A number of fossil fuel companies are being <span>taken</span> <span>to</span> <span>court</span> <span>over</span> <span>failures</span> <span>to</span> <span>implement</span> <span>emission</span> <span>reduction</span> <span>strategies</span> <span>in</span> <span>line</span> <span>with</span> <span>the</span> <span>Paris</span> <span>Agreement</span><span><span><span><span><span><sup>42</sup>,<sup>43</sup></span></span></span></span></span> and for misleading consumers about the role their products play in causing climate change.<sup><span><span><span><span>44</span></span></span></span></sup> When it comes to meat and dairy companies, however, we are aware of only one court case (Vegetarian Society et al. of Denmark <span>vs.</span> <span>Danish</span> <span>Crown).</span> <span>It</span> <span>challenges</span> <span>the</span> <span>misleading</span> <span>marketing</span> <span>of</span> <span>pork</span> <span>products</span> <span>by</span> <span>meat</span> <span>giant</span> <span>Danish</span> <span>Crown</span> <span>as </span>‘climate controlled’.<sup><span><span><span><span>45</span></span></span></span></sup></span></span></span></p> <h3><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>2.5 Uncounted</span></span> <span><span>and</span></span> <span><span>unaccountable:</span></span> <span><span>Companies</span></span> <span><span>fail</span></span> <span><span>to</span></span> <span><span>report</span></span> <span><span>their </span></span><span>overall GHG and methane emissions</span></span></span></span></span></span></h3> <p><span><span><span>Like previous IATP and Changing Markets reports, this report finds a lack of corporate reporting both on total GHG emissions and, in particular, separate reporting of methane emissions. Nine out of 15 companies (60%) either do not report their emissions or do not report their total supply chain (scope 3) emissions. For companies in this <span>sector,</span> <span>scope</span> <span>3</span> <span>could</span> <span>represent</span> <span>upwards</span> <span>of</span> <span>90%</span> <span>of</span> <span>their</span> <span>total</span> <span>emissions.</span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>46</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span>The</span> <span>majority</span> <span>of</span> <span>methane</span> <span>emissions </span>also occur in scope 3. Three companies do not report their GHG emissions at all, while four only reported scope <span>1</span> <span>and</span> <span>2</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>(see</span> <span>Table</span> <span>2).</span> <span>Most</span> <span>of</span> <span>those</span> <span>that</span> <span>reported</span> <span>scope</span> <span>1,</span> <span>2</span> <span>and</span> <span>3</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>are</span> <span>dairy</span> <span>companies.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Given the poor state of affairs in GHG reporting by livestock and dairy corporations, it should come as no surprise that corporations rarely if ever report their methane emissions. We found no evidence of methane reporting in companies’ most recent annual and sustainability reports. In corporate disclosures on the Carbon Disclosure Platform (CDP), seven companies (see Table 2) reported methane emissions, but only from their direct operations (scope 1). This means that they are leaving out significant emissions from farms and animals in their supply chains, <span>resulting</span> <span>in</span> <span>vast</span> <span>underestimates</span> <span>of</span> <span>their</span> <span>actual</span> <span>methane</span> <span>footprint.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><img alt="FIGURE 8: ESTIMATED LIVESTOCK EMISSIONS BY MAJOR MEAT AND DAIRY COMPANIES AND FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES (T CO2e)(2020–1)" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="ce0c57ac-d601-4f93-ae21-da9f8085f1e9" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/FIGURE%208_ESTIMATED%20LIVESTOCK%20EMISSIONS%20BY%20MAJOR%20MEAT%20AND%20DAIRY%20COMPANIES%20AND%20FOSSIL%20FUEL%20COMPANIES_0.PNG" /></span></span></span></span></p> <p><em><strong>Sources</strong>: Meat and dairy companies: calculated by Changing Markets and IATP; Fossil fuel companies: Rick<br /> Heede, Climate Accountability Institute, personal communication, 15 July 2022.</em></p> <hr /><hr /><p><strong>Table 2: Company reporting of overall GHG and methane emissions</strong></p> <p><img alt="Company reporting of overall GHG and methane emissions" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="24c972d9-6a5e-4293-8be2-37f643d75eb5" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/TABLE%202_COMPANY%20REPORTING%20OF%20OVERALL%20GHG%20AND%20METHANE%20EMISSIONS.PNG" /></p> <p><strong>SCOPE 1-3 Emissions Explained </strong></p> <p><strong>Scope 1: </strong>Direct emissions from company-owned and controlled resources such as offices, processing plants and machinery. This could include use of natural gas or coal combustion and energy used in company transport; some companies may include emissions generated by animals’ digestive systems (enteric fermentation) at company-owned farms.</p> <p><strong>Scope 2:</strong> Indirect emissions generated from purchased electricity, heating and cooling consumed by the company.</p> <p><strong>Scope 3: </strong>Upstream and downstream supply chain emissions consisting of on-farm emissions from livestock, manure, farm machinery fuel, livestock feed production, production of inputs needed to produce that feed (e.g., nitrogen fertiliser), land-use changes triggered by the expansion of livestock grazing and feed production, and other sources.</p> <hr /><hr /><p>If meat and dairy companies declare climate targets and ambitious net-zero plans, then the public must be able to verify these claims independently. The current state of the industry, let alone individual companies, is opaque and the best efforts to benchmark their emissions are met with resistance. This must change through enacting government regulations, not only on reporting requirements of emissions and animals in their supply chains, but also regulations on the minimum disclosure requirements companies must meet to make claims on emissions reductions and progress towards net-zero goals. This is underway in the US with proposed new rules by the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) that would require companies to disclose scope 1 and 2 emissions by gas, including absolute emissions and offsets, and scope 3 if viewed as material. For any agriculture company, we believe scope 3 reporting should be required. The SEC is expected to finalise the proposed rules next year. The EU is working on a new directive on corporate sustainability due diligence and a proposal to regulate what companies can and cannot state to their consumers regarding carbon neutrality and green claims.<sup>60</sup> This is a step in the right direction and must result in clear and enforceable rules to prevent corporate greenwashing globally. When it comes to methane, the EU also highlighted better reporting across all sectors as a priority measure in its methane strategy, published in 2020.<sup>61</sup></p> <p><span><span><span>Investors are also increasingly demanding this information. The Changing Markets Foundation’s survey of investors’ perceptions on climate impacts of the meat and dairy sector indicates that investors are concerned about the lack of action and reporting in the sector: 72% of investors said that reporting methane alongside carbon emissions was important, while 83% said that meat and dairy companies should be reducing their methane emissions.<sup><span><span><span><span>62</span></span></span></span></sup></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Finally, when companies do report emissions, existing audits and verification of these reports are often simply <span>inadequate.</span> <span>In</span> <span>2021,</span> <span>IATP’s</span> <em><span><span>Emissions</span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span>Impossible</span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span>Europe</span></span></em><em> </em><span>report</span> <span>found</span> <span>that</span> <span>only</span> <span>two</span> <span>companies</span> <span>headquartered </span>in the EU out of the few that reported their emissions to CDP had their emissions verified.<sup><span><span><span><span>63</span></span></span></span></sup> Even these two had ‘limited assurance’ audits. The level of assurance indicates the extent and depth of the work the assurance provider undertakes in relation to sustainability disclosures. Most assurance providers offer two levels: ‘reasonable’ (high, but still involving some risk of inappropriate conclusion) or ‘limited’. Limited assurance cannot provide <span>a</span> <span>reasonable</span> <span>level</span> <span>of</span> <span>assurance</span> <span>due</span> <span>to</span> <span>limiting</span> <span>factors</span> <span>such</span> <span>as</span> <span>the</span> <span>size of</span> <span>a</span> <span>sample</span> <span>or</span> <span>sampling</span> <span>methods.</span> <span>JBS </span>reported to the CDP that its 2021 scope 1 and 2 emissions were in the process of being verified,<sup><span><span><span><span>64</span></span></span></span></sup> but it conducted no verification of its scope 3 emissions.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>In summary, many livestock companies do not report their emissions or the number of animals in their supply chains. When they do, there is no independent and robust verification of these emissions. This must change for <span>the</span> <span>industry</span> <span>to</span> <span>deliver</span> <span>real</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>cuts.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><img alt="Page 26" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="eeeeb9cf-fc3d-46c3-9aa1-bf0d8f58468c" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/Emissione%20Impossible_page%2026.jpg" /></span></span></span></span></p> <p><em>Credit: Shutterstock </em></p> <h2><img alt="Credit: Mika-Baumeister, Unsplash.com" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="8727326d-41ea-4914-b1ba-83e073a6c470" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/Emissions%20Impossible_page%2028.jpg" /></h2> <p><em>Credit: Mika-Baumeister, Unsplash.com</em></p> <h2><span><span><span><span>3. </span></span></span></span>Government inaction on industrial livestock threatens climate targets</h2> <h3><span><span><span><span><span><span>3.1 Blindspot:</span></span> <span><span>Governments</span></span> <span><span>failing</span></span> <span><span>to</span></span> <span><span>address</span></span> <span><span>livestock</span></span> <span><span>methane</span></span></span></span></span></span></h3> <p><span><span><span>The Global Methane Assessment estimates that global methane emissions must be reduced by 40–45% by 2030 <span>to</span> <span>achieve</span> <span>least-cost</span> <span>pathways</span> <span>that</span> <span>limit</span> <span>global</span> <span>warming</span> <span>to</span> <span>1.5°C.</span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>65</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span>Following</span> <span>the</span> <span>alarm</span> <span>raised</span> <span>by</span> <span>scientists, over</span> <span>100</span> <span>governments</span> <span>signed</span> <span>up</span> <span>to</span> <span>the</span> <span>Global</span> <span>Methane</span> <span>Pledge</span> <span>(‘the</span> <span>Pledge’),</span> <span>launched</span> <span>at</span> <span>COP26</span> <span>in</span> <span>Glasgow </span>in November 2021.<sup><span><span><span><span>66</span></span></span></span></sup> Although the Pledge is a step in the right direction, it falls short of what the science says <span>is</span> <span>needed:</span> <span>it</span> <span>commits</span> <span>its</span> <span>signatories</span> <span>to</span> <span>only</span> <span>30%</span> <span>reductions</span> <span>by</span> <span>2030</span> <span>from</span> <span>a</span> <span>2020</span> <span>baseline</span> <span>as</span> <span>opposed</span> <span>to</span> <span>the </span>40–45% needed to prevent temperature overshoot.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Regulating</span> <span>the</span> <span>livestock</span> <span>industry’s</span> <span>methane</span> <span>footprint</span> <span>would</span> <span>critically</span> <span>help</span> <span>bridge</span> <span>that</span> <span>gap.</span> <span>Yet</span> <span>most</span> <span>of</span> <span>the </span>125 countries currently listed as participating in the Global Methane Pledge have not declared specific plans to deal with livestock methane. The Pledge itself is much weaker in addressing agriculture compared to other key sectors. For instance, the Pledge commits signatories to achieve ‘all feasible reductions’ in the energy and waste sectors. However, in relation to agriculture, it voices only vague commitments on ‘technology innovation as well as incentives and partnerships with farmers’.<sup><span><span><span><span>67</span></span></span></span></sup> According to an investigative report by Unearthed, the American beef industry celebrated the fact that the sector emerged ‘relatively unscathed’ by the Pledge, according to statements at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) annual conference.<sup><span><span><span><span>68</span></span></span></span></sup> Tyson, a company analysed in <span>this</span> <span>report,</span> <span>is</span> <span>a</span> <span>member</span> <span>of</span> <span>the</span> <span>NCBA</span> <span>product</span> <span>council.</span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>69</span></span></span></span></span></sup></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Total anthropogenic methane emissions were estimated to be around 380 million tonnes per year in 2017, from which the global livestock emissions were 115 million tonnes.<sup><span><span><span><span>70</span></span></span></span></sup> Our research estimates that just 15 companies contribute 12.8 million tonnes of methane emissions a year. This represents 3.4% of total global anthropogenic methane emissions, or 11.1% of livestock emissions (enteric fermentation and manure combined). The biggest meat producer JBS alone is responsible for 4% of the total global livestock methane emissions. These numbers underscore the need to address livestock methane through legislation. Government regulation for large livestock methane emitters is long overdue and is urgently needed to increase the ambition of the Global Methane <span>Pledge.</span></span></span></span></p> <table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width: 500px;"><caption><strong>Table 3: Global methane emissions vs. emissions by selected companies (tonnes of methane)</strong></caption> <tbody><tr><td>Global anthropogenic methane emissions (2017)</td> <td> 380,000,000</td> </tr><tr><td>15 meat and dairy companies</td> <td>12,789,000 (3.4%)</td> </tr><tr><td> </td> <td> </td> </tr><tr><td>Global livestock-related methane emissions (2017)</td> <td>115,000,000</td> </tr><tr><td>15 meat and dairy companies</td> <td>12,789,000 (11.1%)</td> </tr></tbody></table><h3>3.2 <span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Heading</span></span> <span><span>in</span></span> <span><span>the</span></span> <span><span>wrong</span></span> <span><span>direction:</span></span> <span><span>Methane</span></span> <span><span>emissions</span></span> <span><span>in</span></span> <span><span>milk</span></span> <span><span>and </span></span><span>meat producing countries</span></span></span></span></span></span></h3> <p><span><span><span><span>This section analyses methane emissions reported to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change </span>(UNFCCC) from the ten major milk and meat producing countries where these companies are headquartered. These ten countries, with the exception of China, are all signatories to the Pledge. Our findings show that none of them <span>achieved</span> <span>significant</span> <span>reductions</span> <span>in</span> <span>livestock</span> <span>methane</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>over</span> <span>the</span> <span>last</span> <span>decade</span> <span>(see</span> <span>Table</span> <span>4).</span> <span>Even</span> <span>though </span><span>there</span> <span>have</span> <span>been</span> <span>some</span> <span>improvements</span> <span>over</span> <span>the</span> <span>last</span> <span>five</span> <span>years,</span> <span>the</span> <span>pace</span> <span>of</span> <span>emission</span> <span>reductions</span> <span>is</span> <span>far</span> <span>too</span> <span>slow</span> <span>to </span>meet the goals of the Pledge.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>As can be seen from Table 4, the biggest livestock producing countries – the US, Brazil and China – have increased <span>their</span> <span>livestock</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>over</span> <span>the</span> <span>last</span> <span>ten</span> <span>reported</span> <span>years.</span> <span>New</span> <span>Zealand</span> <span>and</span> <span>the</span> <span>Netherlands</span> <span>have</span> <span>also</span> <span>slightly </span>increased their methane emissions, while Germany, Canada and Switzerland have slightly decreased theirs. The only country with a reported decrease of more than 5% over the last decade is France, the biggest livestock methane emitter in the EU. This shows that additional policies will be needed across the world to ensure that livestock <span>methane</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>are</span> <span>rapidly</span> <span>reduced. </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Below we review the most recent legislative initiatives by governments in the EU, US and New Zealand that aim <span>to</span> <span>address</span> <span>livestock</span> <span>methane</span> <span>emissions.</span> <span>Our</span> <span>analysis</span> <span>shows</span> <span>that</span> <span>more</span> <span>action</span> <span>is</span> <span>needed</span> <span>to</span> <span>fill</span> <span>this</span> <span>gap.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><img alt="TA BLE 4: PROGRESS IN METHANE EMISSION REDUCTIONS OF COUNTRIES IN WHICH THE 15 MEAT AND DAIRY COMPANIES ARE HEADQUARTERED" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="f0a7e481-b827-4f36-83f2-876e1e34dc87" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/TA%20BLE%204_PROGRESS%20IN%20METHANE%20EMISSION%20REDUCTIONS%20OF%20COUNTRIES%20IN%20WHICH%20THE%2015%20MEAT%20AND%20DAIRY%20COMPANIES%20ARE%20HEADQUARTERED.PNG" /></span></span></span></span></p> <p><em><strong>Source</strong>: UNFCC greenhouse gas inventory, <a href="https://di.unfccc.int">https://di.unfccc.int</a></em></p> <h3>3.3 <span><span><span><span><span><span>Methane</span></span> <span><span>regulations:</span></span> <span><span>progress</span></span> <span><span>and</span></span> <span><span>gaps</span></span></span></span></span></span></h3> <h4>3.3.1 <span><span><span><span><em>European <span>Union</span></em></span></span></span></span></h4> <p><span><span><span>The EU, together with the US, was one of the initiators of the Global Methane Pledge. Following the EU Methane Strategy in 2020, the European Commission has published a proposal for a Methane Regulation which intends to cut methane emissions from the energy sector. However, the energy sector represents only 13% of EU methane <span>emissions,</span> <span>while</span> <span>livestock</span> <span>represents</span> <span>53%<sup>.</sup></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>72</span></span></span></span></span></sup></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>The Changing Markets Foundation commissioned a study from the environmental consultancy CE Delft which analysed the potential of different sectors in reducing methane emissions. The study, published in June 2022, <span>warned</span> <span>that</span> <span>under</span> <span>the</span> <span>business-as-usual</span> <span>scenario</span> <span>the</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>from</span> <span>the</span> <span>livestock</span> <span>sector</span> <span>would</span> <span>decrease</span> <span>by </span>only 3.7% by 2030, while the EU’s total methane emissions could be cut by up to 17% with existing and proposed policies.<sup><span><span><span><span>73</span></span></span></span></sup> The EU is therefore not on track to achieve the reductions committed under the Pledge unless it adopts <span>effective</span> <span>policies</span> <span>driving</span> <span>reductions</span> <span>from</span> <span>its</span> <span>biggest</span> <span>source</span> <span>–</span> <span>the</span> <span>livestock</span> <span>sector.</span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>74</span></span></span></span></span></sup></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>The study also calculated the methane reduction potential of different measures the EU has at its disposal. The results showed that methane emissions could theoretically be cut by up to 68% if all mitigation measures across all sectors were implemented. The study highlights that the biggest cuts in methane could be achieved through policies that drive the uptake of healthier diets, aligned with the average national dietary health guidance. Just this one measure could cut the EU’s total methane emissions by 15–19% by 2030,<sup><span><span><span><span>75</span></span></span></span></sup> though the EU would have <span>to</span> <span>ensure</span> <span>that</span> <span>this</span> <span>reduction</span> <span>in</span> <span>meat</span> <span>and</span> <span>dairy</span> <span>consumption</span> <span>results</span> <span>in</span> <span>a</span> <span>fundamental</span> <span>change</span> <span>of</span> <span>the</span> <span>current </span><span>intensive</span> <span>agriculture</span> <span>model</span> <span>and</span> <span>does</span> <span>not</span> <span>merely</span> <span>lead</span> <span>to</span> <span>increased</span> <span>exports.</span></span></span></span></p> <hr /><hr /><h2><span><span><span><span><span><span>Box</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>3.1:</span></span></span></span> <strong><span><span><span><span>Case</span></span></span></span></strong><strong> </strong><strong><span><span><span><span>study:</span></span></span></span></strong><strong> </strong><strong><span><span><span><span>Netherlands</span></span></span></span></strong><strong> </strong><strong><span><span><span><span>proposes</span></span></span></span></strong><strong> </strong><strong><span><span><span><span>to</span></span></span></span></strong><strong> </strong><strong><span><span><span><span>cut</span></span></span></span></strong><strong> </strong><strong><span><span><span><span>livestock</span></span></span></span></strong><strong> </strong><strong><span><span><span><span>numbers</span></span></span></span></strong><strong> </strong><strong><span><span><span><span>due</span></span></span></span></strong><strong> </strong><strong><span><span><span><span>to</span></span></span></span></strong><strong> </strong><strong><span><span><span><span>nitrogen</span></span></span></span></strong><strong> </strong><strong><span><span><span><span>pollution</span></span></span></span></strong></span></span></h2> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>The Netherlands is one of the major EU milk and meat exporters with significant GHG and methane emissions from its huge livestock sector. It is also the headquarter of some of the biggest global meat and dairy corporations, such as Vion and FrieslandCampina. The Dutch government has become the first country in the EU to aim to reduce livestock numbers because of the industry’s outsized contribution to nitrogen pollution. This case study shows how livestock’s other </span></span></span><span><span><span><span>pollutants are linked to action on methane and that a lack of early and sustained action to address pollution can lead to much more drastic measures later, </span></span></span></span><span><span><span>with the risk of social upheaval.</span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span>76</span></span></span></span></sup></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>In May 2019, the Dutch High Court passed a decision that stalled the expansion of any projects that emit nitrogen. The shutdown put some €14 billion worth</span></span></span> <span><span><span>of</span></span></span><span><span><span> projects in jeopardy, which included the expansion of pig, dairy and poultry farms – major sources of nitrogen in the form of ammonia from animal waste – as well as plans for new homes, roads and airport runways.</span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span>77</span></span></span></span></sup> <span><span><span>Agriculture is the largest source of nitrogen emissions – responsible for nearly half of nitrogen pollution in the Netherlands. Technical measures, such as injecting liquid manure in the soil and installing air scrubbers on pig and poultry facilities, have re</span></span></span><span><span><span><span>duced ammonia emissions by 60% since the 1980s, but they have risen again since 2014 because of expanding dairy operations.</span></span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>78</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span><span><span><span>The</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>government</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>failed</span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span> to</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>address</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>these</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>emissions</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>meaningfully</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>until</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>court</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>order.</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>Following</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>verdict,</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>Court</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>ordered</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>government</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>to</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>create</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>a</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>long-term</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>plan</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>to </span></span></span></span><span><span><span>address nitrogen emissions.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>The government’s plan is to halve nitrogen emissions by 2030. To do this it will have to cut livestock numbers by a third, which includes buying out farmers, for which the government has set aside around €25 billion.</span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span>79</span></span></span></span></sup> <span><span><span>While NGOs and scientists have been urging the government to use the nitrogen crisis to transform agriculture, farmers have shown fierce opposition to the plan. Since the plan was presented in June, they have been blocking roads, airports and train stations and have even dumped slurry on the home of the minister in charge of the programme. The Politico reported that the agriculture Minister Henk Staghouwer </span></span></span><span><span><span><span>resigned</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>after</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>he</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>failed</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>to</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>convince</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>farmers</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>to</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>get</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>on</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>board</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>with</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>programme.</span></span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>80</span></span></span></span></span></sup></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>If the planned reduction in livestock numbers is achieved, this will also lead to a reduction in methane emissions. However, had the government acted earlier </span></span></span><span><span><span><span>and developed a just transition plan together with the farmers, the social backlash could have perhaps been avoided. A massive transition from large-scale </span></span></span></span><span><span><span>animal agriculture is required to move towards climate-resilient agricultural systems and healthier diets; however, for this to succeed, governments must plan </span></span></span><span><span><span>and sequence the transition in a timely fashion.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <hr /><hr /><h4><img alt="Infographic 3" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="59ad5134-7665-4c52-a881-730f6fd3b252" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/Infographic%203.PNG" /></h4> <h4>3.3.2 <span><span><span><span><em>United <span>States</span></em></span></span></span></span></h4> <p><span><span><span>Methane accounts for 11% of US GHG emissions.<sup><span><span><span><span>81</span></span></span></span></sup> Overall US methane emissions have declined 15% since 1990, with energy-related emissions declining by 25% since 1990 and industrial waste methane emissions declining by 31%.<sup><span><span><span><span>82</span></span></span></span></sup> But the largest source of US methane emissions is agriculture and these emissions have increased by 17% since 1990.<sup><span><span><span><span>83</span></span></span></span></sup> Agriculture now represents 37% of all US methane emissions. Livestock-related methane has risen even more – by 20% since 1990. IATP analysed the Biden methane reduction plan and concluded that large-scale <span>industrial</span> <span>animal</span> <span>agriculture,</span> <span>also</span> <span>known</span> <span>as</span> <span>the</span> <span>factory-farm</span> <span>system,</span> <span>has</span> <span>largely</span> <span>evaded</span> <span>scrutiny.</span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>84</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span>The</span> <span>reluctance </span>to place appropriate limits on methane emissions from the biggest operations and halt the numerous public payouts that prop up the industry threatens to undermine the credibility of the Biden methane reduction <span>commitment.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>For</span> <span>agriculture,</span> <span>the</span> <span>Biden</span> <span>plan</span> <span>focuses</span> <span>on</span> <span>1)</span> <span>‘alternative</span> <span>manure</span> <span>management</span> <span>systems’;</span> <span>2)</span> <span>the</span> <span>‘expansion</span> <span>of </span>on-farm generation and use of renewable energy systems’; 3) the ‘development of a climate smart agricultural <span>commodities partnership initiative’; and 4) ‘increased investments in agricultural methane quantification’.</span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>85</span></span></span></span></span></sup></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>All four agriculture strategies are tied to the controversial use of anaerobic digesters to capture factory-farm gas <span>from</span> <span>giant</span> <span>manure</span> <span>lagoons</span> <span>at</span> <span>large-scale</span> <span>dairy,</span> <span>beef</span> <span>and</span> <span>pig</span> <span>operations</span> <span>(see</span> <span>Box</span> <span>6</span> <span>below).</span></span></span></span></p> <h4>3.3.3 <span><span><span><span><em>New <span>Zealand</span></em></span></span></span></span></h4> <p><span><span><span>Few countries are as dependent on the production and export of dairy and meat products as New Zealand, where the agriculture sector contributes around half of GHG emissions.<sup><span><span><span><span>96</span></span></span></span></sup> More than 88% of methane emissions in New <span>Zealand are</span> <span>from livestock</span> <span>production.</span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>97</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span>Around 90%</span> <span>of the</span> <span>milk in</span> <span>New Zealand</span> <span>is produced</span> <span>by the</span> <span>industry giant Fonterra, the</span> <span>world’s largest exporter</span> <span>of milk products.</span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>98</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span>While there has</span> <span>long been a</span> <span>debate about how </span>to address methane emissions from livestock, no meaningful legislative measures have been taken due to the powerful opposition of the farm lobby. The agricultural methane emissions in New Zealand have increased by <span>more</span> <span>than</span> <span>3%</span> <span>in</span> <span>the</span> <span>last</span> <span>decade</span> <span>the</span> <span>government</span> <span>reported</span> <span>to</span> <span>the</span> <span>UNFCCC</span> <span>(see</span> <span>Table</span> <span>4).</span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>99</span></span></span></span></span></sup></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>The latest attempt to address agricultural emissions was a partnership between the government and the agroindustry whereby the industry had to propose its own emissions mitigation system.<sup><span><span><span><span>100</span></span></span></span></sup> According to the <span>Guardian</span>, the government has accepted most of the recommendations from the partnership, but has rejected a proposal that farmers would set their own emissions prices. The price will now be influenced by the country’s progress towards meeting its target to cut methane by 10% by 2030.<sup><span><span><span><span>101</span></span></span></span></sup> It is worth noting that this target does not bring <span>New</span> <span>Zealand’s</span> <span>methane</span> <span>reduction</span> <span>in</span> <span>line</span> <span>with</span> <span>its</span> <span>commitment</span> <span>under</span> <span>the</span> <span>Pledge.</span></span></span></span></p> <hr /><hr /><h2><span><span><span><span><span><span>Box</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>3.2:</span></span></span></span> <strong><span><span><span><span>Factory-farm</span></span></span></span></strong><strong> </strong><strong><span><span><span><span>gas</span></span></span></span></strong><strong> </strong><strong><span><span><span><span>as</span></span></span></span></strong><strong> </strong><strong><span><span><span><span>‘renewable’</span></span></span></span></strong><strong> </strong><strong><span><span><span><span>energy?</span></span></span></span></strong></span></span></h2> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>In the US, government and private sector efforts to reduce GHG emissions overall and methane emissions specifically have brought increased carbon </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span>offset schemes and legislation, such as California’s clean fuel standard. This is driving the proliferation of biodigesters.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Manure from large-scale animal agriculture can be pumped into anaerobic biogas digesters and converted into gas for heat, fuel and electricity. The </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span>state</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>of</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>California,</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>for</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>instance,</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>has</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>invested</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>over</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>$350</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>million</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>into</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>this</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>technology</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>for</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>large-scale</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>dairy</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>farms.</span></span></span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span><span>86</span></span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span><span><span><span><span>A</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>quantity</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>of</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>massive</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>amounts </span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>of manure such large-scale farms produce is converted into gas. What remains is digestate – the leftover sludge which when exposed to air emits the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide and other pollutants such as ammonia and nitrates that leach into the soil and water when applied as fertiliser on fields. Emerging science and past research in major livestock-producing areas in Denmark, Canada and other US states is prompting scientists to demand further studies on the impact of digestor technology on the increase of ammonia emissions.</span></span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>87</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span><span><span><span>High levels of ammonia severely impact air quality, making it dangerous for humans to breathe in the particulate matter it generates. New science is also suggesting that biogas production and distribution results</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>in methane along the supply chain and that ‘a thorough understanding of where, when, and how much CH</span></span></span></span><sub><span><span><span>4</span></span></span></sub><span><span><span><span>[methane] is released remains absent.’</span></span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>88</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span><span><span><span><span>The scientists contend that ‘large quantities of CH</span></span></span></span></span><sub><span><span><span><span>4</span></span></span></span></sub><span><span><span><span><span>can still be emitted from the biomethane and biogas supply chains, including digestate handling, </span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span>anaerobic digesters, upgrading units, feedstock storages and transmission, and storage and distribution stages.’</span></span></span></span></span> <sup><span><span><span><span><span><span>89</span></span></span></span></span></span></sup></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Biogas or biomethane is also referred to as ‘factory farmed gas’ by civil society organisations that challenge the notion that gas from large-scale animal </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>agriculture operations is renewable.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Yet many of the companies in this report are turning towards and ramping up these approaches to meet their climate targets. For instance, Marfrig claims that the use of this gas as fuel helps the company to reduce its scope 1 emissions.</span></span></span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span><span>90</span></span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span><span><span><span><span>Through its US subsidiary Smithfield, the world’s largest pork producer, the WH Group, launched</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>the ‘Smithfield Renewables’ platform in 2017, the ‘hallmark’ of which is converting manure to energy.</span></span></span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span><span>91</span></span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span><span><span><span><span>The company’s aim is ‘to reduce absolute GHG emissions across our entire U.S. value chain 25% by 2025, 30% by 2030 and to become carbon negative </span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span>in</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>our</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>U.S.</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>company-owned</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>operations</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>by</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>2030.’</span></span></span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span><span>92</span></span></span></span></span></span> </sup><span><span><span><span><span>Smithfield</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>has</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>come</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>under</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>fire</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>in</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>US</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>state</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>of</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>North</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>Carolina</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>where</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>its</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>pig</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>farms</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>are</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span>mainly </span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>situated in low-income communities and communities of colour, leading to several lawsuits filed and won by the community.</span></span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>93</span></span></span></span></span></sup> <span><span><span><span>The US Environmental </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span>Protection Agency is investigating whether North Carolina’s approval of biogas digestors violates the civil rights of rural neighbours.<sup>94</sup> In the meant</span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>ime, Smithfield is expanding this approach in other states and also partnering with utility companies to sell this gas as renewable energy, including in </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span>North Carolina.</span></span></span></span><sup><span><span><span><span><span>95</span></span></span></span></span></sup></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>The promotion of biogas digestors is a band aid on a much larger set of environmental and social problems emanating from factory farms. They do little </span></span></span><span><span><span><span>to</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>support</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>transition</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>towards</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>lower</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>animal</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>numbers</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>in</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>agriculture</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>and</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>could</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>perversely</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>incentivise</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>expansion</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>of</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>such</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>a</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span>system.</span></span></span></span></p> <hr /><hr /><h2><img alt="page 36" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2ec488fd-47d2-4e98-827d-50e55ff56df2" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/page%2036_Credit_Clynt%20Garnham.jpg" /></h2> <p><em>Credit: Clynt Garnham, Agriculture/Alamy Stock Photo</em></p> <h2><span><span><span><span><span>4. Conclusions</span> <span>and</span> <span><span>recommendations</span></span></span></span></span></span></h2> <p><span><span><span>The five meat and ten dairy companies analysed in this report are responsible for 12.8 million tonnes of methane emissions annually. This represents around 3.4% of all global anthropogenic methane emissions and 11.1% of the world’s livestock-related methane (enteric fermentation and manure combined). That just 15 transnational livestock corporations’ methane footprint is so significant should be a wake-up call for governments and inter<span>governmental</span> <span>organizations.</span> <span>It</span> <span>should</span> <span>catalyse</span> <span>urgent</span> <span>governmental</span> <span>action</span> <span>to</span> <span>regulate</span> <span>these</span> <span>actors,</span> <span>obliging </span><span>them</span> <span>to</span> <span>cut</span> <span>methane</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>to</span> <span>prevent</span> <span>temperature</span> <span>overshoot.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>The need to target the livestock industry’s methane footprint becomes even more pressing when these emissions are calculated over a 20-year timeframe (GWP20). In line with the latest science, this is the appropriate metric to <span>reflect the scale of climate action needed to address the unfolding climate emergency. Methane comes to represent </span><span>72%</span> <span>of</span> <span>meat</span> <span>and</span> <span>dairy</span> <span>companies’</span> <span>total</span> <span>emissions</span> <span>when</span> <span>calculated</span> <span>over</span> <span>a</span> <span>20-year</span> <span>timeframe.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Time is of the essence. Yet most of the 125 countries listed as participating in the Global Methane Pledge, including nine meat and dairy production powerhouses analysed in the report, have not declared specific or robust plans to <span>deal with livestock methane. Policymakers have identified solutions that tinker around the edges of this extractive </span>system of animal agriculture, limited to techno fixes without serious consideration of systemic transformations <span>needed</span> <span>in</span> <span>the</span> <span>production,</span> <span>trade</span> <span>and</span> <span>consumption</span> <span>of</span> <span>livestock</span> <span>products.</span> <span>Acting</span> <span>on</span> <span>livestock</span> <span>methane</span> <span>requires </span>a holistic understanding of the drivers of mass industrial animal production and multiple policy interventions <span>to</span> <span>reduce</span> <span>the</span> <span>number</span> <span>of</span> <span>animals</span> <span>used</span> <span>for</span> <span>meat</span> <span>and</span> <span>dairy</span> <span>production.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Methane is not the only problem linked with these concentrated agro-industrial systems. Just 15 dairy and meat <span>companies</span> <span>examined</span> <span>in</span> <span>this</span> <span>report</span> <span>also</span> <span>produce</span> <span>a</span> <span>staggering</span> <span>quantity</span> <span>of</span> <span>overall</span> <span>GHG</span> <span>emissions,</span> <span>amounting </span>to approximately 734 million tonnes of CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent per year<sup><span><span><span><span>L</span></span></span></span></sup> (Figure 8). This is larger than the total GHG emissions<sup><span><span><span><span>M</span></span></span></span></sup> of Germany, the world’s fourth largest economy. There is no time to lose to set a transition in motion.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>The Changing Markets Foundation’s report <em><span>Blindspot</span></em>, published in 2021, showed the disturbing lack of action by big meat and dairy companies to address climate and methane emissions through their voluntary initiatives.<sup><span><span><span><span>102</span></span></span></span> </sup>The 15 companies analysed in this report reported revenues of more than €382 billion in 2021, more than the </span></span></span><span><span><span>entire GDP of countries such as Norway. Their significant profits are not being invested in transformative solutions <span>to</span> <span>address</span> <span>the</span> <span>climate</span> <span>emergency.</span> <span>Yet</span> <span>governments</span> <span>cannot</span> <span>expect</span> <span>these</span> <span>powerful</span> <span>corporations</span> <span>to</span> <span>voluntarily </span><span>change</span> <span>their</span> <span>model</span> <span>of</span> <span>mass</span> <span>industrial</span> <span>animal</span> <span>agriculture.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Governments must lead in facilitating such a transition: Regulating the livestock industry’s numerous environ- mental and social impacts and ensuring that these companies do not transfer all the risks of the transition onto farmers. Farmers within and outside these corporate supply chains have a critical role to play in a sequenced, deliberate and just transition out of mass industrial livestock production towards livestock-raising systems that are healthy for the planet and people.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Another shocking finding of this fourth report in the <em><span>Emissions Impossible </span></em>series is the lack of significant changes in <span>the governance of corporate livestock reporting and verification. Four years since the release of IATP and GRAIN’s </span>first <em><span>Emissions</span></em><em><span> Impossible </span></em>report, publicly available data on corporate emissions remains incomplete, not comparable between companies or years and, in the majority of cases, absent. None of the companies examined in this report disclose methane emissions from their supply chains. Only nine out of 15 companies report some level of their overall GHG emissions. Basic information for independent emissions calculations like annual production figures for meat and milk per region are either not published by companies or inconsistently reported over time.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>In the absence of strong disclosure rules, voluntary climate targets and reporting are leading to pervasive levels of greenwashing. Meat industry corporations lag behind their dairy counterparts in terms of their climate reporting, </span>but neither sector’s climate claims are subject to independent third-party verification. The few initiatives that exist, such as CDP or the Science Based Targets initiative, rely on corporate self-reporting with inadequate verification. Without mandatory reporting and robust independent verification, it is impossible to gauge whether corporate net-zero and other climate targets are even in the ballpark of limiting warming to 1.5°C. Potential new rules in the US and the EU for disclosure of emissions, climate risk and the prevention of greenwashing climate claims may be opportunities for change.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>All of the governments where these companies are headquartered (with the exception of China) have signed up <span>to the Pledge.</span> <span>They must significantly</span> <span>ramp up ambition</span> <span>to reduce methane</span> <span>from the livestock</span> <span>industry. Our </span>findings show that a comprehensive set of regulations is needed to ensure that the burden for emissions reduction rests on corporations that shape and drive the supply chain and that rules are needed to prevent corporations from merely passing on the risk to farmers. In global supply chains, these transnational corporations wield the most market and political power, while the farmers are the weakest link. Governments must have the political will to support farmers towards a just transition to agroecology that supports rural communities while helping <span>mitigate</span> <span>and</span> <span>adapt</span> <span>to</span> <span>climate</span> <span>change.</span></span></span></span></p> <h3>4.1 <span><span><span><span><span><span>Recommendations</span></span> <span><span>for</span></span> <span><span>governments:</span></span></span></span></span></span></h3> <ul><li><span><span><span><span><em><span><span><span><span><span>Set</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>binding</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>GHG</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>and</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>methane</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>reduction</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>targets</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>for</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>agriculture</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>sector</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>in</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>line</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>with</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>the</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>global</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>goal</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span>of limiting temperature increase to 1.5°C.</span></span></span></span></em></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><span><em><span><span><span><span><span>Require companies to consistently and comprehensively report their GHG emissions, including scope 3,</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>and</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>set</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>emission-reduction</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>targets</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>in</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>line</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>with</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>science,</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>including</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>a</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>system</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>of</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>independent</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span><span>third-party</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span>verification. Methane, nitrous oxide and CO</span></span></span></span></em><sub><span><span><span><span>2</span></span></span></span></sub><em><span><span><span><span>emissions must be reported separately.</span></span></span></span></em></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><span><em><span><span><span><span>Enact a phased and bottom-up transition for farms to reduce animal numbers in line with a just transition policy for the transformation of the animal agriculture sector.</span></span></span></span></em></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><span><em><span><span><span><span>Regulate all pollutants (besides methane) from mass industrial livestock production to facilitate a transition from this model of animal agriculture towards agroecology.</span></span></span></span></em></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><span><em><span><span><span><span>Reform agriculture policy (the Common Agricultural Policy, the Farm Bill, etc.) to support higher environmental and social outcomes and drive an agroecological transformation of the sector, away from mass industrial livestock production towards livestock systems that are healthy for the planet and people. This includes removing subsidies for mass production of feed grains and making farm support dependent on positive environmental and social outcomes.</span></span></span></span></em></span></span></span></span></li> </ul><h3>4.2 <span><span><span><span><span><span>Recommendations</span></span> <span><span>for</span></span> <span><span>companies:</span></span></span></span></span></span></h3> <ul><li><span><span><span><span><em><span><span><span><span><span>Set emissions reduction targets and action plans in line with the global goal of limiting temperature</span></span></span></span></span></em><em> </em><em><span><span><span><span>increase to 1.5°C. The focus must be on reducing the company’s absolute emissions, rather than emissions intensity, including scope 3 emissions. Companies should also include transparent reporting, including slaughter numbers and milk intake, to enable independent verification of their climate-related disclosures.</span></span></span></span></em></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><span><em><span><span><span><span>Establish separate methane reduction targets and action plans to meet them, including separate reporting of methane emissions. Reporting should also include disclosure of investments in climate mitigation and adaptation measures.</span></span></span></span></em></span></span></span></span></li> <li>​​​​​​​<span><span><span><span><em><span><span><span><span>Reduce the number of animals in global supply chains and create a bottom-up just transition plan with farmers and workers in your global supply chains.</span></span></span></span></em></span></span></span></span></li> <li>​​​​​​​S<span><span><span><span><em><span><span><span><span>upport progressive climate, environmental and health policies that will drive a shift to healthier and more environmentally sustainable diets.</span></span></span></span></em></span></span></span></span></li> </ul><h2><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>7. References</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></h2> <h3><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Footnotes</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></h3> <p><strong>A </strong>Highlighting global dairy corporations’ emissions in <em>Milking the Planet </em>(2020) (<a href="https://www.iatp.org/milking-planet">https://www.iatp.org/milking-planet</a>) and emissions estimates of and greenwashing strategies used by over 20 livestock companies headquartered in Europe in E<em>missions Impossible Europe</em> (2021) (<a href="https://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible-europe">https://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible-europe</a>).</p> <p><strong>B </strong>See Emissions Impossible methodology note, pp. 24-27 (<a href="https://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible">https://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible</a>). </p> <p><strong>C </strong>At the time of finalising this report, FAO had begun posting partial updates to GLEAM, but we did not have regional emissions factors that would enable us to update these calculations.</p> <p><strong>D</strong> Unless otherwise specified, corporate methane emissions estimates in this report include methane from feed, enteric<br /> fermentation and manure management, from dairy and meat processing operations only.</p> <p><strong>E </strong>This estimate was made using GWP100 for methane, as this enables comparisons.</p> <p><strong>F</strong> Depending on the precise use rate of JBS’ slaughterhouses worldwide which only JBS can confirm, the emissions change over five years (2016-2021) could range anywhere between 17-56% increase in emissions.</p> <p><strong>G</strong> Reporting year October 2019 – September 2020.</p> <p><strong>H </strong>First year reporting scope 1 and 2.</p> <p><strong>I</strong> Reporting year August 2019 – July 2020.</p> <p><strong>J</strong> States in its annual report: 'Greenhouse gas emissions, excluding purchase of green energy were: 1,131 kt CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent (2021), 1,172 kt CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent (2020) respectively. The basis for calculating the 2020 figure has been updated to be consistent with the Science Based Targets Initiative’s methodology and in accordance with FrieslandCampina’s greenhouse emission target for 2030.'</p> <p><strong>K</strong> Reporting year April 2020 – March 2021</p> <p><strong>L</strong> This estimate was made using GWP100 for methane, as this enables comparisons.</p> <p><strong>M</strong> Excluding land-use change.</p> <h3><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Endnotes</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></h3> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><strong>1</strong> IPCC (2022) Newsroom. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease">https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease</a><br /><strong>2</strong> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013) Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution<br /> of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:<br /> Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. p 714 [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/</a><br /> here<br /><strong>3</strong> UNEP (2021) Global Methane Assessment: Summary for decision makers. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://wedocs">https://wedocs</a>.<br /> unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/35917/GMA_ES.pdf<br /><strong>4</strong> UNEP (2021) Global Methane Assessment: Summary for decision makers.<br /><strong>5</strong> Climate Watch (n.d.) Historical GHG emissions. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.climatewatchdata.org/">https://www.climatewatchdata.org/</a><br /> ghg-emissions?end_year=2019&amp;start_year=1990 Climate Watch (n.d.) Historical GHG emissions. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.climatewatchdata.org/">https://www.climatewatchdata.org/</a><br /> ghg-emissions?end_year=2019&amp;start_year=1990<br /><strong>6</strong> IPCC (2022) Newsroom. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease">https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease</a><br /><strong>7</strong> IPCC (2022) Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution<br /> of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R.<br /> Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera,<br /> M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and<br /> New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.00, Para C.2, pg. 27 [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.ipcc">https://www.ipcc</a>.<br /> ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SPM.pdf<br /><strong>8</strong> Climate and Clean Air Coalition (n.d.) Methane [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.ccacoalition.org/en/slcps/">https://www.ccacoalition.org/en/slcps/</a><br /> methane<br /><strong>9</strong> Voiland, A. (2020) Methane emissions continue to rise. NASA, 14 July 2020. [ONLINE] Available at: https://<br /> earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146978/methane-emissions-continue-to-rise<br /><strong>10</strong> Jackson, R. B., Saunois, M., Bousquet, P., Canadell, J. G., Poulter, B., Stavert, A. R., Bergamaschi, P., Niwa, Y.,<br /> Segers, A. and Tsuruta, A. (2020) Increasing anthropogenic methane emissions arise equally from agricultural<br /> and fossil fuel sources. Environmental Research Letters, 15(7): 071002. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://iopscience">https://iopscience</a>.<br /> iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9ed2<br /><strong>11</strong> Xu, X., Sharma, P., Shu, S., Lin, T.-S., Ciais, P., Tubiello, F.N., Smith, P., Campbell, N. and Jain, A.K. (2021) Global<br /> greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nature Food 2:<br /> 724–732. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00358-x">https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00358-x</a><br /><strong>12</strong> Clark, M.A., Domingo, N.G.G., Colgan, K., Thakrar, S.K., Tilman, D., Lynch, J., Azevedo, I.L. and Hill, J.D. (2020)<br /> Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets. Science<br /> 370(6517): 705-708. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aba7357">https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aba7357</a><br /><strong>13</strong> IATP and GRAIN (2018) Emissions impossible: How big meat and dairy are heating up the planet. [ONLINE]<br /> Available at: <a href="https://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible">https://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible</a><br /><strong>14</strong> IATP and GRAIN (2018) Emissions impossible: How big meat and dairy are heating up the planet.<br /><strong>15</strong> IATP and GRAIN (2018) Emissions impossible: How big meat and dairy are heating up the planet. p.5<br /><strong>16</strong> IFCN (2021) Press release: Top Dairy Processors commit to climate goals and show strong performance in<br /> challenging times. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://ifcndairy.org/top-dairy-processors-commit-to-climate-goals">https://ifcndairy.org/top-dairy-processors-commit-to-climate-goals</a><br /><strong>17</strong> Voiland, A. (2020) Methane emissions continue to rise. NASA, 14 July 2020.<br /><strong>18</strong> Höglund-Isaksson, L., Gómez-Sanabria, A., Klimont, Z., Rfaj, P. and Schöpp, W.(2020) Technical potentials and<br /> costs for reducing global anthropogenic methane emissions in the 2050 timeframe –results from the GAINS<br /> model. Environmental Research Communications, 2(2): 025004 [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://iopscience.iop">https://iopscience.iop</a>.<br /> org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ab7457/meta<br /><strong>19</strong> Jackson, R. B., Saunois, M., Bousquet, P., Canadell, J. G., Poulter, B., Stavert, A. R., Bergamaschi, P., Niwa, Y.,<br /> Segers, A. and Tsuruta, A. (2020) Increasing anthropogenic methane emissions arise equally from agricultural<br /> and fossil fuel sources. Environmental Research Letters, 15(7): 071002. [ONLINE] Available at <a href="https://iopscience">https://iopscience</a>.<br /> iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9ed2<br /><strong>20</strong> ERCE (2021) IPCC Sixth Assessment Report Global Warming Potentials. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www">https://www</a>.<br /> ercevolution.energy/ipcc-sixth-assessment-report<br /><strong>21</strong> United Nations (2022) Statements. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/">https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/</a><br /> 2022-04-04/secretary-generals-video-message-the-launch-of-the-third-ipcc-report-scroll-down-forlanguages<br /><strong>22</strong> Balcombe et.al (2018) Methane emissions: choosing the right climate metric and time horizon. [ONLINE]<br /> Available at: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1039/C8EM00414E">https://doi.org/10.1039/C8EM00414E</a><br /><strong>23</strong> Wunderling, N. (2021) Interacting tipping elements increase risk of climate domino effects under global<br /> warming. Earth System Dynamics, 12, 601–619. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/">https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/</a><br /> 12/601/2021<br /><strong>24</strong> Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C.<br /> Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor,<br /> and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. (2022) IPCC Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special<br /> Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas<br /> emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable<br /> development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York,<br /> NY, USA, pp. 3-24. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.001">https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.001</a><br /><strong>25</strong> Shindell, D., Borgford-Parnell, N., Brauer, M., Haines, A., Kuylenstierna, J.C.A., Leonard, S.A., Ramanathan,<br /> V., Ravishankara, A., Amann, M. and Srivastava, L. (2017) A climate policy pathway for near- and long-term benefits.<br /> Science 356(6337): 493-494. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science">https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science</a>.<br /> aak9521<br /><strong>26</strong> Forster, P., Storelvmo, T.,Armour, K., Collins, W., Dufresne, J.-L., Frame, D., Lunt, D.J., Mauritsen, T., Palmer,<br /> M.D.,. Watanabe, M., Wild, M. and Zhang, H. (2021) The Earth’s Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and<br /> Climate Sensitivity. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the<br /> Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [V.,Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A.<br /> Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University<br /> Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 923–1054. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://report.ipcc.ch/">https://report.ipcc.ch/</a><br /> ar6wg1/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07.pdf<br /><strong>27</strong> UNFCC (2022) Time series. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://di.unfccc.int/time_series">https://di.unfccc.int/time_series</a><br /><strong>28</strong> Climate Watch (n.d.) Historical GHG emissions. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.climatewatchdata.org/">https://www.climatewatchdata.org/</a><br /> ghg-emissions?end_year=2019&amp;start_year=1990<br /><strong>29</strong> UNFCC (2022) Time series. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://di.unfccc.int/time_series">https://di.unfccc.int/time_series</a><br /><strong>30</strong> Food engineering (2021). 2021 Top 100 Food &amp; Beverage Companies. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www">https://www</a>.<br /> foodengineeringmag.com/2021-top-100-food-beverage-companies<br /><strong>31</strong> Food engineering (2021). 2021 Top 100 Food &amp; Beverage Companies.<br /><strong>32</strong> Science-Based Targets (n.d.) Companies taking action. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://sciencebasedtargets.org/">https://sciencebasedtargets.org/</a><br /> companies-taking-action<br /><strong>33</strong> DeSmog, IATP, Feedback (2022) World’s largest meat company, JBS, increases emissions by 51% in five years<br /> despite 2040 net zero climate target, continues to greenwash its huge climate footprint. [ONLINE] Available at:<br /><a href="https://www.iatp.org/media-brief-jbs-increases-emissions-51-percent">https://www.iatp.org/media-brief-jbs-increases-emissions-51-percent</a><br /><strong>34</strong> Forster, P., T. Storelvmo, K. Armour, W. Collins, J.-L. Dufresne, D. Frame, D.J. Lunt, T. Mauritsen, M.D. Palmer, M.<br /> Watanabe, M. Wild, and H. Zhang, 2021: The Earth’s Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity.<br /> Table 7.15., p.1017.<br /><strong>35</strong> JBS (2021) Institutional presentation, including 4Q21 and 2021 results. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://api">https://api</a>.<br /> mziq.com/mzfilemanager/v2/d/043a77e1-0127-4502-bc5b-21427b991b22/89617df2-cf31-77d8-d102-<br /> c2dee83873fb?origin=1<br /><strong>36</strong> Pereira, H (2022) Technical Opinion: Critical evaluation of the methodology adopted in the IATP (Institute<br /> for Agriculture and Trade Policy) study to estimate JBS’ GHG emissions. WayCarbon, Version 1.0, July 2022.<br /> [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://jbs.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/-jbs-technical-note-iatp-eng.pdf">https://jbs.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/-jbs-technical-note-iatp-eng.pdf</a><br /><strong>37</strong> JBS (2020). Sustainability report: Environmental, Social and Governance. Page 43 [ONLINE] Available at:<br /><a href="https://jbs.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/-sustainability-in-report-jbs-2020.pdf">https://jbs.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/-sustainability-in-report-jbs-2020.pdf</a><br /><strong>38</strong> JBS (2021) Annual sustainability report. Page 19 [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://api.mziq.com/mzfilemanager/">https://api.mziq.com/mzfilemanager/</a><br /> v2/d/043a77e1-0127-4502-bc5b-21427b991b22/ae88aaaa-6925-b917-b021-7755ffd07729?origin=1<br /><strong>39</strong> JBS (2021) Annual sustainability report. Page 19 [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://api.mziq.com/mzfilemanager/">https://api.mziq.com/mzfilemanager/</a><br /> v2/d/043a77e1-0127-4502-bc5b-21427b991b22/ae88aaaa-6925-b917-b021-7755ffd07729?origin=1<br /><strong>40</strong> JBS (2021) Annual sustainability report. Page 65 [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://api.mziq.com/mzfilemanager/">https://api.mziq.com/mzfilemanager/</a><br /> v2/d/043a77e1-0127-4502-bc5b-21427b991b22/ae88aaaa-6925-b917-b021-7755ffd07729?origin=1<br /><strong>41</strong> R. Heede, Climate Accountability Institute, personal communication, 15 July 2022<br /><strong>42</strong> Meredith, S. (2022) Shell’s board of directors sued for ‘failing to properly prepare’ for the energy transition.<br /> CNBC, 15 March 2022 [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/15/oil-shell-directors-sued-forfailing">https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/15/oil-shell-directors-sued-forfailing</a>-<br /> to-prepare-for-energy-transition.html<br /><strong>43</strong> Jessop, S., Dickie, G. and Mallet, B. (2022) Environmental groups sue TotalEnergies over climate marketing<br /> claims. Reuters, 3 March 2022. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/">https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/</a><br /> environmental-groups-sue-totalenergies-over-climate-marketing-claims-2022-03-03<br /><strong>44</strong> Morrow, S. (2020) 5 major oil firms sued for causing climate change. AA Energy, 26 June 2020. [ONLINE]<br /> Available at: <a href="https://www.aa.com.tr/en/energy/oil/5-major-oil-firms-sued-for-causing-climate-change/29705">https://www.aa.com.tr/en/energy/oil/5-major-oil-firms-sued-for-causing-climate-change/29705</a><br /><strong>45</strong> Climate Change Litigation Databases. Vegetarian Society et al. of Denmark v Danish Crown. [ONLINE] Available<br /> at: <a href="http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/vegetarian-society-et-al-of-denmark-v-danish-crown">http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/vegetarian-society-et-al-of-denmark-v-danish-crown</a><br /><strong>46</strong> IATP (2021) Emissions Impossible Europe. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible">https://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible</a>-<br /> europe<br /><strong>47</strong> Danish Crown (2021) Sustainability report. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.danishcrown.com/media/">https://www.danishcrown.com/media/</a><br /> 9870/2020-2021_sustainability-report.pdf; Accessed 23 September 2022<br /><strong>48</strong> JBS (2021) Annual sustainability report. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://jbs.com.br/wp-content/uploads/">https://jbs.com.br/wp-content/uploads/</a><br /> 2022/08/-sustainability-in-report-jbs-2021.pdf; Accessed 23 September 2022<br /><strong>49 </strong>Marfrig (2021) Sustainability report. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://api.mziq.com/mzfilemanager/v2/d/">https://api.mziq.com/mzfilemanager/v2/d/</a><br /> b8180300-b881-4e6c-b970-12ad72a86ec8/123486e8-e4e3-2085-b073-7a9781f8224f?origin=2<br /><strong>50</strong> Tyson (2021) The formula to feed future: 2021 Sustainability report. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.tysonsustainability">https://www.tysonsustainability</a>.<br /> com/downloads/Tyson_2021_Sustainability_Report.pdf; Accessed 23 September 2022<br /> 51 WH Group (2021). Environmental, Social and Governance report. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="http://media-whgroup">http://media-whgroup</a>.<br /> todayir.com/202205300946301779088976_en.pdf<br /><strong>52</strong> Arla (2021) Building sustainable solutions: 2021 Sustainability report. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.arla">https://www.arla</a>.<br /> com/492cbb/globalassets/pdf-files/sustainability-report-2021/sustainability-report-2021.pdf<br /><strong>53</strong> Dairy Farmers of America (2021) 2021 Social responsibility report. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://issuu.com/">https://issuu.com/</a><br /> dairyfarmersofamerica/docs/sust21003_srr_r9_pg<br /><strong>54 </strong>Danone (2021) Exhaustive 2021 Extra- Financial Data: Exhaustive Environmental data. [ONLINE] Available<br /> at: <a href="https://www.danone.com/content/dam/danone-corp/danone-com/investors/en-sustainability/reports">https://www.danone.com/content/dam/danone-corp/danone-com/investors/en-sustainability/reports</a>-<br /> and-data/planet/danone2021environmentaldatav2.pdf<br /><strong>55</strong> Fonterra (2022) Good together from one generation to the next: Sustainability report. [ONLINE] Available at:<br /><a href="https://view.publitas.com/fonterra/2022-sustainability-report/page/1">https://view.publitas.com/fonterra/2022-sustainability-report/page/1</a><br /><strong>56</strong> FrieslandCampina (2021) 150 years: A nourishing company, 2021 Sustainability report. [ONLINE] Available at:<br /><a href="https://www.frieslandcampina.com/uploads/2022/06/FrieslandCampina-Annual-Report-2021.pdf">https://www.frieslandcampina.com/uploads/2022/06/FrieslandCampina-Annual-Report-2021.pdf</a><br /><strong>57 </strong>Lactalis (2021) 2021 CSR report. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.lactalisingredients.com/wp-content/uploads/">https://www.lactalisingredients.com/wp-content/uploads/</a><br /> 2022/08/LACTALIS-INGREDIENTS-Report_EN_2021.pdf<br /><strong>58 </strong>Nestlé (2021) Creating Shared Value and Sustainability Report 2021: We unlock the power of food to enhance<br /> quality of life for everyone, today and for generations to come. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.nestle.com/">https://www.nestle.com/</a><br /> sites/default/files/2022-03/creating-shared-value-sustainability-report-2021-en.pdf</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><strong>59 </strong>Saputo (2022) 2022 Saputo Promise Report. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.saputo.com/-/media/ecosystem/">https://www.saputo.com/-/media/ecosystem/</a><br /> divisions/corporate-services/sites/saputo-com/saputo-com-documents/our-promise/saputo-promise-<br /> 2022/fy2022_saputo-promise-report_final_eng.ashx?revision=ae814aad-9401-4011-8de0-1ac7a7e1927f<br /><strong>60</strong> Dufrasne, G. (2022) EU works to beef up regulations on green claims while NGOs take to the courts to combat<br /> greenwashing. Carbon Market Watch, 31 March 2022. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://carbonmarketwatch">https://carbonmarketwatch</a>.<br /> org/2022/03/31/eu-works-to-beef-up-regulations-on-green-claims-while-ngos-take-to-the-courts-to-combatgreenwashing<br /><strong>61</strong> European Commission (2020) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,<br /> the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on an EU strategy to reduce<br /> methane emissions. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/eu_methane_strategy">https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/eu_methane_strategy</a>.<br /> pdf<br /><strong>62</strong> Changing Markets Foundation (2022) Stranded in a vicious cycle? The case for transformation in animal<br /> agriculture. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/CM-REPORT_">http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/CM-REPORT_</a>-<br /> STRANDED-IN-A-VICIOUS-CYCLE-_FINAL.pdf<br /><strong>63</strong> IATP (2021) Emissions Impossible Europe. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible">https://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible</a>-<br /> europe<br /><strong>64</strong> IATP (2021) Emissions Impossible Europe.<br /><strong>65</strong> United Nations Environment Programme and Climate and Clean Air Coalition (2021). Global Methane Assessment:<br /> Benefits and Costs of Mitigating Methane Emissions. Nairobi, Kenya. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://wedocs">https://wedocs</a>.<br /> unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/35917/GMA_ES.pdf<br /><strong>66</strong> Global Methane Pledge (n.d.) Homepage. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.globalmethanepledge.org">https://www.globalmethanepledge.org</a><br /><strong>67</strong> Climate and Clean Air Coalition (2021) Global Methane Pledge. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.ccacoalition">https://www.ccacoalition</a>.<br /> org/en/resources/global-methane-pledge<br /><strong>68 </strong>Boren, Z. (2022) Beef lobbyists celebrate methane ‘win’ at COP26. Unearthed, 7 March 2022. [ONLINE] Available<br /> at: <a href="https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2022/03/07/biden-methane-pledge-beef-climate-lobying">https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2022/03/07/biden-methane-pledge-beef-climate-lobying</a><br /><strong>69</strong> NCBA (n.d.) Affiliates and Industry Organizations. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.ncba.org/about/affiliates">https://www.ncba.org/about/affiliates</a>-<br /> industry-organizations<br /><strong>70</strong> Saunois, M. et al. (2020) The Global Methane Budget 2000-2017. Earth System Science Data 12: 1561–1623<br /> [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-1561-2020">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-1561-2020</a><br /><strong>71</strong> Global Methane Pledge (n.d.) Homepage. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.globalmethanepledge.org">https://www.globalmethanepledge.org</a><br /><strong>72</strong> European Commission (2020): Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,<br /> the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on an EU strategy to reduce<br /> methane emissions.<br /><strong>73</strong> CE Delft (2022) Methane reduction potential in the EU. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="http://changingmarkets.org/">http://changingmarkets.org/</a><br /> wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CE_Delft_210502_Methane_reduction_potential_in_the_EU_Def.pdf<br /><strong>74</strong> CE Delft (2022) Methane reduction potential in the EU.<br /><strong>75</strong> Changing Markets Foundation (2022) High steaks: How focusing on agriculture can ensure the EU meets its<br /> methane-reduction plans. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/">http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/</a><br /> CM-REPORT-ENG-HIGH-STEAKS.pdf<br /><strong>76</strong> Van Halm, E. (2022) The Dutch nitrogen crisis shows what happens when policymakers fail to step up. Energy<br /> Monitor, 16 August 2022. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.energymonitor.ai/policy/the-dutch-nitrogen-crisis">https://www.energymonitor.ai/policy/the-dutch-nitrogen-crisis</a>-<br /> shows-what-happens-when-policymakers-fail-to-step-up<br /><strong>77</strong> Stokstad, E. (2019) Nitrogen crisis from jam-packed livestock operations has ‘paralyzed’ Dutch economy.<br /> Science, 4 December 2019. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/nitrogen-crisis">https://www.science.org/content/article/nitrogen-crisis</a>-<br /> jam-packed-livestock-operations-has-paralyzed-dutch-economy<br /><strong>78</strong> Stokstad, E. (2019) Nitrogen crisis from jam-packed livestock operations has ‘paralyzed’ Dutch economy.<br /><strong>79</strong> Bounds, A. (2022) Dutch farmers in uproar over plans to curb animal numbers to cut nitrogen emissions.<br /> Financial Times, 3 August 2022. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/90e38fb5-e942-4afd">https://www.ft.com/content/90e38fb5-e942-4afd</a>-<br /> 994d-048dc40579a2<br /><strong>80</strong> Brzezinkski, B. and Gijs, C. (2022) Not easy being green: Rutte’s eco-friendly agenda falters amid Dutch farmer<br /> backlash. Politico, 6 September 2022. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-farm-crisisrocky">https://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-farm-crisisrocky</a>-<br /> path-climate-transition-henk-staghouwer<br /><strong>81</strong> United States Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. [ONLINE]<br /> Available at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks">https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks</a><br /><strong>82</strong> United States Environmental Protection Agency (2021) US GHG inventory chapter 5 agriculture. [ONLINE]<br /> Available at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2021-chapter">https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2021-chapter</a>-<br /> 5-agriculture.pdf<br /><strong>83</strong> United States Environmental Protection Agency (2021) US GHG inventory chapter 5 agriculture.<br /><strong>84</strong> IATP (2022) Meeting the Methane Pledge: the U.S. can do more on agriculture. [ONLINE] Available at: https://<br /><a href="http://www.iatp.org/meeting-methane-pledge-us-can-do-more-agriculture">www.iatp.org/meeting-methane-pledge-us-can-do-more-agriculture</a><br /><strong>85</strong> IATP (2022) Meeting the Methane Pledge: the U.S. can do more on agriculture.<br /><strong>86</strong> Foehringer Merchant, E. and van Deelen, G. (2022) California has provided incentives for methane capture<br /> at dairies, but the program may have ‘unintended consequences’. Inside Climate News, 19 September 2022.<br /> [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19092022/dairy-digesters-methane">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19092022/dairy-digesters-methane</a><br /><strong>87</strong> Foehringer Merchant, E., van Deelen, G. (2022) California Has Provided Incentives for Methane Capture at<br /> Dairies, but the Program May Have ‘Unintended Consequences’.<br /><strong>88</strong> Bakkaloglu, S., Cooper, J., Hawkes, A. (2022) Methane emissions along biomethane and biogas supply<br /> chains are underestimated. One Earth 5: 724–736. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j">https://doi.org/10.1016/j</a>.<br /> oneear.2022.05.012<br /><strong>89</strong> Bakkaloglu, S., Cooper, J., Hawkes, A. (2022) Methane emissions along biomethane and biogas supply chains<br /> are underestimated.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><strong>90</strong> Marfrig (2021) Sustainability report, p.92 [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://api.mziq.com/mzfilemanager/v2/d/">https://api.mziq.com/mzfilemanager/v2/d/</a><br /> b8180300-b881-4e6c-b970-12ad72a86ec8/123486e8-e4e3-2085-b073-7a9781f8224f?origin=2<br /><strong>91</strong> Smithfield (n.d.) Sustainability. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.smithfieldfoods.com/environment">https://www.smithfieldfoods.com/environment</a><br /><strong>92</strong> Smithfield (n.d.) Sustainability.<br /><strong>93</strong> Barnes, G. (2021) Environmentalists continue battle with lawmakers, pork industry over biogas from hog<br /> waste. North Carolina Health News, 21 May 2021. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.northcarolinahealthnews">https://www.northcarolinahealthnews</a>.<br /> org/2021/05/21/biogas-environmentalists-vs-lawmakers-pork-industry<br /><strong>94</strong> Azhar, A. (2022) EPA to probe whether North Carolina’s permitting of biogas from swine feeding operations<br /> violates civil rights of nearby neighborhoods. Inside Climate News, 25 January 2022. [ONLINE] Available at:<br /><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/25012022/epa-north-carolina-cafo-biogas-permit">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/25012022/epa-north-carolina-cafo-biogas-permit</a><br /><strong>95</strong> Azhar, A. (2021) North Carolina’s new farm bill speeds the way for Smithfield’s massive biogas plan for<br /> hog farms. Inside Climate News, 31 August 2021. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/">https://insideclimatenews.org/</a><br /> news/31082021/north-carolina-farm-bill-biogas-smithfield<br /><strong>96</strong> NZ Government. (2021) Releases. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz-joins-global">https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz-joins-global</a>-<br /> initiative-tackle-methane<br /><strong>97</strong> Stats New Zealand (2022) New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.stats">https://www.stats</a>.<br /> govt.nz/indicators/new-zealands-greenhouse-gas-emissions<br /><strong>98</strong> Changing Markets (2021) Blindspot: How lack of action on livestock methane undermines climate targets. [ONLINE]<br /> Available at: <a href="http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Blindspot_methane-English.pdf">http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Blindspot_methane-English.pdf</a><br /><strong>99 </strong>Ministry for the Environment (2022) [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://environment.govt.nz">https://environment.govt.nz</a><br /><strong>100</strong> He Wake Eke Noa (2022) About. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://hewakaekenoa.nz/about">https://hewakaekenoa.nz/about</a><br /><strong>101 </strong>Corlett, E. (2022) New Zealand farmers may pay for greenhouse gas emissions under world-first plans. The<br /> Guardian, 11 October 2022 [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/11/new-zealand">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/11/new-zealand</a>-<br /> farmers-may-pay-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-under-world-first-plans<br /><strong>102 </strong>Changing Markets Foundation (2021) Blindspot: How lack of action on livestock methane undermines climate<br /> targets.<br /><strong>103</strong> FAO (n.d.) Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.fao.org/">https://www.fao.org/</a><br /> gleam/resources/en<br /><strong>104 </strong>Forster, P., Storelvmo, T.,Armour, K., Collins, W., Dufresne, J.-L., Frame, D., Lunt, D.J., Mauritsen, T., Palmer,<br /> M.D.,. Watanabe, M., Wild, M. and Zhang, H. (2021) The Earth’s Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate<br /> Sensitivity. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth<br /> Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [V.,Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani,<br /> S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy,<br /> J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,<br /> Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 923–1054, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.009., Table 7.15., p.1017<br /> [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter07.pdf">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter07.pdf</a><br /><strong>105</strong> Wang, L., Xue, B., Yan, T. (2017) Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and poultry production sectors in China<br /> from 1960 to 2010. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 16(1): 221–8. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://www.sciencedirect">https://www.sciencedirect</a>.<br /> com/science/article/pii/S2095311916613722<br /><strong>106</strong> IFCN (2021) Press release: Top Dairy Processors commit to climate goals and show strong performance in<br /> challenging times. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://ifcndairy.org/top-dairy-processors-commit-to-climate-goals">https://ifcndairy.org/top-dairy-processors-commit-to-climate-goals</a><br /><strong>107</strong> JBS (2021) Institutional presentation, including 4Q21 and 2021 results. [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://api">https://api</a>.<br /> mziq.com/mzfilemanager/v2/d/043a77e1-0127-4502-bc5b-21427b991b22/89617df2-cf31-77d8-d102-<br /> c2dee83873fb?origin=1j pgs, 12-15<br /><strong>108</strong> Pereira, H (2022) Technical Opinion: Critical evaluation of the methodology adopted in the IATP (Institute<br /> for Agriculture and Trade Policy) study to estimate JBS’ GHG emissions. WayCarbon, Version 1.0, July 2022.<br /> [ONLINE] Available at: <a href="https://jbs.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/-jbs-technical-note-iatp-eng.pdf">https://jbs.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/-jbs-technical-note-iatp-eng.pdf</a><br /><strong>109</strong> JBS (2021) Institutional presentation, including 4Q21 and 2021 results<br /><strong>110 </strong>Clements, M. (2022) Top world broiler and egg rankings for 2021. WATTPoultry.com [ONLINE] Available at:<br /><a href="https://www.wattagnet.com/articles/45506-top-world-broiler-and-egg-rankings-for-2021">https://www.wattagnet.com/articles/45506-top-world-broiler-and-egg-rankings-for-2021</a></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <hr /><hr /><h2><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Downloads: </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></h2> <p><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Emissions%20Impossible_Methane%20Edition_%20FINAL.pdf">Download a PDF of the full report with references</a>. </p> <p><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Emissions%20Impossible_Methane%20Edition_Annexes%201%20and%202.pdf">Annexes 1 and 2</a> </p> <p><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Emissions%20Impossible_Methane%20Edition_ExecSum_EN_Final%20_Embargoed%2015%20Nov%20%282%29.pdf">English Executive Summary</a></p> <h3>Original Datasets:</h3> <p><a href="https://iatp.sharepoint.com/:x:/s/ProgramsProjects/EZ3DYZ4CHhtGncxU1wGCZ0QB3y4EoaeNhEprTEsjXAo9XA?e=3Fgnve">Primary dataset</a></p> <h3>Translations of the Executive Summary:</h3> <p>Spanish translation of the <a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Emissions%20Impossible_Methane%20Edition_ExecSum_ESP_Final.pdf">Executive Summary</a> (Descargue la traducción al español del <a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Emissions%20Impossible_Methane%20Edition_ExecSum_ESP_Final.pdf">resumen ejecutivo</a>.)</p> <p>French translation of the <a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Emissions%20Impossible_Methane%20Edition_ExecSum_FR_Final.pdf">Executive Summary</a> (Télécharger une traduction française du <a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Emissions%20Impossible_Methane%20Edition_ExecSum_FR_Final.pdf">résumé exécutif</a>.)</p> <p>German translation of the <a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Emissions%20Impossible_Methane%20Edition_ExecSum_DE_Final.pdf">Executive Summary</a> (Download einer deutschen <a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Emissions%20Impossible_Methane%20Edition_ExecSum_DE_Final.pdf">Übersetzung der Zusammenfassung</a>.)</p> <p>Portuguese translation of the <a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Emissions%20Impossible_MethaneEdition_ExecSum_PORT.pdf">Executive Summary</a> (Descarregar uma tradução em português do <a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Emissions%20Impossible_MethaneEdition_ExecSum_PORT.pdf">resumo executivo</a>.)</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-upload field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf icon-before"><span class="file-icon"><span class="icon glyphicon glyphicon-file text-primary" aria-hidden="true"></span></span><span class="file-link"><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Emissions%20Impossible_Methane%20Edition_%20FINAL.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=8115918" title="Open file in new window" target="_blank" data-toggle="tooltip" data-placement="bottom">Emissions Impossible_Methane Edition_ FINAL.pdf</a></span><span class="file-size">7.74 MB</span></span></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-category field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Primary category</div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/industrialized-meat" hreflang="en">Industrial Livestock</a></div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-teaser-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Teaser image</div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/media/11552" hreflang="en">Emissions Impossible Methane Edition</a></div> </div> </div> Tue, 15 Nov 2022 20:48:42 +0000 cecelia brackey 44863 at https://www.iatp.org Fifteen meat and dairy companies emit more methane than Russia — New report https://www.iatp.org/fifteen-meat-and-dairy-companies-emit-more-methane-russia <div class="node node--type-document node--view-mode-rss field-primary-category-industrial-livestock has-field-primary-category no-field-teaser-image title-not-empty ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-field-author field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Author</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/about/staff/iatp" hreflang="en">IATP</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><span><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">Fifteen of the world’s biggest meat and dairy companies emit more methane than countries such as Russia, Canada, Australia or Germany, reveals new research released today. </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">The report, which calls for more ambitious action to cut emissions from the meat and dairy sector, is being launched ahead of a Global Methane Pledge Ministerial at the U.N. Climate Summit on 17 November, where <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/forty-countries-unveil-methane-plans-un-climate-summit-us-official-says-2022-11-03/"><span>40 countries</span></a> are expected to release national methane plans.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><a href="https://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible-methane-edition"><em><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">Emissions Impossible: Methane Edition</span></em></a><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"> from the <a href="https://www.iatp.org/"><span>Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy</span></a> and the <a href="https://changingmarkets.org/"><span>Changing Markets Foundation</span></a> calculates the methane emissions of companies such as <strong>Nestlé, Danone, Danish Crown and Saputo </strong>for the first time. It finds:</span></span></span></span></p> <ul><li><span><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">The companies’ combined methane emissions rival that of the EU (83%) and Russia (115%) and far exceed Canada (377%), Australia (355%) and Germany (705%). <span>The methane footprint of<strong> JBS</strong>, the world’s biggest meat company, is greater than that of Italy, Spain and the U.K. combined.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">The 15 companies are responsible for 3.4% of global methane emissions from human activity and 11% of total global livestock emissions.</span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">The methane footprint of Brazilian meat company, <strong>Marfrig</strong>, is comparable to Australia’s livestock sector; the U.S. multinational, <strong>Tyson Foods</strong>, to Russia’s; and New Zealand dairy giant <strong>Fonterra,</strong> to Ireland’s.</span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">The companies' combined greenhouse gas emissions are greater than that of Germany, the world’s fourth biggest economy, and exceed those of oil and gas giants such as ExxonMobil, BP and Shell.</span></span></span></span></li> </ul><p><span><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span>Despite their huge climate footprint, only six of the companies fully report their emissions — including from animals in their supply chains which account for 90% of the sector's climate footprint. None of the companies publish information on the methane emissions of their supply chains.</span></span><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"> It is difficult to assess their climate plans and commitments without this information.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span>Shefali Sharma, European Director of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, </span></span></strong><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span>said:</span></span><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span> <em>“The methane emissions of the big meat and dairy companies rival those of nation states, yet they hide their colossal climate footprint behind a veneer of greenwash and net-zero targets. These companies won’t do what is needed voluntarily — governments must set rules to regulate their emissions and support farmers to transition away from industrial agriculture.”</em></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">The Pledge, launched at the Glasgow Climate Summit last year, commits <a href="https://www.globalmethanepledge.org/"><span>1</span></a><a href="https://www.globalmethanepledge.org/"><span>30 countries</span></a> to a 30% cut in global methane emissions by 2030. However, the focus on tech fixes such as animal feed additives over action to cut livestock numbers means even the EU and U.S are<a href="http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CE_Delft_210502_Methane_reduction_potential_in_the_EU_Def.pdf"> </a><a href="http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CE_Delft_210502_Methane_reduction_potential_in_the_EU_Def.pdf"><span>not on track</span></a> to meet this target. None of the signatories — including nine of the 10 countries where the 15 big meat and dairy companies are headquartered — have sufficient plans to deal with livestock methane. Livestock farming is responsible for 32% of global emissions and <a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-methane-assessment-benefits-and-costs-mitigating-methane-emissions"><span>continue</span></a><a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-methane-assessment-benefits-and-costs-mitigating-methane-emissions"><span>s to rise</span></a>.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span>Nusa Urbanic, Campaigns Director at Changing Markets Foundation, </span></span></strong><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span>said: <em>“</em></span></span><em><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span>A handful of meat and dairy corporations are responsible for one in every 10 tonnes of methane produced by livestock, yet they have been given a free pass to pollute under the Global Methane Pledge. Governments should require them to report and reduce their emissions and oblige these hugely wealthy companies to put their money where their mouth is and invest in real climate solutions.”</span></span></em></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">The U.N. says a 40-45% reduction in methane emissions by 2030 offers the best hope of keeping global heating below 1.5˚C and avoiding dangerous tipping points. Methane only remains in the atmosphere for a decade but has 80 times more warming potential than carbon dioxide over a 20-year timespan. Under current policies, emissions are expected to rise by 30% between 2015-2050.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span>Ricardo Salvador, Director, Food &amp; Environment Program, Union of Concerned Scientists, </span></span></strong><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span>said: <em>“Our best hope of keeping global heating below 1.5˚C is through rapid cuts in methane emissions that are only possible with more ambitious action targeting emissions from the livestock industry in the Global Methane Pledge and government policy. The Farm Bill in the U.S. and the Common Agriculture Policy in the EU should help farmers and ranchers produce less and better meat and dairy for the good of people and the planet.”</em></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><strong>Note to editor: </strong></p> <p><em>Emissions Impossible: Methane Edition</em> is available <a href="https://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible-methane-edition?utm_source=IATP+Full+List&amp;utm_campaign=5c1f816470-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_10_03_03_20_COPY_01&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_term=0_3f024f9ff8-5c1f816470-">here</a>. </p> <p><span><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">The report analysed the emissions of 10 big dairy companies — Arla (Denmark), Dairy Farmers of America (US), Danone (France), Deutsche Milchkontor (Germany), Fonterra (New Zealand), FrieslandCampina (Netherlands), Lactalis (France), Nestlé (Switzerland), Saputo (Canada), Yili (China) — and five of the biggest meat companies — Danish Crown (Denmark), JBS (Brazil), Marfrig (Brazil), Tyson (U.S.), WH Group (China).</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span> </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/PRESS%20RELEASE_Emissions%20Impossible%20Methane%20Edition_Final.pdf">Download the press release</a>.  </span></span></span></p></div> <div class="field field--name-upload field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf icon-before"><span class="file-icon"><span class="icon glyphicon glyphicon-file text-primary" aria-hidden="true"></span></span><span class="file-link"><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/PRESS%20RELEASE_Emissions%20Impossible%20Methane%20Edition_Final.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=210366" title="Open file in new window" target="_blank" data-toggle="tooltip" data-placement="bottom">PRESS RELEASE_Emissions Impossible Methane Edition_Final.pdf</a></span><span class="file-size">205.44 KB</span></span></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-category field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Primary category</div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/industrialized-meat" hreflang="en">Industrial Livestock</a></div> </div> </div> Tue, 15 Nov 2022 17:38:52 +0000 cecelia brackey 44864 at https://www.iatp.org Joint Statement by IATP, DeSmog and Feedback https://www.iatp.org/joint-statement-iatp-desmog-and-feedback <div class="node node--type-document node--view-mode-rss field-primary-category-climate-change has-field-primary-category no-field-teaser-image title-not-empty ds-1col clearfix"> <h3 > Joint Statement by IATP, Feedback and DeSmog on JBS’ response to our research published in April 2022 on its GHG emissions </h3> <div class="field field--name-field-author-text field--type-text-long field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Author (free form)</div> <div class="field--item"><p>Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy</p> <p>DeSmog</p> <p>Feedback</p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><span><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span><span>JBS has published </span></span></span><a href="https://jbs.com.br/en/sustainability/aboutemissions/"><span><span>a response</span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span><span> to </span></span></span><a href="https://www.iatp.org/jbs-emissions-rising-despite-net-zero-pledge"><span><span><span>our joint research</span></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span><span>into its greenhouse gas emissions and requested that we retract our emissions estimates.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span><span>The JBS response makes incorrect assumptions about our methodology. Our estimates were based on the best publicly available information at the time of our research, and our methodology is explained <a href="https://www.iatp.org/documents/note-methodology-estimating-jbs-emissions-2018-and-april-2022-publications">here</a>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span><span>In its response, JBS stated its desire for “transparent” dialogue to “improve industry standards” and tackle the climate crisis. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span><span>Transparency must begin with JBS’ public disclosure of comprehensive and consistent annual slaughter figures and company-specific emissions data. These would include a complete reporting of all its scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions data. All data should be independently verified. In its response to our estimates, JBS has declined to provide its slaughter figures, its processing capacity utilisation rates and other data necessary to calculate its emissions. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span><span>The public, governments, consumers and investors can only have confidence in JBS’ progress towards its </span></span></span><a href="https://jbsfoodsgroup.com/articles/jbs-makes-global-commitment-to-achieve-net-zero-greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-2040"><span><span><span>announced target</span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span><span> of reaching net-zero emissions by 2040 if it discloses such data. Furthermore, such disclosure is central to ensuring that JBS is setting and meeting the right targets to help avert climate change. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span><span>There can be no fact-checking of corporate net-zero and climate targets without this level of disclosure. In the absence of such disclosure, the best available public data must be relied on to assess whether global corporations are meeting climate targets that science requires to limit global warming to 1.5˚C.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span><span>Our research highlights the pressing need for regulators to require full, independently verified disclosure of emissions by JBS and all livestock companies to ensure that corporate net-zero promises are more than just greenwash. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><em><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span><span>The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) </span></span></span></em></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><em><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span><span>Feedback</span></span></span></em></span></span></span></p> <p><em><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span><span><span>DeSmog</span></span></span></span></em></p> <hr /><hr /><p><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Joint%20Statement%20by%20IATP%20Feedback%20and%20DeSmog_27%20October%202022.pdf"><strong><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span><span><span>Download the PDF of the joint statement.</span></span></span></span></strong></a></p> <hr /><hr /><p> </p> </div> <div class="field field--name-upload field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf icon-before"><span class="file-icon"><span class="icon glyphicon glyphicon-file text-primary" aria-hidden="true"></span></span><span class="file-link"><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Joint%20Statement%20by%20IATP%20Feedback%20and%20DeSmog_27%20October%202022.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=254916" title="Open file in new window" target="_blank" data-toggle="tooltip" data-placement="bottom">Joint Statement by IATP Feedback and DeSmog_27 October 2022.pdf</a></span><span class="file-size">248.94 KB</span></span></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-category field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Primary category</div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/issues/climate-change" hreflang="en">Climate Change</a></div> </div> </div> Thu, 27 Oct 2022 19:00:00 +0000 cecelia brackey 44849 at https://www.iatp.org Biden admin takes initial steps to fix agriculture markets https://www.iatp.org/biden-admin-takes-initial-steps-fix-agriculture-markets <span>Biden admin takes initial steps to fix agriculture markets</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/34898" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Lilly Richard</span></span> <span>Tue, 08/02/2022 - 15:45</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p paraeid="{f31319b4-1bf1-4639-8d0a-dcc2021fbf9a}{218}" paraid="1938002867">The Biden administration has talked more openly about the problems of unfair, concentrated markets than any recent administration. One year ago, President Biden issued a bold <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/07/09/executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">executive order</a> on the need to address the loss of competition in agriculture markets. Now, the administration is starting to act.</p></div> Tue, 02 Aug 2022 20:45:02 +0000 Lilly Richard 44813 at https://www.iatp.org IATP comment to USDA on proposed rule on "Transparency in Poultry Growing Contracts and Tournaments" https://www.iatp.org/documents/iatp-comment-usda-tsa-2022 <div class="node node--type-document node--view-mode-rss field-primary-category-agriculture has-field-primary-category no-field-teaser-image title-not-empty ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-field-author field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Author</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/about/staff/ben-lilliston" hreflang="en">Ben Lilliston</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p paraeid="{09baa6d4-a2fd-4dd3-909e-7ffcce128979}{214}" paraid="825374174"><em>The following comment was summitted to the United States Department of Agriculture regarding the proposed rule on the “Transparency in Poultry Growing Contracts and Tournaments” on August 1st, 2022. </em></p> <h4 paraeid="{09baa6d4-a2fd-4dd3-909e-7ffcce128979}{214}" paraid="825374174">U.S. Department of Agriculture </h4> <h4 paraeid="{09baa6d4-a2fd-4dd3-909e-7ffcce128979}{220}" paraid="1850302677">Proposed rule on “<a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/transparency-poultry-grower-contracting-and-tournaments" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Transparency in Poultry Growing Contracts and Tournaments</a>” </h4> <h4 paraeid="{09baa6d4-a2fd-4dd3-909e-7ffcce128979}{231}" paraid="269798850">Re: Docket Number: AMS-FTPP-21-0044 </h4> <h4 paraeid="{09baa6d4-a2fd-4dd3-909e-7ffcce128979}{241}" paraid="153501966">Published June 6, 2022. Pages 34980-35031 </h4> <h4>August 1, 2022 </h4> <p paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{2}" paraid="219525989"> </p> <p paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{2}" paraid="219525989">The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) thanks the USDA for the opportunity to comment on this important rule to enhance transparency in poultry growing contracts. IATP is a 36-year-old non-profit 501(c)3 organization based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. IATP works to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems. Since our founding, IATP has advocated for fair and transparent markets for farmers, workers and consumers that support and empower rural communities. IATP has worked on the ground with Minnesota rural communities, in collaboration with Midwest and national family farm organizations, and with farmer and civil society organizations around the world.  </p> <p paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{36}" paraid="344972300">IATP has long advocated for strong enforcement of the 100 year-old Packers and Stockyards Act, and the need for reforms to better reflect current market conditions in order to further establish farmers’ rights under those rules. Agriculture markets are highly concentrated, reducing competition in most sectors and even more so in certain geographic parts of the country. The poultry sector is highly concentrated (vertically and horizontally), with more than 50% of poultry farmers left with only one or two companies to engage with. The major poultry companies that dominate the sector have a record of poor corporate behavior, with recent admissions of price fixing, a current Justice Department investigation of sharing employment practices to hold down wages and numerous environmental violations. </p> <p paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{64}" paraid="1845063227">The 2008 Farm Bill included language directing the USDA to address issues of unfairness in poultry contracts. In 2010, poultry farmers risked retaliation from poultry companies to testify at an Alabama workshop organized by USDA and the Department of Justice. Those poultry growers described to government officials the abusive and unfair nature of poultry contracts, their lack of protection under current rules and their limited recourse in the courts to challenge unfair practices. Later in 2010, the USDA proposed rules to bring greater transparency and fairness to poultry contracts, but those rules were never finalized.  </p> <p paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{82}" paraid="352763463">USDA’s proposed rules to improve transparency in poultry contracts are welcomed, long overdue and an important first step. Also welcome is a July 2022 Justice Department consent decree requiring a new poultry company formed out of a merger between Sanderson Farms, Wayne Farms, Cargill and Continental Grain to comply with the USDA’s proposed rules providing greater transparency. That consent decree also prevents the new poultry company from reducing a poultry growers’ base payments agreed to under contract. The consent decree is an admission that poultry companies can operate under more fair and transparent conditions. While the USDA’s proposed rules and the DOJ consent decree are a step forward, IATP encourages USDA to consider additional rules to more directly dismantle the exploitive tournament system, which we believe is inherently unfair and discriminatory. IATP also looks forward to the issuance of two additional rules USDA has committed to put forward related to unfair practices and competitive injury in agriculture markets.  </p> <p paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{118}" paraid="1052668556"> </p> <h4 paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{118}" paraid="1052668556">General comments </h4> <p paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{124}" paraid="725437699">Transparency is a fundamental tenet of a functioning market. Transparency is necessary for the buyer to know fully what they are purchasing. Transparency for the seller is essential to know what they will be paid for their service or product. It has been clear for more than a decade that modern poultry contracts utilizing the tournament system offer asymmetrical information; the company has full information (and control of production), while the poultry producer lacks full transparency of costs, quality of production inputs and returns. Most fundamentally, poultry producers lack critical information about exactly how much they will get paid and how the company calculates that number. New rules to require greater transparency will help farmers better understand the risks and potential rewards of poultry contracts and ultimately better assess whether signing such a contract makes sense. Greater transparency would also provide lenders with better information to decide whether loans for producers for significant upfront infrastructure costs make sense and can be paid off. </p> <p paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{144}" paraid="1774203391"><strong>IATP supports USDA’s proposed rule and recommends the following general additions for improvement:  </strong> </p> <ul role="list"><li aria-setsize="-1" data-aria-level="1" data-aria-posinset="2" data-font="Symbol" data-leveltext="" data-list-defn-props="{&quot;335551671&quot;:2,&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}" data-listid="4" role="listitem"> <p paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{162}" paraid="223014793">The rule should require a clear base (or minimum) price the farmer will be paid. It should address the unfairness of the tournament system whereby growers are ranked and bonuses are paid by pulling from the pay of other poultry growers. The poultry companies should be responsible for any bonuses paid, and bonuses should not be taken out of the established base price going to other poultry growers. The DOJ consent decree on the recent Sanderson merger sets a precedent to require a clear minimum price industry wide. </p> </li> <li aria-setsize="-1" data-aria-level="1" data-aria-posinset="2" data-font="Symbol" data-leveltext="" data-list-defn-props="{&quot;335551671&quot;:2,&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}" data-listid="4" role="listitem"> <p paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{173}" paraid="248783828">Poultry companies should be required to provide enough birds and stocking densities sufficient to allow growers to pay their debts and be profitable. Contracts with growers should extend to the term of the loan. </p> </li> <li aria-setsize="-1" data-aria-level="1" data-aria-posinset="2" data-font="Symbol" data-leveltext="" data-list-defn-props="{&quot;335551671&quot;:2,&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}" data-listid="4" role="listitem"> <p paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{180}" paraid="2070885199">USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA), which manages a loan guarantee program, has recognized repayment reliability concerns related to informational asymmetries and their effect on poultry grower payments and total revenues. We support adding requirements to poultry contracts that are consistent with FSA guidelines for guaranteed loans to poultry production contracts, including that contracts are for a minimum period of three years, and require that the grower be notified of specific reasons for cancellation. </p> </li> <li aria-setsize="-1" data-aria-level="1" data-aria-posinset="2" data-font="Symbol" data-leveltext="" data-list-defn-props="{&quot;335551671&quot;:2,&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}" data-listid="4" role="listitem"> <p paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{191}" paraid="1947230169">While acknowledging the challenges many poultry producers face, with only one or two poultry companies operating in many regions, the rules do not directly address the regional monopoly challenge, which gives the producer very little leverage in negotiation with global companies, such as Tyson or Pilgrim’s Pride. Even with greater transparency, we believe a regional monopoly poses fundamental market challenges for producers that will always be vulnerable to unfair practices. </p> </li> <li aria-setsize="-1" data-aria-level="1" data-aria-posinset="2" data-font="Symbol" data-leveltext="" data-list-defn-props="{&quot;335551671&quot;:2,&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}" data-listid="4" role="listitem"> <p paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{198}" paraid="859436366">The proposed rule could more clearly state that any integrator who retaliates in any way against a grower would be in violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act. </p> </li> </ul><p paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{205}" paraid="1367634777"> </p> <h4 paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{205}" paraid="1367634777">Contract specific </h4> <p paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{211}" paraid="1632237605">More specifically with regards to greater transparency in contracts, IATP believes it is basic fairness for workers, small businesses or contractors to know what they will be paid if they fulfill the contract. From this perspective, we offer recommendations aligned with analysis by the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) to provide even more transparency on payments to producers within the contract:  </p> <ul role="list"><li aria-setsize="-1" data-aria-level="1" data-aria-posinset="2" data-font="Symbol" data-leveltext="" data-list-defn-props="{&quot;335551671&quot;:2,&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}" data-listid="4" role="listitem"> <p paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{221}" paraid="816200392">Poultry companies should clearly disclose the potential high and low range of pay to ensure producers know the true price floor of a proposed contract. </p> </li> </ul><ul role="list"><li aria-setsize="-1" data-aria-level="1" data-aria-posinset="2" data-font="Symbol" data-leveltext="" data-list-defn-props="{&quot;335551671&quot;:2,&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}" data-listid="4" role="listitem"> <p paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{228}" paraid="406437036">Integrators should be required to prominently disclose the contract’s minimum estimated annual cash flow based on the number and density of the flocks guaranteed annually, the minimum possible pay rate (based on their tournament formula’s variance percentage as discussed above) and estimated grower costs. This disclosure would provide a more transparent picture to growers and lenders concerning the minimum guaranteed cash flow of a proposed contract. </p> </li> <li aria-setsize="-1" data-aria-level="1" data-aria-posinset="2" data-font="Symbol" data-leveltext="" data-list-defn-props="{&quot;335551671&quot;:2,&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}" data-listid="4" role="listitem"> <p paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{235}" paraid="219108930">Within contract disclosures, integrators should disclose all the potential input variables that they control, how they have affected the tournament performance of their current growers, whether their formula equalizes for input quality variability. </p> </li> <li aria-setsize="-1" data-aria-level="1" data-aria-posinset="2" data-font="Symbol" data-leveltext="" data-list-defn-props="{&quot;335551671&quot;:2,&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}" data-listid="4" role="listitem"> <p paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{242}" paraid="1629078285">Within flock delivery disclosures, poultry companies should disclose a breed identifier and a breeder flock identifier in addition to a breeder farm identifier for each grower in any grower’s tournament group. Poultry companies should then be required to provide a convenient method for growers to access or request historical data profiles outlining best management practices and tournament system performance (disaggregated by impactful variables like breeder flock age, flock pickup date, etc.) of all chicks from any breed, breeder facility or breeder flock identifier. </p> </li> <li aria-setsize="-1" data-aria-level="1" data-aria-posinset="2" data-font="Symbol" data-leveltext="" data-list-defn-props="{&quot;335551671&quot;:2,&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}" data-listid="4" role="listitem"> <p paraeid="{12ed4940-cff1-41b0-88fb-84a775668107}{249}" paraid="8792323">Poultry companies should provide the contract in a language the grower can understand. As stated, the details in these contracts matter, and it is critical that producers fully understand all potential costs and benefits before assessing whether to sign such a contract and for financial planning if they do choose to sign the contract.  </p> </li> <li aria-setsize="-1" data-aria-level="1" data-aria-posinset="2" data-font="Symbol" data-leveltext="" data-list-defn-props="{&quot;335551671&quot;:2,&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}" data-listid="4" role="listitem"> <p paraeid="{86a09af4-dbfa-416f-9055-1897ee4d858a}{1}" paraid="897913927">The confined poultry system is inherently risky to the rapid spread of disease. The industry has seen repeated outbreaks of different variants of avian flu devastate poultry farms around the country. Thus far in 2022, 187 commercial flocks have been infected with a highly pathogenic avian flu, with over 40 million birds infected nationally. It is critical that contracts are clear about the poultry company’s responsibility in compensating the farmer for costs associated with infected birds, the costs of carcass disposal and other disease mitigation costs to allow future raising of chickens on the farm, and how that loss of birds due to a disease outbreak effects a producer’s payment at the end of the contract.</p> </li> <li aria-setsize="-1" data-aria-level="1" data-aria-posinset="2" data-font="Symbol" data-leveltext="" data-list-defn-props="{&quot;335551671&quot;:2,&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}" data-listid="4" role="listitem"> <p paraeid="{86a09af4-dbfa-416f-9055-1897ee4d858a}{8}" paraid="65163952">We would support AMS collecting contract disclosure data across the industry. Given the industry’s consolidation and geographic monopolistic environments, collecting data on the variables of these contracts would help inform producers, lenders and regulatory authorities. </p> </li> </ul><p paraeid="{86a09af4-dbfa-416f-9055-1897ee4d858a}{21}" paraid="478865518"> </p> <h4 paraeid="{86a09af4-dbfa-416f-9055-1897ee4d858a}{21}" paraid="478865518">Settlements </h4> <p paraeid="{86a09af4-dbfa-416f-9055-1897ee4d858a}{27}" paraid="402885164">At the time of contract settlement, poultry growers should understand the exact calculation that determined their final payment. The poultry company must provide clarity on those calculations to ensure fairness and full transparency. IATP suggests the following additions, also consistent with RAFI’s analysis, to the USDA’s proposals on settlement sheets: </p> <ul role="list"><li aria-setsize="-1" data-aria-level="1" data-aria-posinset="2" data-font="Symbol" data-leveltext="" data-list-defn-props="{&quot;335551671&quot;:2,&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}" data-listid="4" role="listitem"> <p paraeid="{86a09af4-dbfa-416f-9055-1897ee4d858a}{33}" paraid="1957108782">Poultry companies should have to disclose the flock age at pickup as an impactful variable and whether they account for flock age in the tournament formula. </p> </li> <li aria-setsize="-1" data-aria-level="1" data-aria-posinset="2" data-font="Symbol" data-leveltext="" data-list-defn-props="{&quot;335551671&quot;:2,&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}" data-listid="4" role="listitem"> <p paraeid="{86a09af4-dbfa-416f-9055-1897ee4d858a}{40}" paraid="2065347247">The companies should account for input quality variables in their pricing formulas and address these variables within formulas that ensure fairness under the contract. </p> </li> <li aria-setsize="-1" data-aria-level="1" data-aria-posinset="2" data-font="Symbol" data-leveltext="" data-list-defn-props="{&quot;335551671&quot;:2,&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Symbol&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}" data-listid="4" role="listitem"> <p paraeid="{86a09af4-dbfa-416f-9055-1897ee4d858a}{47}" paraid="1835295610">Poultry companies should maintain an appeals process for growers to report feed quality or delivery issues, input quality issues or other grievances and should disclose any appeals and a summary of their resolution on settlement sheets. </p> </li> </ul><p paraeid="{86a09af4-dbfa-416f-9055-1897ee4d858a}{54}" paraid="1061761890">The PSA was first passed more than 100 years ago during a different era. These proposed rules help the USDA respond to a new era that poses new challenges to ensure transparency and fairness. We believe the Justice Department’s consent decree with the new poultry company (Sanderson, Wayne, Cargill, Continental) reinforces the need to set industry-wide rules for transparency and clarity on a minimum price in contracts. IATP looks forward to the completion of these rules on poultry contract transparency and to further rules the USDA is considering regarding the inherent unfairness of the tournament system. </p> <p paraeid="{86a09af4-dbfa-416f-9055-1897ee4d858a}{54}" paraid="1061761890"> </p> <p paraeid="{86a09af4-dbfa-416f-9055-1897ee4d858a}{62}" paraid="874969728"><strong>Please feel free to contact IATP’s Ben Lilliston (<a href="mailto:blilliston@iatp.org" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">blilliston@iatp.org</a>) with any questions regarding these comments.   </strong></p> <p paraeid="{86a09af4-dbfa-416f-9055-1897ee4d858a}{62}" paraid="874969728"> </p> </div> <div class="field field--name-upload field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf icon-before"><span class="file-icon"><span class="icon glyphicon glyphicon-file text-primary" aria-hidden="true"></span></span><span class="file-link"><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/USDA%20PSA%20poultry_August%202022.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=884710" title="Open file in new window" target="_blank" data-toggle="tooltip" data-placement="bottom">USDA PSA poultry_August 2022.pdf</a></span><span class="file-size">863.97 KB</span></span></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-category field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Primary category</div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/agriculture2" hreflang="en">Agriculture</a></div> </div> </div> Tue, 02 Aug 2022 18:02:30 +0000 Lilly Richard 44812 at https://www.iatp.org World’s largest meat company, JBS, increases emissions by 51% in five years despite 2040 net zero climate target, continues to greenwash its huge climate footprint https://www.iatp.org/media-brief-jbs-increases-emissions-51-percent <div class="node node--type-document node--view-mode-rss field-primary-category-industrial-livestock has-field-primary-category has-field-teaser-image title-not-empty ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-field-author-text field--type-text-long field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Author (free form)</div> <div class="field--item"><p>DeSmog </p> <p>Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy</p> <p>Feedback </p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-media field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field--items"> <div class="field--item"><div> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <img src="/sites/default/files/styles/feat/public/2022-04/JBS.png?itok=qoh9Wgex" width="950" height="590" alt="JBS Net Zero" loading="lazy" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-caption field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="color:#1d1c1d">Credit: Pete Reynolds ©</span></span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><hr /><hr /><p><strong>This report uses data and a methodology which are described <a href="https://www.iatp.org/documents/note-methodology-estimating-jbs-emissions-2018-and-april-2022-publications">here</a>. Our estimates were based on the best publicly available information at the time of our research. JBS has now provided a response which can be found <a href="https://jbs.com.br/en/sustainability/aboutemissions/">here</a>, and that response has been taken into account in the data used in IATP’s <a href="https://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible-methane-edition">report with the Changing Markets Foundation</a>. We have responded to JBS <a href="https://www.iatp.org/joint-statement-iatp-desmog-and-feedback">here</a>. </strong></p> <hr /><hr /><h3>Rising Emissions: Misleading investors and the public </h3> <blockquote><p>"Some government and business leaders are saying one thing – but doing another. Simply put, they are lying – and the results will be catastrophic." UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres</p> </blockquote> <p>That’s how UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres presented the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released earlier this month. He could have easily been talking about Brazilian meat giant JBS and its misleading net zero target.</p> <p>The company, which is the largest meat processor in the world, increased its annual greenhouse gas emissions by a whopping 51% between 2016 and 2021, from 280 million metric tonnes to 421.6 million metric tonnes (mmts), based on the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)’s latest calculations.<sup>1</sup></p> <p>This is more than fossil fuel giant Total’s 2020 emissions.<sup>2</sup> It is more than Italy’s annual climate footprint and 95% of France’s (at 443 mmt). As JBS prepares for its annual general meeting (AGM) on 22 April in São Paulo, this briefing outlines how the company’s “green” claims fail to live up to reality and the meat giant continues to mislead in its communications with investors and the public.</p> <p><img alt="" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="blob:https://iatp.sharepoint.com/79a364b7-31e8-49a3-9446-72ba8116c2c9" /><img alt="" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="blob:https://iatp.sharepoint.com/79a364b7-31e8-49a3-9446-72ba8116c2c9" /><img alt="JBS Emissions Increase" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="c53eaec9-1b73-4f3a-ad1a-ba9a7f43aca9" height="317" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/JBS%20emissions%20increase.png" width="317" /></p> <p>JBS is promising to reach net zero emissions by 2040 and has been working hard to paint itself as an ally in the fight against climate change. It signed a joint declaration with governments at the COP26 climate summit to develop a Paris Agreement-aligned sector plan and issued a “Sustainability Linked” bond soon after.</p> <p>But JBS’s “net zero” plan is heavy on rhetoric and light on detail, conveniently ignoring the company’s principal source of emissions: the increasing number of animals in its global supply chain (sometimes referred to as “Scope 3” emissions).<sup>3</sup></p> <p>The number of animals in JBS’s supply chain in the past five years has increased substantially: the number of cattle has increased by 54%, pigs by 67% and chickens by 40%, resulting in the enormous increase in emissions. For industrial livestock companies, the animals in their supply chains make up 90-97% of their emissions. In 2021, JBS processed 26.8 million cattle, 46.7 million pigs and 4.9 billion chickens.<sup>4</sup> Both the livestock numbers and the emissions are a conservative estimate given the lack of transparency in the industry regarding the number of animals they slaughter.</p> <p><img alt="JBS Livestock Increases" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="a4564c5a-7c26-40f3-b1b9-9effdfb33fe9" height="317" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/JBS%20livestock%20increases.png" width="317" /></p> <p>JBS increased its climate footprint even by the metric that the livestock industry most prefers – “emissions intensity”. This sees companies focus on reporting efficiency – measuring their emissions per kilo of meat – as opposed to the total.</p> <p>In 2020, JBS pledged to make a 30% cut within 10 years to its Scope 1 and 2 emissions, which covers greenhouse gases emitted directly or indirectly by the company’s operations (limited to its plants and offices).</p> <p> Yet, JBS reported in 2021 that its emissions intensity actually increased by 30% between 2019 and 2020, according to figures it submitted to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP).<sup>5</sup></p> <p>The company has been rapidly expanding in recent years by buying up rivals and increasing its share of the supply chain, with 250,000 employees globally. Its customers include well-known chains such as Burger King, McDonald’s, Tesco and Walmart.</p> <p>JBS is currently listed on the Brazilian stock exchange but is seeking an initial public offering (IPO) in the U.S. – something it has been pursuing for several years.</p> <p>But if the world is to have a hope of tackling the agriculture sector’s climate impacts, JBS and other livestock companies must disclose their emissions in full, including Scope 3 emissions (i.e., those emitted all along its supply chain) while governments must enact stronger laws on deforestation and regulate the industry’s spiraling emissions.</p> <p>Below, JBS’s “green” claims are compared with the reality of their operations.</p> <table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width: 740px;"><thead><tr><th scope="col" style="width: 275px;">JBS's "Green" claims</th> <th scope="col" style="width: 444px;">The reality</th> </tr></thead><tbody><tr><td style="width: 275px;">“On a path to <a href="https://jbs.com.br/en/jbs-news-en/jbs-announces-global-commitment-to-achieve-net-zero-greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-2040/">net zero by 2040</a>”</td> <td style="width: 444px;"> <ul><li>No commitment to measure, disclose or cut Scope 3 emissions, despite the fact they represent up to 97% of JBS’s climate footprint</li> <li>No target to measure, disclose or cut methane</li> <li>Will not stop deforestation across its global supply chain before 2035</li> <li>No accountability mechanism to ensure this target is met</li> </ul></td> </tr><tr><td style="width: 275px;">“Praised for our efforts to <a href="https://api.mziq.com/mzfilemanager/v2/d/043a77e1-0127-4502-bc5b-21427b991b22/ac737ffe-594f-b944-298a-43cae6d82f63?origin=1">fight deforestation</a>”</td> <td style="width: 444px;"> <ul><li>Multiple investigations have found that JBS’s activities are driving deforestation</li> <li>JBS admits that it currently causes illegal deforestation and will only eliminate this by 2025</li> <li>Deforestation footprint estimated to run into the hundreds of thousands of hectares and to be over 1.5 million hectares in its indirect supply chains</li> </ul></td> </tr><tr><td style="width: 275px;">“<a href="https://api.mziq.com/mzfilemanager/v2/d/043a77e1-0127-4502-bc5b-21427b991b22/8dff7fe0-ab81-914a-e2d8-b230f412b82f?origin=1">Supporting firefighters</a> and other environmental protection initiatives”</td> <td style="width: 444px;"> <ul><li>JBS suppliers have been found to be linked to fires</li> <li>Cattle ranching is main driver of fires</li> <li>Net zero target has no commitment to end intentional use of fires to clear land</li> </ul></td> </tr><tr><td style="width: 275px;">“Innovating to <a href="https://api.mziq.com/mzfilemanager/v2/d/043a77e1-0127-4502-bc5b-21427b991b22/ac737ffe-594f-b944-298a-43cae6d82f63?origin=1">reduce methane</a>”</td> <td style="width: 444px;"> <ul><li>Expanding mass production of livestock will wipe out any gains</li> <li>No scientific evidence that feed additives will make a sizeable difference to methane emissions</li> </ul></td> </tr><tr><td style="width: 275px;">“Boosting <a href="https://api.mziq.com/mzfilemanager/v2/d/043a77e1-0127-4502-bc5b-21427b991b22/8dff7fe0-ab81-914a-e2d8-b230f412b82f?origin=1">green energy</a>”</td> <td style="width: 444px;"> <ul><li>Energy use is a small proportion of JBS’s emissions</li> <li>JBS is making a profit selling carbon credits from its biodiesel plants, without proof this is deforestation-free</li> </ul></td> </tr><tr><td style="width: 275px;">“Producing meat <a href="https://api.mziq.com/mzfilemanager/v2/d/043a77e1-0127-4502-bc5b-21427b991b22/8dff7fe0-ab81-914a-e2d8-b230f412b82f?origin=1">more efficiently</a>”</td> <td style="width: 444px;"> <ul><li>Number of JBS slaughterhouses has more than doubled in recent years</li> <li>JBS’s direct cattle supplier farms in the Amazon rose from 7,700 to 16,900 between 2009 and 2020</li> <li>Rapid expansion is cancelling out efficiency gains</li> </ul></td> </tr></tbody></table><h3><em>"On a path to net zero by 2040" </em></h3> <p>In March 2021, JBS announced a goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2040, in what it claims is a first for a major livestock company. Its CEO has described the pledge as JBS’s “most important commitment”.</p> <p>But the target currently lacks any credibility. This is not only because of JBS’s continued refusal to disclose its full emissions, but also because the company only plans to cut Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2030, which account for less than 10% of its climate footprint. Expanding mass production of livestock will wipe out any gains in emissions reduction, something the company has itself admitted. Independent estimates suggest that its indirect “Scope 3” emissions, which cover the whole of its supply chain, represent as much as 97% of JBS’s contribution to climate change.</p> <p>While the company claims its total emissions for 2020 were only 6.8 Mt CO2-equivalent, this figure excludes emissions from the animals in its supply chain, the production of animal feed and emissions from deforestation, which together make up the vast majority of the company’s climate footprint.</p> <p><img alt="JBS claims vs reality" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="9289f104-9699-4f94-ada5-1e3946781edf" height="341" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/JBS%20claims%20vs%20reality.png" width="341" /></p> <p>The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) and GRAIN calculated JBS’s 2016 emissions to be 280 Mt CO2-eq, using the UN-approved GLEAM model. This is roughly half that of oil majors like ExxonMobil, Shell and BP, and equivalent to the total emissions of Taiwan or one-fifth of Brazil’s. Since then, JBS has only increased the number of animals in its supply chain. JBS’s scope 1 and 2 target is only a reduction in “emissions intensity”, so emissions are likely to continue rising in absolute terms, given the company’s growth ambitions.</p> <p>The plan also states that an unspecified proportion of the target will be reached through carbon sequestration in the future, but provides no timescale or details on how these offsets will be achieved. Land-based carbon sequestration is easily reversible due to human and natural events, with the IPCC’s recent 6th Assessment report warning that this carbon is increasingly vulnerable to release due to climate change.</p> <p>JBS claims that its emissions reduction target was recognised by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) in June 2021, but this has still not been validated. It refuses to disclose its full emissions to both SBTi and CDP.</p> <p>The company’s net zero goal was ranked “very low” for both transparency and integrity in a recent report by the New Climate Institute think tank.</p> <h3><em>"Praise for our efforts to fight deforestation" </em></h3> <p>JBS boasts about being “classified as the Brazilian protein company with the lowest risk of links to deforestation in its operations”, according to Forest 500 rankings. It also says it is one of the most sustainable livestock companies globally, according to the Coller Fairr Protein Producer ranking.</p> <p>But in its 2040 net zero target, JBS admits that it currently causes illegal deforestation and will only eliminate this by 2025. Legal deforestation will continue until 2035, under the company’s target.</p> <p>This commitment is itself merely a reiteration of a deforestation promise it made in 2009 and has failed to keep.<br /> JBS’s total deforestation footprint in six Brazilian states since 2008 has been conservatively estimated at 200,000 hectares (ha) in its direct supply chain and 1.5 million ha in its indirect supply chain.</p> <p>Multiple investigations have found evidence of JBS suppliers causing both legal and illegal deforestation in recent years.</p> <p>In January 2022, a Bloomberg investigation concluded that JBS was “one of the biggest drivers of Amazon deforestation”.</p> <p>In November 2021, the New York Times linked leather in luxury SUVs to JBS cattle production and illegal deforestation in Brazil.</p> <p>In October 2021, Brazilian federal prosecutors concluded that JBS had purchased over 300,000 cattle from ranches with “irregularities” the previous year, including illegal deforestation in the Amazon region, and that the situation was worsening.</p> <p>In 2020, a joint investigation by Repórter Brasil, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Guardian found evidence connecting JBS to cattle supplied from a farm in the Brazilian Amazon under sanction for illegal deforestation.</p> <p>Cattle ranching accounts for 80% of deforestation in the Amazon, according to Yale’s Global Forest Atlas, and is also a leading cause of deforestation in Australia, where JBS is the largest meat processing company.</p> <h3><em>"Supporting firefighters and other environmental protection initiatives" </em></h3> <p>In recent years, images of forest fires in the Amazon and Pantanal wetlands of Brazil have shocked the world and spurred political action.</p> <p>JBS says it is partnering with a conservation charity to preserve the biodiversity-rich Araguaia corridor in the Amazon and that it is “supporting” 80 fire brigades to tackle fires in the Pantanal wetlands, as well as five teams from the Aliança da Terra NGO.</p> <p>The company says it is issuing real-time alerts to firefighters using satellites and cameras installed on farms.</p> <p>But the main driver of biodiversity destruction and fires is cattle ranching, with ranchers even suspected by police of starting them. A Greenpeace investigation last year found that JBS had purchased beef from ranchers linked to the 2020 Pantanal fires and was still failing to guarantee that its supply chain was free of this beef. The company’s net zero pledge does not include any commitment to end the use of fires to clear land on its ranches.</p> <h3><em>"Innovating to reduce methane" </em></h3> <p>In its recently published 2021 Management Report, JBS describes how it is developing feed additives to cut methane emissions from cattle and claims to have made progress already in cutting the powerful greenhouse gas from its supply chain.<br /> JBS also says it is investing in the “circular economy” by recycling plastic and using biodiesel and organic fertilisers, as well as using blockchain technology to better monitor its supply chain.</p> <p>Whatever limited impact these techno-fixes may have, they are far outweighed by the company’s overall emissions and continuing plans to expand.</p> <p>Its feed additive is still in development, and there is no evidence yet that it will make a meaningful dent in methane emissions from cattle.</p> <p>Methane (CH<sub>4</sub>) emissions are responsible for almost one-quarter of global warming, with a warming impact 84 times as high as CO2 over a 20-year period. UN studies show agriculture is the largest human-made source of methane, with livestock producing 32% of emissions. According to the IPCC, reducing global methane emissions in particular by 2030 and 2040 will reduce the likelihood of reaching peak warming and overshooting warming limits.</p> <p>Methane emissions reduction proved a key theme at the COP26 summit in Glasgow, with countries and businesses pledging to slash emissions of this often overlooked greenhouse gas, and the latest IPCC report specifically recommended that methane emissions be slashed by one-third by 2030 in order to hold temperature rise to 1.5°C.</p> <h3><em>"Boosting green energy" </em></h3> <p>In its 2021 Q4 earnings presentation, JBS says it is increasingly running its operations on renewable energy, with “100% renewable electricity sources” at its Pilgrim’s UK subsidiary and a target of 100% solar-powered stores for its Swift subsidiary in Brazil.</p> <p>As part of its net zero goal, the company pledges to power its facilities around the world with 100% renewable energy by 2040.<br /> But JBS’s energy use constitutes a small proportion of its overall emissions, so the switch to renewables will make little difference to JBS’s climate footprint.</p> <p>Moreover, JBS counts methane gas captured from giant manure lagoons sourced from megafarms as renewable energy, despite this causing an array of environmental impacts and incentivising industrial livestock production. Furthermore the company is making millions selling carbon credits from its biodiesel plants, even though the fuel is made with animal fat from its slaughterhouse operations and there is no traceability showing it to be a deforestation-free product. In 2020, JBS generated 430,000 Decarbonization Credits (CBios) through the production of biodiesel. Considering the average price of a CBio over the past year (R$ 43), JBS may have profited by more than R$ 18 million (3,5 M Euros) from the operation, not counting the amount received from the sale of the biofuel itself.</p> <p>Finally, JBS also pushed false solutions like sending manure and slurries from their factory farms to anaerobic digestors. Biogas from such agriculture facilities has been labelled “factory farm gas” by many campaigners because, in a similar way to carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies being applied to coal power stations, biogas may mitigate some emissions from the manure but incentivizes operations to expand their number of animals to produce even more manure. For instance, biogas subsidies in Northern Ireland have facilitated an explosion in the size of factory farmed chicken and pigs, with one of the major beneficiaries being Moy Park (part of Pilgrim’s Pride, majority owned by JBS) which now not only saves money on waste disposal but is also paid by the digestors for their manure.<sup>6</sup></p> <h3><em>"Producing meat more efficiently" </em></h3> <p>JBS claims to be producing meat more efficiently by increasing its feed conversion ratio, thereby cutting the “emissions intensity” of its products. But in its most recent disclosure to CDP for 2020, JBS reported that its emissions intensity – covering just scope 1 and 2 emissions – had increased by 30% since the previous year.</p> <p>Even if the company manages to cut its emissions intensity in future years, its rapid growth will easily cancel out any efficiency gains. The company’s base of direct cattle supplier farms in the Amazon more than doubled between 2009 and 2020, from around 7,700 to 16,900. The number of JBS slaughterhouses in the Amazon also more than doubled over this period, a recent Bloomberg investigation found.</p> <h3>A history of violations </h3> <p>JBS also has a long history of breaking the law over non-environmental issues, raising further doubts about the likelihood of its compliance with the 2040 net zero target.</p> <p>In just the last few months and years, JBS has:</p> <ul><li>Settled with US Department of Justice for $53 million for price-fixing scheme in beef markets (February 2022)</li> <li>Obtained court approval to settle price fixing in the poultry market for $76 million (December 2021)</li> <li> Agreed to pay $12.7 million to settle pork price-fixing charges (November 2021)</li> <li>Been fined $59,000 by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration due to a fatality at a JBS operation (October 2021)</li> <li>Settled charges with the US Security Exchange Commission over Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations for $27 million (2020)</li> <li>Been fined multiple times for failing to adequately protect its employees at various plants during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020)</li> <li>Seen six executives of JBS’s poultry division Pilgrim’s Pride personally indicted on federal price-fixing charges (2020)</li> <li>Paid $3.2 billion for bribing finance officials in Brazil to obtain government-backed loans (2017)</li> </ul><h3>Industry-wide problems</h3> <p>The greenwashing outlined above is far from unique to JBS. Livestock companies consistently fail to disclose their full emissions – or under-report them by excluding indirect (scope 3) emissions, as reports from IATP in 2018 and 2021 show. The industry is responsible for as much as 19% of global greenhouse gas emissions and is under growing pressure from scientists, campaigners and the general public for this vast contribution to climate change. In response, companies and their trade associations have developed a series of public relations techniques to reassure consumers that no significant action is needed: by setting ambitious-sounding targets and claiming to develop innovative solutions.</p> <p>Without transitioning away from the industrial model of animal agriculture, the world’s remaining forests face destruction and “agriculture alone would produce almost twice the emissions allowable from all human activities” by 2050, according to the World Resources Institute.</p> <h3>What investors, food companies and governments should do </h3> <p>Feedback and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy are calling for:</p> <ul><li>Investors, banks and financiers to divest from JBS and its subsidiaries, following the example of Nordea, and exclude JBS from their investment funds and bond portfolios. Three of JBS’s six largest investors (Fidelity, Vanguard and BlackRock) are members of the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, which claims to be “committed to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner”. Many other smaller JBS investors are also signed up to the scheme. JBS’s second largest stake is owned by BNDES, Brazil’s publicly-owned development bank. Other financial institutions, such as Barclays, which provided $860 million in financial backing to JBS last year alone7, should cease to provide its services to the company.</li> <li>The Brazilian government to divest all financing for JBS via Brazil’s BNDES development bank.</li> <li>Supermarkets, retailers and food service companies to drop JBS and its subsidiaries as a meat supplier.</li> <li>JBS to report all its emissions – both direct and indirect – including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, and allow an independent third party to verify its net zero claims.</li> <li>JBS to report all of its offsets, including specific project details.</li> <li>Governments to introduce strong, enforceable rules against deforestation, including agriculture-driven deforestation.</li> <li>Governments to regulate factory farm methane emissions, i.e. large-scale cattle, dairy and pork production.</li> <li>Governments to regulate nitrous oxide emissions, particularly the excess use of nitrogen fertiliser often linked to animal feed production worldwide.</li> </ul><h3>Endnotes </h3> <p>1. Using the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s GLEAM model, GRAIN and IATP calculated JBS’s 2016 emissions in <a href="https://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible">Emissions Impossible 2018</a>. IATP has used the same methodology to update the company’s 2021 emissions. See <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13G4bWV7kL3hiSjkWA5q1_qWCiRJKCuxb/edit#gid=1089782244">Dataset here</a>.</p> <p>2. Total Energies emissions 2020: 417 MtCO2e; Richard Heede, Climate Accountability Institute, personal communication, 9 April 2022. See also, our <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13G4bWV7kL3hiSjkWA5q1_qWCiRJKCuxb/edit#gid=1089782244">Dataset</a>, “Comparisons” worksheet comparing JBS’s emissions with that of other carbon majors and countries.</p> <p>3. The livestock sector is the single largest contributor to anthropogenic <a href="http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/CM-WEB-FINAL-REPORT-METHANE-MATTERS-1-1.pdf">methane emissions</a>; deforestation linked to<a href="https://chainreactionresearch.com/report/cattle-driven-deforestation-a-major-risk-to-brazilian-retailers/"> cattle ranching and the production of animal feed</a>, meat processing and transport also make a significant contribution to climate change.</p> <p>4. <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13G4bWV7kL3hiSjkWA5q1_qWCiRJKCuxb/edit#gid=1089782244">IATP 2021 Dataset</a>, source: <a href="https://api.mziq.com/mzfilemanager/v2/d/043a77e1-0127-4502-bc5b-21427b991b22/89617df2-cf31-77d8-d102-c2dee83873fb?origin=1">JBS (2022) Institutional Presentation including 4Q21 and 2021 Results</a>.</p> <p>5. “<a href="https://www.cdp.net/en/formatted_responses/responses?campaign_id=74241094&amp;discloser_id=892510&amp;locale=en&amp;organization_name=JBS+S.A&amp;organization_number=9730&amp;program=Investor&amp;project_year=2021&amp;redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcdp.credit360.com%2Fsurveys%2F2021%2Fdbbr64mv%2F146515&amp;survey_id=73557641">JBS S.A - Climate Change 2021</a>,” The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), 2021.</p> <p>6.  Feedback, “Green Gas Without the Hot Air: Defining the True Role of Biogas in a Net Zero Future” (London: Feedback, 2020), <a href="https://feedbackglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Feedback-2020-Green-Gas-Without-the-Hot-Air-report.pdf">https://feedbackglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Feedback-2020-Green-Gas-Without-the-Hot-Air-report.pdf</a>.</p> <hr /><p> </p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-category field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Primary category</div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/industrialized-meat" hreflang="en">Industrial Livestock</a></div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-teaser-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Teaser image</div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/media/11496" hreflang="en">Cattle and climate change</a></div> </div> </div> Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:31:00 +0000 cecelia brackey 44772 at https://www.iatp.org The great climate greenwash: Global meat giant JBS’ emissions leap by 51% in five years https://www.iatp.org/jbs-emissions-rising-despite-net-zero-pledge <span>The great climate greenwash: Global meat giant JBS’ emissions leap by 51% in five years</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/34897" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cecelia brackey</span></span> <span>Wed, 04/20/2022 - 16:17</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><hr /><hr /><p><strong>This report uses data and a methodology which are described <a href="https://www.iatp.org/documents/note-methodology-estimating-jbs-emissions-2018-and-april-2022-publications">here</a>. Our estimates were based on the best publicly available information at the time of our research.</strong></p></div> Wed, 20 Apr 2022 21:17:52 +0000 cecelia brackey 44769 at https://www.iatp.org The New York Times took on the food system. Here’s what they missed. https://www.iatp.org/new-york-times-took-food-system-heres-what-they-missed <span>The New York Times took on the food system. Here’s what they missed.</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/34897" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">cecelia brackey</span></span> <span>Thu, 02/24/2022 - 16:18</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><section><p><em>The following op-ed was written for and published by <a href="https://civileats.com/2022/02/17/op-ed-the-new-york-times-took-on-the-food-system-heres-what-they-missed/">Civil Eats</a>. Republished here with permission. </em></p></section></div> Thu, 24 Feb 2022 22:18:16 +0000 cecelia brackey 44737 at https://www.iatp.org Letter to the European Commission on the Global Methane Pledge https://www.iatp.org/documents/letter-european-commission-global-methane-pledge <div class="node node--type-document node--view-mode-rss field-primary-category-climate-change has-field-primary-category no-field-teaser-image title-not-empty ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-field-author-text field--type-text-long field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Author (free form)</div> <div class="field--item"><p>Changing Markets Foundation, Nusa Urbancic, Campaigns Director<br /> Compassion in World Farming, Olga Kikou, Head of EU office<br /> Deutsche Umwelthilfe, Jürgen Resch, Director<br /> Feedback, Jessica Sinclair Taylor, Head of Policy and Media<br /> Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Shefali Sharma, Director of European office<br /> Mighty Earth, Nico Muzi, Europe Director</p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><em><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/European%20Commission%20letter_Global%20methane%20pledge_December21_FINAL.pdf">Download a PDF of the letter.</a> </em></p> <p>Dear President von der Leyen,<br /> Dear Executive Vice-President Timmermans,<br /> Dear Commissioner Wojciechowski,<br /> Dear Commissioner Sinkevičius,</p> <p>We are writing to you regarding the European Commission’s future implementation of the 2020 EU Methane Strategy. Following the adoption of the Global Methane Pledge at COP26 in Glasgow, we are calling on you to increase overall methane reduction ambitions and adopt bold livestock methane reduction targets.</p> <p>On 2 November 2021, President von der Leyen stressed in her speech launching the Global Methane Pledge that cutting methane emissions is the fastest way to slow global heating. Although the pledge is a step in the right direction, we need to increase the ambition of methane cuts across all sectors. According to the 2021 UNEP Global Methane Assessment, at least 45% of global methane reductions by 2030 are necessary if we are to stay on track to achieving the 1.5°C target of the Paris Climate Agreement, and economically feasible. Upcoming EU legislative proposals on methane must be strengthened to reflect these most recent scientific findings.</p> <p>Methane reduction through the energy sector, accounting for 19% of methane emissions in the EU, offers a lot of opportunities and must be maximised. The recent proposal on reducing methane emissions from the energy sector is a first step, although it needs to be strengthened by extending its framework to the whole energy supply chain. However, the EU should not overlook agriculture: 53% of anthropogenic methane emissions in the EU come from agriculture, with 98% of that coming from enteric fermentation and manure management. Transformation of food systems is of critical importance for the EU to meet global heating reduction targets<sup>1</sup>, with agriculture bridging the gap left open by actions to reduce methane emissions focusing strictly on the energy sector.</p> <p>Largely aligning with the European Parliament’s 2021/2006 own-initiative report on an EU strategy to reduce methane emissions, we are calling on the European Commission to set EU-wide and national targets for cutting methane emissions specifically in the agriculture sector, leading to a significant reduction of methane emissions in the EU by 2030, in line with the Paris Agreement. This is especially relevant as the COP26 in Glasgow requested all signatories to revisit and strengthen their 2030 targets.</p> <p>One of the priorities of the EU Methane Strategy is ‘to ensure that companies apply considerably more accurate measurement and reporting methodologies for methane emissions, across sectors’. We therefore call on the European Commission to propose binding measures relating to methane for corporations with headquarters or with imports to the EU which have a stake in the livestock sector, including monitoring, reporting and reduction targets. Both the Changing Markets Foundation’s investigation and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy’s (IATP) report released this week show that currently none of the 20 largest meat and dairy corporations headquartered in the EU report their methane emissions and that many fail to report on any of their emissions. Binding measures should require these major emitters to report on all their emissions, as well as report their methane emissions separately, as stated in the EU Methane strategy. In addition, they should establish climate targets that are based on the latest science aligning with a 1.5˚C scenario by 2030 and include specific targets for reducing their methane emissions. They should include in their reporting emissions from their suppliers (‘scope 3 emissions’), and present concrete action plans to meet their reduction targets. These action plans should comprise specific methane emission mitigation measures, including a significant reduction in livestock production. The European Commission should also consider specific measures for large farms with more than 50 livestock units (which account for about 70% of agricultural methane emissions in the EU, and about 40% of all methane emissions<sup>2</sup>) and those that have poor agricultural practices.</p> <p><strong>To continue reading, please <a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/European%20Commission%20letter_Global%20methane%20pledge_December21_FINAL.pdf">download a PDF of the letter</a>. </strong></p> <p> </p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-category field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Primary category</div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/issues/climate-change" hreflang="en">Climate Change</a></div> </div> </div> Thu, 16 Dec 2021 18:13:55 +0000 cecelia brackey 44709 at https://www.iatp.org Emissions Impossible Europe https://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible-europe <div class="node node--type-document node--view-mode-rss field-primary-category-industrial-livestock has-field-primary-category has-field-teaser-image title-not-empty ds-1col clearfix"> <h3 > How Europe’s Big Meat and Dairy are heating up the planet</h3> <div class="field field--name-field-author field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Author</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/about/staff/shefali-sharma" hreflang="en">Shefali Sharma</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-media field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field--items"> <div class="field--item"><div> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <img src="/sites/default/files/styles/feat/public/2021-12/IATP_Emissions-Impossible-Europe-cover-media_0.jpg?itok=X95pMAdv" width="950" height="590" alt="Emissions Impossible cover " loading="lazy" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><h1>Executive Summary</h1> <p>At a time when governments must dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, global meat and dairy giants in Europe are increasing emissions by ramping up production and exports.</p> <p>IATP has calculated the emissions of 35 of the largest meat and dairy corporations with headquarters in the European Union (EU) and Switzerland. Most are still not reporting their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Of the 20 companies we examined in detail, only three have committed to reducing their overall emissions from livestock. None of the companies we examined have expressed an intention to reduce the number of livestock in their supply chains, where 90% of meat and dairy emissions originate.</p> <p>In our <span class="Body---Italic">Emissions Impossible</span> series, we have examined the agricultural emissions of multinational livestock and dairy companies. In 2018, in a joint report with GRAIN, we showed the scale of those emissions, which rival those of Big Oil. In 2020, our <span class="Body---Italic">Milking the Planet</span> report exposed the continued rise of emissions from global dairy companies. In this latest iteration of the series, we focus on companies based in Europe. We show how — rather than reducing livestock emissions — Big Meat and Dairy are employing narratives and strategies that result in a green smokescreen over the industry’s contribution to climate change. This report explains why, instead, they must be held to account and contribute to urgently needed action to reduce emissions this decade.</p> <p>Only 10 of the top 20 meat and dairy corporations have announced climate targets with a few declaring net-zero plans. However, these voluntary plans rely on a range of strategies to dress up their climate action. These include:</p> <ul><li>co-opting the narrative on regenerative and agro­ecological agriculture;</li> <li>focus on reductions of emissions per kilo of meat or litre of milk (emissions intensity reductions), which are drowned out by the companies’ continued expansion of overall production;</li> <li>development of and plans to use impermanent soil and grassland carbon offsets sold on carbon markets;</li> <li>utilisation of unproven feed additives that claim to reduce methane; and last but not least,</li> <li>government-led incentives that perversely valorise large-scale animal agriculture through the capture of methane for “biogas” from livestock manure (see Box 3).</li> </ul><p>Offsets and improvements in efficiency will mainly fall on farmer suppliers to pay for and implement, even though these corporations set the terms for production. Offsets rely on uncertain pledges to reduce emissions elsewhere, replacing actual cuts to emissions. The trends are clear: Big meat and dairy companies in the EU, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (U.K.) are moving in the wrong direction.</p> <p>No European government holds these companies accountable for their supply chain emissions, even as agriculture emissions have risen in the last decade. As the EU prepares to launch a Carbon Farming Initiative as part of its carbon removal plans in the EU Green Deal and as it sets rules more broadly for climate and agriculture, governments must require Big Meat and Dairy to commit to a reduction in their absolute emissions.</p> <p>The EU must not certify the use of impermanent and unreliable carbon offset schemes, which enable corporate polluters to delay climate action and hide their emissions.</p> <p> </p> <h3>Key findings from our new research</h3> <ol><li class="Key-Finding" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Just 20 European meat and dairy companies combined produce the equivalent of more than half of the United Kingdom, France and Italy’s emissions. They produced 131% of the Netherlands’, 73% of Spain’s and 29% of Germany’s total emissions (Figure 1).</li> <li class="Key-Finding" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">The same 20 companies’ total emissions rival those of fossil fuel giants, close to Eni’s entire emissions, equivalent to two-thirds of Glencore and Total’s emissions, over half of Chevron’s (55%), 42% of ExxonMobil’s, 44% of Shell’s and of BP’s, and more than either RWE or ConocoPhillips’ emissions (Figure 2).</li> <li>Their combined emissions are also equivalent to 48% of the coal consumed in the entire EU (2018)<sup><span class="Opentype---Superscript _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-001-backlink">1</span></span></sup> or more than 53 million passenger cars driven for one year.<sup><span class="Opentype---Superscript _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-002-backlink">2</span></span></sup></li> <li>The combined emissions of 35 of the largest beef, pork, poultry and dairy companies head­­quartered in Europe equal nearly 7% of total <span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">EU</span><span class="Opentype---Subscript"><span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">2</span></span><span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">8</span>’s 2018 emissions (see Annexe 4).</li> <li>Only four (Arla, Danone, FrieslandCampina and Nestlé) out of the 20 companies assessed report their total supply chain emissions. Even then, just two, Nestlé and Danone, provide their livestock supply chain emissions with any detail. Only three (Nestlé, FrieslandCampina and ABP) have announced plans to reduce their total, also known as absolute, supply chain emissions. There is no public evidence that any of these companies are considering major changes to their model of large-scale livestock production and processing.</li> <li>ABP, the Irish beef processor, which set a voluntary target with the Science-based Target Initiative (SBTi), increased its emissions by 45% between 2016 – 2018. German meat processing giant Tönnies increased its emissions by 30% in the same period. Danish Crown, a company headquartered in Denmark, is one of the world’s largest pork processors. It increased its GHGs by 2% over this period, although it has pledged to become a net-zero emitter by 2050 (Figure 3).</li> <li class="Key-Finding" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Though Germany’s agricultural emissions are some of the highest in the EU, none of the companies examined that are headquartered in Germany report their emissions let alone have a climate target.</li> <li>Several companies like France’s Groupe Bigard and Spain’s Coren have failed to exhibit even minimal transparency about their operations, including the number of animals they slaughter annually, making it impossible to calculate trends in their annual emissions.</li> <li>The five poultry companies we examined in detail emit the equivalent of 20% of total EU poultry sector emissions, yet only three partially report their emissions and none have emissions reduction targets.</li> <li class="Key-Finding _idGenParaOverride-1" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">EU exports of poultry, dairy and pork increased by 93%, 45% and 58% for poultry, dairy and pork, respectively, between the years 2005 and 2018. The rise in exports dwarfs imports of poultry, beef and pork, although imports, too, rose significantly between those years.</li> </ol><p class="Body" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"><img alt="Emissions Impossible Europe Figure 1" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="07a49b54-f35b-4355-a8ce-3d1e7d6cc947" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/IATP_Emissions-Impossible-Europe-sm-fig1-web.jpg" width="75%" /></p> <p class="Body" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"><img alt="Emissions Impossible Europe Figure 02" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="a8cb0dbd-99ec-4363-b0e4-c96a9ceab701" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/IATP_Emissions-Impossible-Europe-sm-fig2.jpg" width="75%" /></p> <p class="Body" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"><img alt="Emissions Impossible Europe- Figure 3" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="5704a945-8afe-4e45-bd6d-5cfbe710e83e" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/IATP_Emissions-Impossible-Europe-sm-fig3-web.jpg" width="75%" /></p> <p class="Body" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">EU trade and consumption trends show that a narrow focus on reducing meat and dairy consumption in Europe will have a limited effect in curbing livestock emissions as long as the region’s outsized influence on global dairy and meat exports and EU trade policy is ignored.</p> <p class="Body" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Eighty-six percent of all meat and dairy in the EU plus U.K. comes from 10 European countries: Germany, France, Spain, Poland, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, Belgium and the U.K. (see Annexe 3). The companies featured in this report are either headquartered or process livestock in these 10 countries. For a transformative change in European agriculture, these 10 countries, in particular, and the EU as a whole must regulate meat and dairy companies.</p> <p class="Body" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">The industry must not be allowed to profit while conferring the costs of the extractive system of mass production of animal-sourced foods to the public. EU policymakers have just agreed to another industry handout in the business-as-usual Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) for the period 2023 – 2027. This was a devastating decision for climate action. National CAP strategic plans can still be turned into an opportunity to align EU and global climate goals with concrete action on agriculture that ties country-level financing to a transition towards agroecology. The 2027 CAP must be rewritten to be truly transformative for the climate and biodiversity, redirecting predictable and stable public finance to support frontline rural communities for a just transition.</p> <p class="Body" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Speculative carbon markets for agriculture as envisioned by the European Commission (EC) in its forthcoming Communication on Sustainable Carbon Cycles are the wrong solution. Public funds, such as the CAP eco-schemes and state aid, should not be diverted to carbon consultants to support costly monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon credits for impermanent land-based carbon sequestration. These public funds should instead be used directly to support farmers already practicing agroecology and to transition European farming to a holistic agroecological approach.</p> <p class="Body" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Six years after the Paris Agreement and 18 years after the Kyoto Agreement that mandated governments to reduce GHG emissions, decision-makers still lack basic foundational data such as emission volumes from the largest meat and dairy emitters in the EU. In the absence of governments setting up accountable regulatory regimes, voluntary initiatives are proliferating. The resulting targets are, at best, unaccountable, lacking clear and harmonised benchmarks and indicators and robust third-party verification. At their worst, they are platforms for corporate greenwashing.</p> <p class="Body" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s latest indictment on our prospects for limiting warming to 1.5°C requires a total systemic shift of every sector, including agriculture. This is feasible if governments act quickly and decisively on the climate crisis, as they have with enacting policies to limit the COVID-19 pandemic. The IPCC singles out methane as a key gateway emission to cut to buy time for eliminating fossil fuel emissions over time.</p> <p class="Body" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">The U.S. and EU have responded with a proposal for a Global Methane Pledge that sets an aggregate 30% cut in methane emissions by 2030 between all countries willing to do so.</p> <p class="Body" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">We need all hands on deck to transform both public funds and climate and agriculture policy in supporting a transition to agroecology. It won’t happen if Big Meat and Dairy continues to co-opt governments and civil society’s narratives on regenerative agriculture and agroecology. It will only happen when governments wake up to our existential crisis and begin regulating agribusiness.</p> <p class="Body" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"> </p> <p class="Body" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"> </p> <h1><img alt="industrial farm buildings" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="8473063b-99e2-4930-b959-2134c0bba5d0" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/industrial%20farm%20buildings.jpg" width="75%" /></h1> <h1>1 | Big Meat and Dairy’s climate footprint</h1> <h2>1.1 Introduction</h2> <p>The world’s largest meat and dairy companies (Big Meat and Dairy) have known about their climate impact since at least 2006, when the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report, <span class="Body---Italic">Livestock’s Long Shadow,</span> presented a damning assessment of the livestock sector as a significant contributor to global warming. The climate impact of concentrated animal agriculture has become ever clearer in successive Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and U.N. reports. The science shows unambiguously that cutting methane and food system emissions this decade would help humanity limit global warming to 1.5°C, a necessary action in tandem with the phaseout of fossil fuels.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-003-backlink">3</span></span></sup> In spite of this knowledge, Big Meat and Dairy companies have continued to increase their emissions through the expansion of the number of animals in their supply chain.</p> <p class="Body">More than one thousand climate lawsuits have been filed against governments and fossil fuel companies since 2015<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-004-backlink">4</span></span></sup> based on the fact that these companies knew their operations were leading to climate change. In May 2021, a court in the Hague set a global precedent by ordering oil company Royal Dutch Shell to reduce its net emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. It was the “ ‘the first legal decision in the world [that held] fossil fuel companies accountable for their contribution to climate change.’”<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-005-backlink">5</span></span></sup> This June, Danish Crown, headquartered in Denmark, became the first global meat company to face climate litigation.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-006-backlink">6</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body">Emissions from the livestock supply chain (the animals raised and the feed they are given), also known as scope 3 emissions, account for over 90% of corporate meat and dairy emissions.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-007-backlink">7</span></span></sup> The first step in holding these companies accountable for their emissions is to expand public knowledge about the extent of their emissions. Yet, data on emissions from the largest beef, pork, poultry and dairy processing corporations is incomplete, mostly incomparable among companies or across years and in the majority of cases, simply absent.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-008-backlink">8</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body">In our first report in the<span class="Body---Italic"> Emissions Impossible</span> series, published jointly with GRAIN, we provided the first ever calculation of the emissions of the world’s 35 largest meat and dairy corporations. We looked at their emissions for the years 2015/2016. Most of these companies were not reporting their supply chain emissions, let alone talking about transitioning out of polluting systems. A year ago, IATP published <span class="Body---Italic">Milking the Planet. </span>In that report, we demonstrated that global dairy companies continue to increase their total greenhouse gas emissions. This third report calculates the emissions of 35 of the largest meat and dairy corporations headquartered in Europe and examines the climate plans of 25 of them: the largest 20 emitters and five poultry companies. We reference year 2017 for dairy; 2018 for beef and pork; 2019 for poultry given the latest available companies’ data  at the time of calculation. In all three reports, we have used an emissions calculation methodology and regional data on emissions from livestock production developed by the FAO called the Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM), combined with publicly available corporate data on production volumes (see Methodology Note).</p> <p class="Body">Together, the 35 companies featured in this report make up the top 10 beef, pork, poultry and dairy producers and emitters in Europe. The emiss<a id="_idTextAnchor003"></a>ions of these 35 companies combined equal nearly 7% of all <span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">EU</span><span class="Opentype---Subscript"><span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">2</span></span><span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">8</span> emissions for 2018 (see Annexe 4).</p> <p class="Body">It is a matter of deep concern that little has changed since the publication of our first report three years ago. Few companies report their emissions, and none has a viable plan for making the kind of cuts to their emissions that the climate crisis warrants. However, some things have changed. More big meat and dairy corporations are announcing net-zero targets, many of them with elaborate narratives on climate action. Several companies are asking farmers in some of their European supply chains to take a variety of actions, including submitting reports on and making technological changes in their practices to reduce the emissions intensity of livestock production. Companies are also creating or gearing up to create carbon offsets both within and outside their supply chains. The offset plans include credits for carbon sequestration on land and ramping up the use of methane digesters to produce biogas. This report takes a closer look at these companies, their narratives and strategies to address their climate impact and what these really mean for transformative climate action.</p> <p class="Body"><img alt="company logos" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="87f12b57-0d6c-4a52-be6a-abef78e023db" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/company%20logos.jpg" width="75%" /></p> <div class="Boxed-Content" id="_idContainer165"> <hr /><hr /><hr /><h3 class="Box---Title" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Box 1: Definitions</h3> <h4 class="Box---Subtitle" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Offset versus Inset</h4> <p class="Box---Definitions" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"><strong><span class="Bold">Offset:</span></strong> An “offset” is the idea that emitting carbon in one location can be compensated for by reducing it elsewhere (e.g., Microsoft buys carbon credits for a project that plants trees in Romania to offset its own carbon emissions). Offset schemes turn this so-called reduction of emissions into a carbon credit or certificate that can be bought and sold on financial markets (a carbon market). In essence, such credits allow companies to continue polluting in exchange for buying these credits.</p> <p class="Box---Definitions" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"><strong><span class="Bold CharOverride-7">Inset:</span></strong><span class="CharOverride-7"> </span>The idea of an “inset” follows the same principle as an offset. The difference is that the compensation project and actions take place within a company and its value chain (e.g., a company accounts for its emissions reductions through compensation projects in the form of biogas digesters or soil carbon sequestration activities on its supplier farms), whereas an “offset” can be a project completely independent from a company’s business operations.</p> <h4 class="Box---Subtitle" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Target Terms</h4> <p class="Box---Definitions ParaOverride-4" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"><strong><span class="Bold CharOverride-7">Livestock Supply Chain:</span><span class="CharOverride-7"> </span></strong>The supply chain for agricultural commodities, such as milk or meat, can be described as the production process from “farm to fork.” A company’s “upstream” part of the supply chain consists of producing milk or raising a food animal on farm including all the inputs that go into producing the milk/meat, such as procurement of feed for the animals, water use, etc. Once the milk or animal/carcass is delivered to the company’s processing plant, it is manufactured as the company’s product. The “downstream” part of the supply chain consists of delivering the final product to customers: Distribution, warehousing, transport and after-sale services are all part of the downstream supply chain.</p> <p class="Box---Definitions" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"><strong><span class="Bold CharOverride-7">Climate Target:</span></strong><span class="CharOverride-7"> </span>An emissions reduction goal used towards the aim of avoiding dangerous levels of global warming.</p> <p class="Box---Definitions" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"><strong><span class="Bold CharOverride-7">Target Boundary:</span></strong> The activities and/or parts of the supply chain that are included in the climate target. This can also be referred to as the emissions that are “in scope” of the target.</p> <h4 class="Box---Subtitle ParaOverride-5" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Emissions Reduction</h4> <p class="Box---Definitions ParaOverride-6" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"><strong><span class="Bold CharOverride-7">Absolute Emissions Reduction:</span></strong><span class="CharOverride-7"> </span>A reduction in total emissions. For tackling climate change, total emissions must be reduced rapidly within this decade to give humanity a chance to limit global warming to 1.5˚C.<span class="CharOverride-7"> </span></p> <p class="Box---Definitions ParaOverride-6" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"><strong><span class="Bold CharOverride-7">Emissions Intensity Reduction:</span></strong><span class="CharOverride-7"> </span>In the case of livestock companies, emissions intensity reduction means a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions per kilo of meat or litre of milk. It enables companies to claim that per kilo/litre, GHGs are going down, even if the companies expand production and total emissions. Emissions intensity reduction targets can also be based on GHG per unit of GDP — fewer GHGs per unit of economic revenue.</p> <p class="Box---Definitions ParaOverride-6" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"><img alt="Emissions Intensity graphic" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="3fff6ab4-9eb8-4e99-9979-062db1b86f4f" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/Emissions%20intensity.jpg" width="75%" /></p> </div> <div class="_idGenObjectLayout-1"> <div class="Basic-Graphics-Frame _idGenObjectStyleOverride-8" id="_idContainer166"><span class="Bold CharOverride-8"><strong>The Emissions Intensity Trap</strong> </span><br /> A reduction in emission intensity looks good on paper, but the savings would soon be negated by increases in production and the number of animals, thus absolute emissions still increase.</div> <div class="Basic-Graphics-Frame _idGenObjectStyleOverride-8"> <hr /><hr /><p> </p> </div> </div> <h2>1.2 Real climate action or industry smokescreens?</h2> <h3>No transparency in emissions reporting</h3> <p class="Body">Just 20 European meat and dairy companies combined produce the equivalent of over half of the U.K., France or Italy’s emissions. They produced the equivalent of 131% of the Netherlands’, 73% of Spain’s and 29% of Germany’s total emissions (Figure 1). The same 20 companies’ total emissions rival those of fossil fuel giants, close to Eni’s entire emissions, equivalent to two-thirds of Glencore and Total’s emissions, over half of Chevron’s (55%), 42% of ExxonMobil’s, 44% of Shell’s and of BP’s, and more than either RWE or ConocoPhillips’ emissions (Figure 2). Ten are dairy companies, and 10 are meat processing companies. Fully half of the 20 companies examined failed to publicly report any emissions, either in annual reports or through a voluntary initiative. None of the companies with headquarters in Germany report their emissions.</p> <p class="Body">Of the 10 companies reporting emissions, there is no comparable standard of reporting. Some report only scope 1 and 2 emissions (see Box 2) and only in their annual reports. Others, like Sodiaal, provide a combined “net” emissions estimate for scope 1 and 2. Only three (Danone, Glanbia and Nestlé) provide detailed emissions reporting that is publicly available for viewing through the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) (see Annexe 1). The CDP is a voluntary initiative that has set up an emissions reporting database for companies, but it relies on industry self-reporting. This complete lack of coherence and accountability makes it difficult to know and compare emissions across companies.</p> <p class="Body">Only four (Arla, Danone, FrieslandCampina and Nestlé) out of the 20 companies we assessed report their total supply chain emissions. These are known as their scope 3 emissions, which include emissions stemming from their livestock supply chain. Even then, just two, Nestlé and Danone, provide scope 3 emissions with any detail in the CDP database. Arla and FrieslandCampina report them in their annual reports. None of Europe’s top 10 meat companies publicly report their total supply chain emissions.</p> <h3>Climate targets or accounting tricks?</h3> <p class="Body">Despite the absence of clear information on their current emissions, half of the 20 firms examined have announced some sort of company-wide climate target: seven dairy companies (Arla, Nestlé, Danone, FrieslandCampina, Glanbia, Sodiaal and Bongrain/Savencia) and three meat processors (ABP, Danish Crown and Dawn Meats). However, instead of prioritising the reduction of the number of animals in their supply chains, all intend to offset livestock-related emissions, either by including gas generated from the methane produced on their supplier farms in their calculations and/or through applying carbon credits towards their emissions reduction targets.</p> <p class="Body">Carbon credits can be purchased from outside of their supply chains from projects claiming to sequester carbon through forestry and agricultural practices. Projects that claim to reduce emissions within livestock supply chains are also increasingly offering carbon credits, for instance, by converting methane derived from animal manure into biogas or through reduction from feed additives. The EU has just proposed an increase in its renewable energy target for gas produced from agricultural methane as part of its revision of the Renewable Energy Directive. If successful, this revision, in combination with what the EU proposes for its Carbon Removal Certification Legislation, could aid these companies in setting up carbon offsets through methane that may not result in overall reduction of global livestock emissions. If animals in companies’ supply chains continue to increase either in Europe or globally, the sector will continue to increase its total emissions, worsening climate change.</p> <hr /><hr /><h3 class="Box---Title" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Box 2: The full scope of meat and dairy emissions</h3> <p class="Box---Intro" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Emissions calculations are highly dependent on where one sets system boundaries. To properly capture and quantify all emissions from a given food product or corporation, it is important to count all emissions, including those categorised as:</p> <p class="Box---Definitions" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"><strong><span class="Bold CharOverride-7">Scope 1:</span></strong><span class="CharOverride-7"> </span>Direct emissions from company-owned and controlled resources such as offices, processing plants and machinery. This could include use of natural gas or coal combustion and energy used in company transport; some companies may include emissions generated by animals’ digestive systems (enteric fermentation) at company-owned farms.</p> <p class="Box---Definitions" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"><strong><span class="Bold CharOverride-7">Scope 2:</span><span class="CharOverride-7"> </span></strong>Indirect emissions generated from purchased electricity, heating and cooling consumed by the company.</p> <p class="Box---Definitions" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"><strong><span class="Bold CharOverride-7">Scope 3:</span></strong><span class="CharOverride-7"> </span>Upstream and downstream supply chain emissions consisting of on-farm emissions from livestock, manure, farm machinery fuel, livestock feed production, production of inputs needed to produce that feed (e.g., nitrogen fertiliser), land-use changes triggered by the expansion of livestock grazing and feed production, and other sources.</p> <hr /><hr /><h3>Pledges of absolute emissions reduction from supply chains</h3> <p class="Body">Only three of the 10 companies with climate targets (Nestlé, FrieslandCampina and ABP) have announced plans to reduce their total, also known as absolute, supply chain emissions. Nestlé’s 50% reduction of all three scopes by 2030 in its new <span class="Body---Italic">Net-Zero Roadmap</span> specifies that some of these reductions will come from its livestock supply chain. And yet, despite the buzz around Nestlé’s announcement, the ambition of the proposed reduction is miniscule compared to the company’s anticipated growth: The proposal is equivalent to a 4% reduction by 2030 of Nestlé’s 2018 carbon footprint (see Switzerland’s Nestlé).<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-009-backlink">9</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body">FrieslandCampina commits to a 33% reduction of emissions from its supplier farms by 2030. However, the company expects an unspecified amount of these reductions to come from the use of biogas and other offsets rather than a reduction in the size of animal herds. ABP, the only meat company in the group, commits to reduce absolute scope 3 emissions that are specified as “purchased goods and services (raw materials and packaging)” (see Annexe 1). This includes livestock emissions according to an ABP representative.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-010-backlink">10</span></span></sup> Our research shows that ABP’s emissions rose by 45% between 2016 – 2018, and no public accounting of the company’s year-to-year emissions were found (see Figure 3).</p> <p class="Body">There is no public evidence that any of these companies are considering major changes to their industrial model of large-scale livestock production and processing.</p> <h3>Emissions intensity reduction targets hide real climate impact</h3> <p class="Body">The ultimate metric for averting catastrophic climate change is reducing total emissions at a scale that matters. Yet out of 10 European meat and dairy companies with climate targets, six have committed to only reducing emissions intensity of their supply chain emissions (scope 3). Emissions intensity is the favoured industry metric as it measures emissions reductions per litre of milk or kilo of meat, ignoring the climate effect of continuing to allow corporations to ramp up overall production. Companies can thus increase production while claiming that their per unit GHG emissions are coming down. An FAO study in conjunction with the dairy industry shows how emissions intensity reduction has done little to stop overall emissions rising in the sector: While emissions intensity decreased by 11% between 2005 – 2015, overall dairy emissions increased by 18% in the same period.<sup><span class="Opentype---Superscript CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-011-backlink">11</span></span></sup> This is because the overall quantity of milk produced and processed increased (Figure 4).</p> <p class="Body"><img alt="Emissions Intensity Europe Figure 04" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="bbd38584-8734-45eb-b562-6502622985b7" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/Figure%2004.jpg" width="75%" /></p> <h3>Net-zero, science-based targets: climate greenwash or climate ambition?</h3> <p class="Body">Since 2018, several global meat and dairy companies have declared net-zero targets by mid-century that include their supply chains. JBS, based in Brazil and by far the behemoth of global meat production, has gone as far as to declare a net-zero target by 2040, 10 years earlier than other companies. IATP has done a separate analysis on JBS’s climate credibility; In brief, the JBS claims do not hold up to scrutiny.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-012-backlink">12</span></span></sup> In Europe, four companies have set net-zero targets that include their supply chains: Nestlé, Danish Crown, Danone and Glanbia. Arla has limited its “carbon net-zero” by 2050 to its company operations and transport (scope 1 and 2) “sites to trucks.”<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-013-backlink">13</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body">Five companies (Nestlé, Danone, ABP, Arla and Dawn Meats) have set their climate targets with the Science-based Target Initiative (SBTi) (see Annexe 1). Two more appear to be in the process of joining the initiative (FrieslandCampina and Glanbia Ireland), while Danish Crown has announced its plans to join.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-014-backlink">14</span></span></sup> Irrespective of what happens afterwards, the mere announcement of setting a target, especially a target associated with several high-profile environmental organisations, provides companies with favourable public relations. The “what happens afterwards” question, however, is key.</p> <p class="Body">The SBTi is a voluntary partnership between companies and the Carbon Disclosure Project, the United Nations Global Compact, World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). The group assists corporations in setting climate targets. The SBTi is based on self-reporting by companies. The companies can apparently set company-wide targets to contribute to limiting warming to 2°C or 1.5°C (note that the IPCC’s state of climate science report reconfirms that 2°C would be a world of immense suffering for life on Earth). Danone, ABP, Arla and Dawn Meats have set targets for a 2°C world, while Nestlé has set a 1.5°C target.</p> <p class="Body">The SBTi is currently working on a standard for setting <a href="https://sciencebasedtargets.org/net-zero">net-zero target</a>. The latest SBTi guidelines (released in October) state that companies must set “one or more emission reduction targets and/or supplier or customer engagement targets that collectively cover(s) at least two-thirds (67%) of total scope 3 emissions”; the use of offsets must not be counted towards a company’s “near term” SBTi emissions reduction target.<span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><sup><span id="endnote-015-backlink">15</span></sup></span>Companies are, however, free to use offsets to “neutralise” remaining (residual) emissions towards reaching their net zero goal.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-016-backlink">16</span></span></sup> They are also allowed to use offsets outside of their SBTi target boundary “to finance additional climate mitigation.”<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-017-backlink">17</span></span></sup> At the same time, the guidelines allow for companies to claim climate neutrality in the use of biofuels or biomass for feedstock. There is also no requirement under SBTi to generally account for direct or indirect land use change; companies are only obligated to include “CO<span class="Opentype---Subscript CharOverride-13">2</span> emissions from direct land use change (LUC) and non-LUC emissions, inclusive N<span class="Opentype---Subscript CharOverride-13">2</span>O and CH<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">4</span> emission from land use management” with regards to bioenergy and feedstocks. The inclusion of emissions related to indirect land use change is optional.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-018-backlink">18</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body">Industrial large-scale animal agriculture is by far the largest component of overall land sector emissions. But net-zero accounting, and its endorsement of the use of land-based offsets to meet climate commitments, is slowing down a much-needed transition in meat and dairy production systems.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-019-backlink">19</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body"> </p> <p class="Body"><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span><img alt="Net Zero graphic from CLARA" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="f5684ad3-b100-4e24-a625-c54f9e449d44" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/Net%20Zero%20graphic%20from%20CLARA.jpg" width="75%" /></span></span></p> <div class="_idGenObjectStyleOverride-1" id="_idContainer158">Illustration © Ethan Cornell / Climate Land Ambition Rights Alliance (CLARA)<img alt="" class="_idGenObjectAttribute-1" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="IATP_Emissions-Impossible-Europe-f-web-resources/image/Vion.jpg" /></div> <div class="Basic-Text-Frame" id="_idContainer241"> <p class="Caption" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"><img alt="UN climate summit" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="c88a4a52-5597-4832-8e45-5dc4835c915e" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/UN%20Climate%20summit_0.jpg" width="75%" /></p> <p class="Caption" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Net-zero emissions was a central topic of the COP 26 U.N. Climate Change Conference, Glasgow, 2021.<br /> Photo: Andrew Parsons / No 10 Downing Street (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)</p> </div> <div class="_idGenObjectLayout-1"> <div class="_idGenObjectStyleOverride-2" id="_idContainer242"><img alt="" class="_idGenObjectAttribute-1" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="IATP_Emissions-Impossible-Europe-f-web-resources/image/jean-wimmerlin-tjZ-g9VnT7U-unsplash.jpg" width="75%" /></div> </div> <h1><img alt="Cover crops" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="65b6f133-cd5a-4a1b-a09d-bcc7e9a9553a" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/cover%20crops.jpg" width="75%" /></h1> <h1>2 | Digging into climate claims—The key strategies</h1> <h2>2.1 Big Dairy’s narrative on regenerative agriculture</h2> <p class="Body">Big meat and dairy corporations have begun to use the term regenerative agriculture, without defining it, to describe how they are investing in their farmer supply chains to meet their climate goals. Companies like Nestlé, Danone, Arla or Danish Crown make billions in profits each year. Yet, the multinationals provide minimal investment to implement these programs: Danone’s contribution is equivalent to just one day of its annual sales turnover;<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-020-backlink">20</span></span></sup> for Nestlé, it’s 1.1 billion euros<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-021-backlink">21</span></span></sup> over four years to 2025, which is equivalent to just 1.8% of its 2018 sales revenue. There are no details or firm commitments on how that money will actually be spent.</p> <p class="Body">As pressure builds on these companies to account for their supply chain emissions, European farmers, largely in France, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands, are being tasked to provide the emissions intensity reductions the companies can claim towards climate targets. These demands are not being made of their farmer suppliers in other European countries, let alone in other parts of the world, which opens a big avenue for carbon leakage. Carbon leakage is the idea that companies can simply expand operations in other countries where there are weaker climate laws or oversight, thereby shifting their emissions rather than reducing them. The same scenarios unfold with other laws in the public interest, such as labour laws. Because Denmark has had stricter labour laws than Germany, Danish Crown has economically benefited for years from establishing slaughterhouses in Germany where workers have lower wages than they would in Denmark.</p> <hr /><hr /><h3>Box 3: Six key ways Big Meat and Dairy are addressing their climate impact</h3> <ol><li class="Box---List---Numbered ParaOverride-8" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Co-opting the narrative on regenerative and agroecological agriculture to window dress industrial agricultural practices and proposing ways to make these practices less climate damaging, while failing to change the core aspects of their production model that make it so damaging for the climate, biodiversity and other planetary boundaries.</li> <li class="Box---List---Numbered ParaOverride-8" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Focusing on reducing emissions per unit of production rather than total emissions reduction.</li> <li class="Box---List---Numbered ParaOverride-8" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Development of carbon credits for impermanent land-based carbon offsets.</li> <li class="Box---List---Numbered ParaOverride-8" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Development of life-cycle analyses with industry-<br /> supporting academics and institutions for generating soil or grassland carbon offsets.</li> <li class="Box---List---Numbered ParaOverride-8" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Use and development of carbon credits for methane reducing additives that have yet to be scientifically proven.</li> <li class="Box---List---Numbered ParaOverride-8" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Use of manure and feedstock from large-scale agriculture to convert methane into so-called biogas, perversely creating a revenue stream for large-scale industrial agriculture.</li> </ol><hr /><hr /><p class="Body">Some agricultural practices cited by these companies, such as no till, are far from “regenerative” when used in isolation. This is because the practice often relies on chemicals like glyphosate that environmental, health, food and farm groups want to ban from the EU.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-022-backlink">22</span></span></sup> Other practices mentioned by the companies include the reduction of chemical fertiliser use or converting to organic fertiliser. These practices can simply mean converting the huge excess of manure produced on large-scale farms into fertiliser, which does little to reduce the nitrate burden in waterways that has affected several EU member states with large herds in intensive production systems.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-023-backlink">23</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body">Farmers that volunteer to join a company initiative may be required to digitally record several aspects of their production, providing these companies with a trove of proprietary data from farms that can be used for multiple purposes, including marketing. The use of personal farm data is problematic for many reasons. One, it gives greater control of land to transnational corporations rather than farmers. Second, it opens up the possibility for countless technofixes, available for purchase through agribusiness, that narrowly focus on emissions per kilo of product rather than holistically addressing the myriad ecological problems created by mass livestock production. Arla states, “We now have one of the largest dairy farm benchmarking datasets in Europe.”<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-024-backlink">24</span></span></sup> Danone and Cargill, along with agrochemical companies such as Bayer, Fertilizers Europe, EuroChem Agro and others, are part of the Cool Farm Alliance that has set up the “Cool Farm Tool,” which requires the farmer to fill in details about their yields, fertiliser and pesticide application and/or data on herd size, manure management and feed use.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-025-backlink">25</span></span></sup> Danish Crown has launched a certification scheme called “Climate Track” for its farmer suppliers. These data points can then be used by the companies in claiming reductions in emissions intensity of their supply chains.</p> <p class="Body">The terms and conditions of payments to farmers are also murky. Arla, FrieslandCampina, Groupe Sodiaal, Dawn Meats, Danone and Nestlé all state they have set up a reward program of some kind for the farmers in their supply chain. Most descriptions of these programs are vague on the terms for participants. Some corporations claim that the CO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span> reductions themselves lead to cost savings for the farmers.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-026-backlink">26</span></span></sup> This is misleading if the requirements actually lead to more time and upfront costs for farmers to meet all the monitoring, reporting and verification requirements for emissions reduction. Some companies also offer a payment; for example, Arla pays farmers a minimal 1 euro cent “premium” per kilo of milk for participating in its Climate Check tool;<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-027-backlink">27</span></span></sup> FrieslandCampina’s volunteer farmers receive an unspecified “bonus based on the results of their efforts in the areas of climate, biodiversity and animal health and animal welfare” as part of the company’s Foqus planet program “funded in part by a cooperative scheme and in part by the company.”<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-028-backlink">28</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body">The schemes are also undermined by the lack of sustained commitment from these companies to the farmers in their supply chain. In August 2021, Danone terminated contracts with nearly 90 organic dairies in Northeast United States (states of Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire and New York) citing “growing transportation and operational challenges in the dairy industry.”<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-029-backlink">29</span></span></sup> Only 24% of Danone’s farmer partners had long-term contracts with the company in 2018.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-030-backlink">30</span></span></sup></p> <h2>2.2 Soil-carbon offsets</h2> <p class="Body">Schemes that generate credits for carbon sequestered in soils are controversial, not least because the sequestration is highly impermanent, easily reversible due to human activities and natural events such as floods, droughts and fires.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-031-backlink">31</span></span></sup> They also require a much longer time horizon (100 years rather than the 10 or 20 year norm of voluntary carbon markets), and even then, the sequestration is impermanent and increasingly vulnerable to rising temperatures, as confirmed by the latest IPCC report. Therefore, the 10 – 20-year period offsets such as those created by the Livelihoods Carbon Funds (see France’s Danone) are problematic.</p> <p class="Body">Almost all the companies we looked at have a plan in the works for setting up soil carbon sequestration accounting so that in the not-so-distant future, the companies could either claim soil and grassland carbon sequestration to offset their own rising emissions or sell them as credits to other corporations or both. Carbon accounting is dependent on a life-cycle analysis (LCA) methodology that creates a technical method to measure loss and gain in carbon within a “system boundary.” This involves several elements such as the time horizon, geographical boundary, such as a farm or a larger region, and the interaction between the intervention and nature.</p> <h3>“C-Sequ” Industry guidelines</h3> <p class="Body">With support from the International Dairy Federation (the biggest dairy industry platform worldwide) and the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (a beef industry-led group), Arla, Danone, FrieslandCampina, Nestlé, Fonterra and McDonald’s, among others, are preparing guidelines to create their own LCA methodology “for calculating carbon sequestration in cattle production systems.” The aim appears to be on-farm accounting of carbon sequestration measured from year to year over a “responsibility period” of up to 20 years on the basis of which a carbon credit could potentially be generated.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-032-backlink">32</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body"><span class="Internetkoppeling">Potentially, the guidance could be applied by companies to </span><span class="Internetkoppeling">“inset” their emissions — the same principle as an offset, but </span><span class="Internetkoppeling">through actions within a company and within its supply chain.</span> Arla already has plans to include this accounting in its Climate Checks in 2022.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-033-backlink">33</span></span></sup><span class="Internetkoppeling">In this case, the company could claim negating the emissions from its livestock supply chain by accounting for on-farm carbon sequestration through this LCA guideline. </span></p> <p class="Body"><span class="Internetkoppeling">The industry-led guidelines called C-Sequ (version 2 due in 2022) are likely intended to promote a system of carbon credits for the livestock industry, bringing </span>farmers into private voluntary carbon markets where credits could be claimed or sold to other corporations. It is unclear whether such schemes would give credits to farmers or the companies or how double counting would be avoided. Double counting occurs when two parties (a company and a farmer) claim the same credit or carbon removal, essentially counting it twice. Such offsetting possibilities are critical for companies to meet their so-called carbon net-zero targets. <span class="Internetkoppeling">In fact, Arla presents a schematic in its Green Ambition 2050 document that shows the company reaching carbon net-zero emissions with the use of carbon sequestration and offsetting by 2050.</span><sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-034-backlink">34</span></span></sup></p> <h3>France’s Label Bas Carbone</h3> <p class="Body _idGenParaOverride-1"><span class="Internetkoppeling">European governments with large livestock production are supportive of such an approach. </span>France’s third largest dairy company Groupe Sodiaal is taking advantage of a French government initiative titled Label Bas Carbone — a carbon standard issued by the French Ministry for Ecological Transformation. The company calls it an opportunity for farmers to “monetise efforts thanks to carbon credits.”<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-035-backlink">35</span></span></sup> Private investors, as well as companies, can invest in the officially listed projects. The initiative has been heavily criticised for several reasons, including equating emissions reduction with carbon sequestration, not having a minimum requirement for actual emission reduction to acquire the label and the use of emissions intensity reduction as a metric for performance. The farmers carry the entire risk of project failure even if the circumstances are outside the farmers’ control.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-036-backlink">36</span></span></sup> The initiative also allows emissions intensity reduction, a metric of performance that favours larger more intensive farms over small-scale production.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-037-backlink">37</span></span></sup></p> <h3>The European Commission’s “Sustainable Carbon Cycles” Communication</h3> <p class="Body">There is a danger that policymakers within the European Commission’s climate ministry (DG Clima) appear to be moving towards a system of carbon offsets in agriculture that include impermanent soil carbon offsets. The latest European Commission proposal for agriculture envisions the sector to be net-carbon neutral by 2035 with the possible inclusion of agriculture in the Emissions Trading Scheme post-2030. This cannot happen unless there are offsets. There is also interest from some within the European Commission in combining agriculture emissions and removal of CO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span> under one framework in a post-2030 scenario, making it much easier to account for such offsets.</p> <p class="Body">The authors of the industry draft guidelines are at pains to explain that their accounting methodology does not deal with the issue of permanence of carbon sequestration: “This accounting approach removes the need to consider the future and allows for a continuous accounting of the benefit of keeping CO₂ stored through continuing practice.”<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-038-backlink">38</span></span></sup> The very real and sticky questions around accounting for the impermanence of carbon in soils and grasslands are left to European Commission proposals for Carbon Farming and the Communication on Sustainable Carbon Cycles.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-039-backlink">39</span></span></sup> Judging from a leaked draft of the upcoming European Commission Communication on Sustainable Carbon Cycles, the Commission appears to be setting up a substantial system for corporations to be able to use such impermanent offsets against their emissions, even suggesting an eventual link to global carbon markets in the future.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-040-backlink">40</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body"><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span><img alt="Dairy digesters" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="09a467a0-311d-4f02-92ab-b4f7b658403e" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/digesters_0.jpg" width="75%" /></span></span></p> <h2>2.3 Mootral and methane gas offsets</h2> <p class="Body">Carbon credits are in high demand by corporations, including agribusiness, airlines and fossil fuel companies, to help them meet their self-declared net-zero and other climate targets. This is presumably a move to stall government efforts at regulation: If companies are seen to be creating and meeting self-declared emissions reduction targets, they hope governments will not resort to regulatory enforcement. As such, carbon offset schemes using the methane from industrial livestock systems are emerging at an alarming pace, essentially to profit off pollution.</p> <p class="Body"><strong><span class="Bold">Feed additives</span></strong> — One industry solution for cutting emissions from mass animal production systems is proposed new feed additives to reduce methane. As many as 90 different feed additives are being explored.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-041-backlink">41</span></span></sup> Mootral describes itself as a Swiss-U.K. based AgriTech company “that develops innovative solutions for companies and governments to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the agricultural sector.”<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-042-backlink">42</span></span></sup> The company has patented a “100% natural feed supplement” that aims to cut methane emissions from enteric fermentation, reducing bacteria in the gut of ruminants such as cattle and sheep so that they burp and fart less methane. Thirty-nine percent of emissions from livestock come from enteric fermentation. Mootral is offering projects that generate carbon credits for a voluntary carbon market, selling “Cowcredits,” each credit equal to 1 tCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq. The company states: “These carbon credits create value for everyone: farmers, the beef and dairy industry, consumers, governments as well as offering high-quality carbon offset solutions for other industries.” And indeed, Mootral’s Cowcredits are now eligible for the airline industry to offset its emissions under the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA).<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-043-backlink">43</span></span></sup> Starting this year, airlines can purchase these credits to claim reductions in their emissions, rather than actually cutting them. Though already marketed as “high quality,” academic studies suggest that more research and investigation need to be done on the merits of Mootral.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-044-backlink">44</span></span></sup> For instance, an August 2021 peer review of methane reducing feed additives states, “Feed additives such as Mootral, macroalgae and Agolin have also shown promise but there is limited in vivo [in the body of the animal] work to allow full consideration.”<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-045-backlink">45</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body"><strong><span class="Bold">Biogas</span></strong><span class="CharOverride-7"> </span>— The livestock industry is also partnering with the fossil fuel industry to convert methane from large-scale animal agriculture into carbon offset credits. The development of anaerobic digesters requires large public subsidies to convert methane into so-called “biogas.” The large-scale use of digesters meshes the interests of these two polluting industries by capturing some of the manure from animals and converting it into gas for heat or electricity. This captured gas can then be claimed as an emissions offset by both the livestock industry and fossil fuel companies. Digesters, however, further entrench us in dirty energy and a toxic industrial animal system. They distract policymakers from the massive ecological harm caused by concentrated animal operations, which produce very large quantities of nitrous oxide and methane, polluting land, air and rivers with nitrates and ammonia. The pollution is also a threat to public health. The digesters have had little impact on reducing pollution and, worse, create an incentive for the mass production of manure rather than pushing a transition towards agroecological approaches.</p> <p class="Body">In the EU, methane digesters are additionally controversial because they often rely on crops such as maize for feedstock in combination with manure. This doubles the negative impact of the technology because selling this gas creates not only an incentive for mass livestock production, but also for crops that put pressure on land use change and rely on heavy applications of fertiliser and pesticides.</p> <p class="Body">Big oil is using, buying and selling Big Dairy’s methane as part of its carbon offset schemes. Chevron, which has been ordered to cut its emissions by a court in the Hague, is building 38 biomethane plants with its joint venture partner Brightmark, including from mega-dairy plants, to use as fuel for all its long-haul transport.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-046-backlink">46</span></span></sup> BP plans to buy methane gas from Iowa’s factory farms and sell it in California.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-047-backlink">47</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body">Companies such as FrieslandCampina, Danish Crown, Vion and Nestlé all count methane capture from the animals in their supply chains towards their emissions reduction targets. Nestlé states that 0.5% of its emissions reductions by 2030 will come from managing manure and methane digesters. FrieslandCampina describes the use of 26 mono-manure digesters (digesters that process only manure as opposed to feedstock and manure) that are operational with another nine under construction<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-048-backlink">48</span></span></sup> as part of the Jumpstart project subsidised by the Dutch government and Rabobank.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-049-backlink">49</span></span></sup> Arla notes that its emissions are “counteracted by tree planting, tree conservation, and biogas production.”<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-050-backlink">50</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body">The European Commission appears set to further incentivise biogas digesters, which will benefit big meat and dairy companies. It has proposed an increased target for biogas in the Renewable Energy Directive. Further, biogas is highlighted as one of the “sustainable carbon fuels” after the phaseout of fossil energy sources in a supporting document<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-051-backlink">51</span></span></sup> to the recently leaked Communication.<span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-052-backlink">52</span></span></p> <h3> </h3> <ol></ol><div class="_idGenObjectLayout-1"> <div class="_idGenObjectStyleOverride-1" id="_idContainer245"><img alt="" class="_idGenObjectAttribute-1" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="IATP_Emissions-Impossible-Europe-f-web-resources/image/35370775405_1d18dba8e9_o.jpg" width="75%" /></div> </div> <div class="Basic-Text-Frame" id="_idContainer246"> <p class="Caption ParaOverride-2" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Photo: NRCS/SWCS, Lynn Betts (CC BY 2.0)</p> </div> <div class="_idGenObjectLayout-1"> <div class="_idGenObjectStyleOverride-2" id="_idContainer247"><img alt="" class="_idGenObjectAttribute-1" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="IATP_Emissions-Impossible-Europe-f-web-resources/image/iStock-500236319.jpg" width="75%" /></div> </div> <div class="Basic-Text-Frame" id="_idContainer248"> <p class="Caption ParaOverride-2" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"><img alt="Dairy digesters" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="06a69ddf-c6ff-4dcc-8bdc-3755ff9d6f6b" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/digesters.jpg" width="75%" /></p> <p class="Caption ParaOverride-2" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Manure digesters at a dairy farm. Photo: iStock.com / CreativeNature_nl</p> </div> <div class="_idGenObjectLayout-1"> <div class="_idGenObjectStyleOverride-2" id="_idContainer249"><img alt="" class="_idGenObjectAttribute-1" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="IATP_Emissions-Impossible-Europe-f-web-resources/image/30856232495_16d423e1dd_o.jpg" width="75%" /></div> </div> <div class="Basic-Text-Frame" id="_idContainer250"> <p class="Caption-on-Image---White" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"><img alt="Nestle" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="9e273ed9-6322-4427-aa7a-5c717d577851" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/nestle-pic.jpg" width="75%" /></p> <p class="Caption-on-Image---White" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Nestlé Headquarters in Switzerland. Photo: Nestlé (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)</p> </div> <h1>3 | The Companies</h1> <h2>3.1 The “A-listers”: Nestlé and Danone</h2> <p class="Body">Switzerland’s Nestlé and France’s Danone are seen as leaders in the livestock industry for voluntary global action on climate change. They have both received “A”s for their transparency and management of their climate footprint by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). The CDP is a global non-profit organisation that has created a voluntary “global environmental disclosure system,” which solicits and houses companies and investors’ disclosures of their climate, forest and water footprints.</p> <p class="Body">Thirty percent of the CDP’s funding comes from “service-based membership” that includes companies that are disclosing to the CDP, including Danone.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-053-backlink">53</span></span></sup> This creates a potential conflict of interest in how the CDP then scores these companies’ performance when it comes to reporting emissions. CDP disclosures are also based on self-reporting with minimal verification. Annexe 1 shows the few companies among the 25 we studied that report to the CDP. Only two companies have completed verification of their emissions, but even these are “limited assurance audits.”</p> <p class="Body">The level of assurance indicates the extent and depth of the work the assurance provider undertakes in relation to sustainability disclosures. Most assurance providers offer two levels: “reasonable” assurance (high, but still involving some risk of inappropriate conclusion) or “limited” assurance (moderate). Limited assurance cannot provide a reasonable level of assurance due to limiting factors such as the size of a sample or sampling methods. Arguably, to use the term “limited assurance” is misleading, considering the label points to inadequate data or a limited methodology. Danone rates only “limited assurance” for all three scopes of its emissions, while Nestlé rates “limited assurance” for scopes 1 and 2. Both Nestlé and Glanbia PLC are in the process of getting their scope 3 emissions verified (see Annexe 1).</p> <p class="Body">Nestlé and Danone report in more detail than perhaps any other meat and dairy company. They actively lead in many environmental and sustainability platforms and have obtained certificates and awards for good corporate environmental stewardship. Yet, upon scrutiny, Nestlé and Danone’s actual climate commitments are underwhelming. Nestlé’s 2030 emissions reduction target for its dairy and livestock supply chain emissions can be misleading because it is based on its projected growth in emissions under a business-as-usual scenario by 2030 rather than a reduction from current levels, which is the standard way reduction commitments are expressed (see Switzerland’s Nestlé). Danone’s 2030 climate target does not commit to reducing total (absolute) supply chain emissions.</p> <p class="Body">For both companies, their climate narratives refer to supporting farmers in improving practices and making a shift to regenerative agriculture (see 2.1 Murky waters). They also rely on controversial carbon offset schemes to meet their emissions targets. These companies are both heavily involved in the sale of bottled water and the trade and use of commodities that lead to deforestation and other land use changes that are linked to significant environmental damage beyond climate change, such as nitrate pollution of water bodies and biodiversity loss, as well as rely upon commodities where there are concerns about human rights abuses in their supply chains. Danone has received “A”s from the CDP on its efforts to halt deforestation and ensure water security. Both Nestlé and Danone have committed to zero-deforestation pledges. Given the holes in their climate mitigation targets, however, these companies demonstrate the urgent need for governments to take a regulatory approach to climate action that looks at climate effects from a holistic perspective, looking at the scale effects of these enormous transnational firms and at the impact of their production and processing methods on biodiversity and human rights together with climate change.</p> <h3>Switzerland’s Nestlé</h3> <p class="Body">Headquartered in Switzerland, Nestlé is the largest food and beverage company in the world. Active in 189 countries,<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-054-backlink">54</span></span></sup> Nestlé is the fifth largest dairy processor by milk volume (tonnes per year).<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-055-backlink">55</span></span></sup> It earned over 91 billion Swiss Francs (79 billion euros)<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-056-backlink">56</span></span></sup> in sales in 2018, dwarfing Luxembourg’s entire 2018 GDP of 60 billion euros.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-057-backlink">57</span></span></sup> Nestlé reports to have emitted 113 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq (million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent) in 2018. This translates to nearly all of Belgium’s emissions, which were 118 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq the same year.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-058-backlink">58</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body">The company says 92 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq of its emissions are “in scope of our U.N. 1.5°C pledge.”<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-059-backlink">59</span></span></sup> This means that Nestlé has excluded the remaining 21 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq of its 2018 emissions from its climate target right from the start. In its <span class="Body---Italic">Net Zero Roadmap</span>, Nestlé says at the outset, “we are specifying our plan to halve Nestlé’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 and to achieve net zero by 2050.” Actually, the company is pledging to cut around 40% of its total 2018 emissions. It plans on doing so by a mix of methods including planting 20 million trees per year to total 200 million trees by 2030, sourcing 20% of its ingredients from farms that use “regenerative agriculture” methods by 2025 and 50% by 2030 (see 2.1 Murky waters).<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-060-backlink">60</span></span></sup> It also plans to use technical fixes such as including feed additives that reduce methane from cow burps and methane digesters that convert manure into gas (see 2.3 Mootral and methane gas offsets).</p> <p class="Body">Nestlé states that its pledge, approved by SBTi, focuses 80% of its efforts on the company’s supply chain, the source of 95% of its emissions.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-061-backlink">61</span></span></sup> Given how diversified the company is in what it sells, the company includes not just its livestock supply chain in its scope 3 emissions, but also packaging, manufacturing and logistics from other supply chains. According to the company’s calculations, around 37% (34.2 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq) of its targeted or “in scope” emissions are from the dairy and livestock supply chain. Nestlé projects that under a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario, dairy and livestock-related emissions would rise by 16.4 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq from a baseline of 34.2 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq in 2018 to 50.6 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq by 2030. This would be a 148% increase in these emissions in 12 years based on the company’s own forecasted growth. Nestlé pledges that from 2018 – 2030, it will bring its dairy and livestock supply chain emissions down to 29.6 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-062-backlink">62</span></span></sup> The company does some clever accounting. Nestlé claims: “Our actions will reduce the emissions from sourcing our dairy and livestock ingredients by 21 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq by 2030. This represents 23% of our in-scope 2018 carbon footprint.” The image on page 12 of the company’s <span class="Body---Italic">Net Zero Roadmap</span> shows this dramatic reduction is based on forecasted growth. However, Nestlé’s target is not ambitious compared to its 2018 baseline: going from 34.2 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq of emissions in 2018 to 29.6 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq by 2030. This is a reduction of only 4.6 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq in 12 years compared to existing levels. It is just 4% of its total 2018 emissions of 113 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq or just 5% of the emissions that are subjected to its climate target (Figure 5).</p> <p class="Body _idGenParaOverride-1">While the EU has pledged to cut emissions by 55% below 1990 levels by 2030, corporations like Nestlé are inflating their climate actions by committing to reduce GHGs from a much larger pie of <span class="Body---Italic">future</span> emissions. By using a baseline based on projected growth rather than the standard practice of using a past year, companies are setting a dangerous precedent of obfuscation and greenwashing.</p> <p class="Body _idGenParaOverride-1"><img alt="Nestle graphic" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2505ca55-5c31-4af7-ad66-c77ded1e983c" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/Nestle.jpg" width="75%" /></p> <h3>France’s Danone</h3> <p class="Body">In 2020, Danone earned 23.6 billion euros in net sales;<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-063-backlink">63</span></span></sup> 57% of its sales came from Europe, U.S. and Canada while 43% came from the rest of the world.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-064-backlink">64</span></span></sup> Danone reports its total 2017 emissions as 21.7 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq, which covers all of its emissions. Our estimates of its emissions are lower at 13.6 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript CharOverride-13">2</span>eq because they only cover dairy products. Danone has pledged to reduce its emissions intensity by 50% in scope 1, 2 and 3 by 2030 based on a 2015 baseline and a 30% absolute reduction of emissions by 2030 only in scope 1 and 2, with no mention of scope 3, which includes the livestock supply chain (see Annexe 2).<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-065-backlink">65</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body">According to Danone, 57% of its total emissions come from agriculture. Its stated strategy to achieve net neutrality by 2050 includes emissions reductions, carbon sequestration, elimination of deforestation from its supply chains and carbon offsets.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-066-backlink">66</span></span></sup> Danone has joined the French government’s initiative called “4 per 1000,” which aims for project partners to achieve 0.4% annual growth of carbon in soils. Danone has also declared an ambition to source 100% of its ingredients produced in France from regenerative agriculture by 2025 (see 2.1 Murky waters). This includes a donation equivalent to one day of its annual sales turnover (around 5 million euros) to support farmers in transitioning to regenerative agriculture. Danone France is also committed to reduce its carbon footprint by 15% by 2025. The company claims it is already sourcing 12% “of volumes” (as distinct from value) from regenerative agriculture.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-067-backlink">67</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body">Yet, a key pillar to Danone’s climate strategy is its investment in carbon credit schemes called the Livelihoods Carbon Funds that it spearheaded in partnership with nine other corporations, including Mars. Danone and the Funds claim that their first effort, Livelihoods Carbon Fund #1, has led to 10 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq of carbon sequestered. The projects run for a period of 10 – 20 years.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-068-backlink">68</span></span></sup> See 2.2 Soil-carbon offsets, for a critique of these schemes. Livelihoods Carbon Fund #2 and Livelihoods Carbon Fund (LCF<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">3</span>)) also run for 20 years and aim to sequester 12 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-069-backlink">69</span></span></sup> and 30 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq of carbon, respectively.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-070-backlink">70</span></span></sup> The LCF<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">3</span> scales up the carbon credit model and involves other corporate and financial investors. Partner companies that invest in the fund “receive carbon credits as a return for their investment and use them to offset part of their CO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span> emissions.”<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-071-backlink">71</span></span></sup> Danone portrays this as long-term support for ecosystem restoration and support to local communities, but the system Danone is setting up allows corporate polluters to avoid reducing their own emissions and thus does little to avert the climate crisis. Setting up non-permanent carbon credit schemes based on land in local communities and Indigenous territories of the Global South can also lead to land grabs, exacerbating struggles over land rights and creating more corporate control over land. Over 250 organisations delivered a statement at COP 26 saying no to such “nature based” schemes centred on these concerns.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-072-backlink">72</span></span></sup></p> <h2>3.2 Denmark’s global meat and dairy giants: Danish Crown and Arla</h2> <p class="Body">Denmark is the headquarters of two of the biggest global meat and dairy corporations: Danish Crown and Arla. In 2020, Denmark passed an ambitious climate law, far exceeding that of the EU: a target of 70% emissions reductions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels and a net-zero target by 2050. Agriculture is responsible for nearly one-quarter of Denmark’s emissions.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-073-backlink">73</span></span></sup> Arla and Danish Crown’s combined total emissions were 78% of Denmark’s total 2018 emissions from all sectors (excluding land use change).<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-074-backlink">74</span></span></sup> As in other EU countries, industry plays a dominant role in shaping agriculture-related climate policy. Danish Crown’s CEO, Jais Valeur, was appointed chair of one of the 13 Partnerships the Danish Government established to meet its climate goals: the Climate Partnership for the Food and Agriculture Sector. The partnership was tasked to make recommendations on how the sector could reduce its emissions and was criticised for its lack of ambition. However, just this October, the Danish Parliament passed a law that requires the sector to reduce emissions by 55% by 2030 from a 1990 baseline, the first EU member state to put a target on agricultural emissions reduction. The target includes reduction of nitrogen emissions.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-075-backlink">75</span></span></sup> The government will funnel 593 million euros to support the transition, which the Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries says will include a focus on plant protein and organics.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-076-backlink">76</span></span></sup> Note that Denmark also imports a lot of soy from Latin America, principally soymeal for pig feed.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-077-backlink">77</span></span></sup> The land use emissions resulting from these imports from countries such as Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay are not included in this emission target.</p> <h3>Danish Crown</h3> <p class="Body">Danish Crown is the largest meat processing company in Europe. It is a global giant with 92 production sites in 17 countries.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-078-backlink">78</span></span></sup> Danish Crown has declared a net-zero target for 2050 but “this does not mean Danish Crown will produce less meat,” states its webpage on sustainability.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-079-backlink">79</span></span></sup> Instead, the company intends to reduce emissions intensity in its supply chain by half by 2030, compared to 2005 levels. As discussed, focusing on emissions intensity allows companies to ignore their total emissions, which is what drives climate change. Our data show the company’s overall emissions increased by 2% in two years from 2016 – 2018.</p> <p class="Body">This June, Danish Crown also became the first meat company to be challenged with a climate lawsuit. The suit was brought by three Danish non-profit organisations who state that the company’s marketing of its pork products with such claims as “climate controlled” and “more climate friendly than you think” is misleading. In October, the company decided to “put on hold” its use of these terms after Danish grocery stores began challenging the company’s advertising.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-080-backlink">80</span></span></sup> The company still faces a complaint on this issue, filed by Greenpeace Nordic with Denmark’s Consumer Protection Agency.</p> <p class="Body">Acknowledging that over 90% of its emissions come from the farms that supply the animals it processes, Danish Crown has now launched a program called “Climate Track.” By 2023, Danish Crown hopes that over 18 million pigs sourced from Denmark, Germany, Poland and Sweden will be part of this certification scheme.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-081-backlink">81</span></span></sup> The goal of the program is to reduce on-farm emissions by lowering emissions <span class="Body---Italic">per pig</span>, using a 2016 baseline.</p> <p class="Body">As noted above, voluntary self-reporting is problematic. Companies can choose what kind of life cycle analysis they use, and there is no truly independent and robust verification of their claimed emissions levels, nor their success in reducing them. Academic institutions that are funded by and work closely with the industry provide legitimacy to these estimates and create a conflict of interest in the independence of academic research. This has played out in Danish Crown’s emissions estimates. In its 2018/2019 sustainability report, the company used emissions estimates for cattle based on a life-cycle analysis study conducted by a department at Aarhus University. By Danish Crown’s own admission, the University was forced to withdraw one such publication because it “did not live up to the principles of independent research.”<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-082-backlink">82</span></span></sup> Among other critiques, the academics did not disclose industry involvement in funding the research, nor did they include indirect land use change as part of their life-cycle analysis, thereby not counting an important source of emissions in the animal agriculture supply chain.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-083-backlink">83</span></span></sup> The controversy surrounding this study and Aarhus University’s handling of it has resulted in a strong critique by the Danish Agency for Higher Education and Science and resignations of several faculty and the University’s chief legal counsel.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-084-backlink">84</span></span></sup> Danish Crown acknowledged in a small footnote in its sustainability report that the integrity of its emissions estimates was compromised and hired a law firm to investigate:</p> <p class="Body">“Subsequently, other reports published by Aarhus University were also found to be questionable. In this context, Danish Crown has asked the Danish law firm Poul Schmith/Kammer­advokaten to assess our collaboration with research institutes, especially regarding the beef report from 2019 but also in relation to reports from previous years.”</p> <p class="Body">This is part of a broader trend where academics closely tied to and financed by agribusiness are producing climate studies, creating life cycle analyses with and for agribusiness, which are then used as the basis for the agribusinesses’ emissions calculations. For example, the dairy industry and academics from U.S. and EU universities are jointly developing the C-Sequ life cycle analysis and guidelines mentioned above. At the same time, some of these academics partner with governments as experts, offering the governments climate action strategies that may then be adopted as public policy.</p> <p class="Body">The list of climate actions Danish Crown has said it will pursue include: quicker disposal of manure into slurry tanks, use of slurry to make gas through methane digesters, no-till agriculture, feed efficiency and procuring more domestic feed. The company also intends to buy carbon credits from the Roundtable on Sustainable Soy, with the argument: “Until the supply lines for responsible soy have been established, Danish Crown will buy credits to compensate for the soy consumption of our food processing companies and our Danish suppliers of slaughter animals.” The Roundtable of Sustainable Soy’s agribusiness members include the market dominant agrochemical companies such as Bayer and BASF; grain traders ADM and Cargill; and discount retailers such as ALDI. The aim of the roundtable is to promote sustainable soy.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-085-backlink">85</span></span></sup> Yet, the failure of the Brazilian Soy moratorium and rising rates of deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado have occurred on the Roundtable’s watch.</p> <h3>Arla</h3> <p class="Body">Arla is the world’s fourth-largest dairy company by milk volume with more than 13 million tonnes of milk processed in 2019.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-086-backlink">86</span></span></sup> A global dairy power with a revenue over 10.5 billion euros, nearly one-quarter of its revenue (24%) in 2020 was generated from international sales.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-087-backlink">87</span></span></sup> Though it has over 9,000 members as part of its “cooperative” across Europe, the company itself functions as a global corporation, having merged in 2012 with German and British dairy companies and signing on to deals with China’s agribusiness giants Mengniu and COFCO.<span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"> <sup><span id="endnote-088-backlink">88</span></sup></span>It acquired operations from Mondelēz International for its Kraft cheese plants in the Middle East and West Africa in 2018, increasing its sales volumes in Ghana by 3,000 t in three years.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-089-backlink">89</span></span></sup> Its aim was “to ‘triple its revenue in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2020.’”<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-090-backlink">90</span></span></sup> Arla, along with other multinationals present in West Africa, has been importing palm oil to reconstitute milk, which is then sold as milk powder in West Africa, selling 30% cheaper than local milk in these markets.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-091-backlink">91</span></span></sup> Arla offers training to dairy farmers in the region,<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-092-backlink">92</span></span></sup> yet, at the same time, its cheap milk powder undermines the market for local production.</p> <p class="Body">Arla makes large claims for its emissions reductions: “Data from approximately 8,000 Climate Checks across Arla farms in 2020 have now been validated and analysed, documenting that Arla farmers are among the most climate-efficient dairy farmers in the world.”<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-093-backlink">93</span></span></sup> Arla is offering these checks to Danish farmers who own a share of Arla’s revenues. The Climate Check tool for measuring emissions requires that its supplier farmers answer more than 200 questions about “their herd, feed, production, energy usage etc.”<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-094-backlink">94</span></span></sup> These survey answers are then validated by an external auditor who visits farms. Fifty-nine percent of the farmers who did this extensive survey were validated in 2020.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-095-backlink">95</span></span></sup> It appears that these requirements concern only its Danish farmer owners and not those in Germany or Poland. Nor is the tool applied in the corporation’s partnership with Mengniu or with other corporations around the world. The onus of the emissions reduction in the supply chain rests on the farmers, who must reduce emissions by 3% annually to reach Arla’s target. There is no sense of the feasibility of this target. In return, the company offers a miniscule 1 euro cent premium to adopt recommended practices rather than paying farmers higher prices for raising fewer animals on their farms.</p> <p class="Body">In contrast to the requirements from farmers, the company has never filed a single report to the Carbon Disclosure Project. The CDP reports the following as the company’s response to its performance on climate change, water security and forests: Forests 2021 (no response); Water Security 2021 (no response); Forests 2020 (no response, CDP gave it an F score); Climate Change 2019 (no response); Forests 2019 (declined to participate); and Forests 2018 (declined to participate).<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-096-backlink">96</span></span></sup> According to our estimates, Arla’s emissions decreased by 2% between 2015 and 2017, due to a lower milk processing volume (milk intake) in that period (Figure 3).</p> <p class="Body">The company claims to have reduced its scope 1 and 2 emissions (its operations and transport) by 24% since 2015 and the per kilo of milk or whey emissions (emissions intensity) by 7% since that year.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-097-backlink">97</span></span></sup> Arla has committed to a SBTi target to reduce its absolute scope 1 and 2 emissions by 30% compared to a 2015 baseline by 2030, so according to its own reporting, it has nearly met its target. For its supply chain emissions, it has only committed to an emissions intensity target of reducing emissions by 30% per kilo of milk by 2030 from a 2015 baseline (see Annexe 1). Even this target, which aims for a 2°C warmed world, includes biogas: “The target boundary includes biogenic emissions and removals from bioenergy feedstocks.”<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-098-backlink">98</span></span></sup></p> <h2>3.3 Netherlands’ FrieslandCampina and Vion</h2> <p class="Body">The Netherlands, a small country with more than 100 million cattle, chickens and pigs, was the EU’s biggest meat exporter in 2020. Sixty percent of the Netherlands’ earnings from meat sales were from exports, mainly to Germany, the U.K. and China.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-099-backlink">99</span></span></sup> It should be no surprise then that the Netherlands is home to two major global livestock companies: Vion (meat) and FrieslandCampina (dairy). Because of its small geographical size and the sheer number of animals in the livestock sector, the Netherlands has consistently violated the EU’s environmental laws on ammonia and nitrate pollution. The government is now considering cutting livestock numbers by 30% to reduce ammonia pollution.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-100-backlink">100</span></span></sup> Ammonia is a nitrogen compound that is released when cattle manure mixes with urine. The livestock induced “nitrogen crisis” in the Netherlands forced the highest Dutch administrative court to order the government to comply with EU law for nitrogen limits.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-101-backlink">101</span></span></sup> Two proposed scenarios by the government entail farmers selling their pollution rights and land to the state.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-102-backlink">102</span></span></sup> The government proposal makes no demands on the companies buying and processing the animals (or their milk) even though it is the companies that have market power in the sector, and it is the companies that perpetuate the model of concentrated meat and dairy production on a scale that creates the pollution problem. No demands are made of the companies to provide a transition strategy — or financing for a transition plan — for farmers in their supply chains.</p> <p class="Body _idGenParaOverride-1">The Dutch government’s agreement with the dairy sector entails reducing overall emissions by 1.6 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq by 2030, a 7.2% reduction compared to 2018.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-103-backlink">103</span></span></sup> These cuts are planned through adjustments to cattle nutrition, feed production, reducing soy imports, manure storage and manure fermentation, soil management and extending the life of the cow.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-104-backlink">104</span></span></sup> Extending the life of each dairy cow reduces the emissions associated with rearing replacements, but unless the overall volume of production is reduced, it is unclear how this reduces overall emissions if the total number of cows in production remains the same or increases over time.</p> <h3>FrieslandCampina</h3> <p class="Body">FrieslandCampina had a revenue of over 11 billion euros in 2020, operating in 38 countries worldwide with more than 100 export destinations.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-105-backlink">105</span></span></sup> In its 2018 annual report, FrieslandCampina’s climate target for 2020 was to keep emissions (excluding subsidiaries) at the same level as its 2010 emissions, which it listed as 12,799 ktCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq (12.8 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq).<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-106-backlink">106</span></span></sup> It missed this target according to its self-reporting by 240 ktCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq (0.24 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq).<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-107-backlink">107</span></span></sup> These emissions include the company’s estimations of only its European member dairy farms and not milk sourced outside the EU. It has no published reporting with the CDP, submitting its first climate report (but not yet published) in 2021. The company declined to offer any reporting to the CDP on its impacts on forests from 2018 – 2020. The NGO Chain Reaction Research found last year that the company listed Ciliandry Anky Abadi among its palm oil suppliers — the second largest deforester for palm oil cultivation in Southeast Asia.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-108-backlink">108</span></span></sup> Though FrieslandCampina declared an SBTi target, the site simply says “committed (without targets)” (see Annexe 1).</p> <p class="Body _idGenParaOverride-1">According to our calculations, FrieslandCampina’s emissions increased by 8% between 2015 and 2017 (Figure 3). We examined FrieslandCampina’s stated emissions since 2010 and found that the company changed its emissions estimations and reporting methods repeatedly over that time, making it impossible to compare progress year to year.* The company says this is due to updates in the calculation methodologies, but it means we must take the company’s word for what its emissions were and how much it reduced. For 2030, the company has declared that it will reduce its direct and indirect transport and operational emissions (scopes 1 and 2) by 40% and member dairy farms’ emissions (scope 3) by 33% compared to 2015 levels.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-109-backlink">109</span></span></sup> Its emissions by 2030 would be 9 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq, according to the company<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-110-backlink">110</span></span></sup> with plans to be (net) carbon neutral by 2050. No concrete details are given of the proposed indicators nor the feasibility of these ambitions.</p> <p class="Footnote"><span lang="en-US" xml:lang="en-US" xml:lang="en-US">*Before 2013, FrieslandCampina indicated their emissions in non-specified graphs and did not clarify which emissions they included in their calculations. In 2013, they reported almost a tenfold increase of GHGs compared to 2012. Over the years the company has continuously adapted its calculations, which it states is based on the indications of historical data. However, this data rarely matches with the data reported in the previous year. For example, in its 2013 CSR report the company announced that it would reduce its emissions to 2010 levels. They first specified the 2010 equivalent in the 2015 updated CSR report, but adapted this value over time from 12,194 ktCO</span><span class="CharOverride-25" lang="en-US" xml:lang="en-US" xml:lang="en-US">2</span><span lang="en-US" xml:lang="en-US" xml:lang="en-US">eq to 13,108 ktCO</span><span class="CharOverride-25" lang="en-US" xml:lang="en-US" xml:lang="en-US">2</span><span lang="en-US" xml:lang="en-US" xml:lang="en-US">eq, which includes GHG emissions from member dairy farms, transport and processing. See: FrieslandCampina, “CSR Report 2013”, 2013, <a href="https://www.frieslandcampina.com/uploads/2020/03/FrieslandCampina-CSR-Report-2013.pdf">https://www.frieslandcampina.com/uploads/2020/03/FrieslandCampina-CSR-Report-2013.pdf</a> (accessed November 12, 2021); FrieslandCampina, “CSR Update 2015”, 2015, <a href="https://www.frieslandcampina.com/uploads/2020/03/FrieslandCampina-CSR-Update-2015.pdf">https://www.frieslandcampina.com/uploads/2020/03/FrieslandCampina-CSR-Update-2015.pdf</a> (accessed November 12, 2021); FrieslandCampina, “2020 Annual Report”, 2020, </span><a href="https://www.frieslandcampina.com/uploads/2021/03/FrieslandCampina-Annual-Report-2020.pdf">https://www.frieslandcampina.com/uploads/2021/03/FrieslandCampina-Annual-Report-2020.pdf</a> (accessed November 12, 2021).</p> <h3>Vion Food Group</h3> <p class="Body">Vion ranks as one of the top 10 largest meat companies (by volume) and amongst the top 100 food and beverage producers (by revenue) in the world.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-111-backlink">111</span></span></sup> It earned 4.9 billion euros in revenue in 2020. In 2018, it slaughtered 5.5 million pigs and nearly 1 million cattle,<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-112-backlink">112</span></span></sup> produced in 26 locations in the Netherlands and Germany with sales offices all over Europe, and in Singapore and China. Up until 2020, Vion referred to its corporate social responsibility goals in terms of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals with little else concrete on its climate plans. However, in 2020 it partnered with Wageningen University to adopt a carbon methodology, which it will use to measure the climate footprint of its supply chain. It is doing so in a pilot program with 20 of its supplier farms.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-113-backlink">113</span></span></sup> It has never filed with the CDP, yet Vion is busy working on a consumer label for the carbon footprint of its meat and meat alternative products, scheduled to launch in 2022. The company has no declared emissions reduction targets. The closest it has come is a commitment to reduce the use of non-renewable energy consumption per tonne of meat sold to zero by 2050. According to our estimates, Vion’s emissions declined by 8.6% between 2016 and 2018. The decline is because it slaughtered fewer animals in 2018 compared to 2016.</p> <p class="Body"><img alt="Vion truck" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="082274cd-0d3c-4c6a-8f20-6715c86dc646" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/vion.jpg" width="75%" /></p> <p>A Vion truck transporting poultry in the U.K. Photo: Ray Forster (CC BY-ND 2.0)</p> <h2>3.4 Poor performers headquartered in France, Germany and Spain</h2> <p class="Body"><strong><span class="Bold">Six companies: France’s Lactalis and Groupe Bigard, Germany’s Tönnies, Deutsches Milchkontor and Westfleisch, and Spain’s Coren</span></strong> are some of the largest meat and dairy processors in the EU. They tend to be opaque about their operations and finances, let alone their emissions. Companies like Groupe Bigard and Coren do not even publish the number of animals they process each year. Privately owned corporations like Groupe Lactalis, Groupe Bigard and Tönnies do not have to answer to shareholders.</p> <p class="Body"><strong><span class="Bold">Lactalis</span></strong> has over 70 production plants in France and close to 270 around the world,<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-114-backlink">114</span></span></sup> acquiring dairy companies in Sweden, Slovenia, India, Australia, Turkey, France and Romania with more acquisitions planned.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-115-backlink">115</span></span></sup> It ranked 22nd in global food sales in 2019.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-116-backlink">116</span></span></sup> Owned by the Besnier family, Lactalis is by far the largest European dairy emitter, equivalent to more than 13% of the EU’s total dairy sector emissions (see Annexe 2). Lactalis increased its GHG footprint by 30% from 2015 – 2017. It neither reports its emissions nor has targets for GHG reduction. A year-long investigation by the French investigative media outlet and NGO Disclose<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-117-backlink">117</span></span></sup> uncovered a history of violating French environmental protection laws, appalling food safety practices and tax evasion between 2013 – 2018.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-118-backlink">118</span></span></sup> The company defended itself in a letter to its producers, denying non-compliance with regulations at their production sites. They also denied watering down milk or violating food safety norms.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-119-backlink">119</span></span></sup> Lactalis submitted a report to the CDP on its impacts on deforestation in 2021, however, its poor track record on legal compliance with French laws raises questions about its credibility. The CDP has yet to score Lactalis (see Annexe 1).</p> <p class="Body">Similarly, <strong><span class="Bold">Groupe Bigard</span></strong>, owned privately by the Bigard family, contains scant, if any, information on its website about its financial operations and none about either its current emissions or its targets for their reduction. In 2016, Groupe Bigard was the largest meat producer in France and the seventh largest beef producer in the world. The last publicly available slaughter numbers for its meat processing date back to 2014. Like Lactalis, Groupe Bigard has come under fire for failure to publish its annual financial reports, violating French law. In 2019, <span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">L</span><span class="Opentype---Subscript"><span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">2</span></span><span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">14</span>, an animal welfare association, and <span class="Body---Italic">Lanceurs d’Alerte</span> association sued the company. Forced by the court, the company still only published partial information about its financials.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-120-backlink">120</span></span></sup></p> <h3>Germany's dominant meat and dairy companies don't report emissions and lack genuine climate targets.</h3> <p class="Body">Germany revised upwards its climate target this year to reach net zero by 2045. It did so after the highest German court declared its previous target unconstitutional on the grounds that it jeopardised the future of younger generations. Germany is the largest meat and dairy producer in the EU. It is also the country where several major meat and dairy companies are headquartered, as are subsidiaries of companies such as Danish Crown, Arla and other global processors. The meat industry was drawn to Germany by relatively weak labour laws, although COVID-19 infections have prompted a reform (see Tönnies). Even as the German government strengthens its climate legislation, little is being done to regulate meat and dairy corporations’ climate impact. The European Court of Justice ordered Germany to get its nitrate levels and fertiliser law in line with EU law in 2018 because of widespread fertiliser-related contamination in groundwater. The onus is on the farmers to make the changes, while the industry that drives intensive production and holds market power in the livestock supply chain remains unregulated.</p> <p class="Body"><span class="Bold"><strong>Tönnie</strong>s</span>, also a privately held company owned by the Tönnies family, slaughtered close to 21 million pigs and 440,000 cattle in 2018, earning nearly 6.7 billion euros.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-121-backlink">121</span></span></sup> While it operates out of Germany, U.K., Poland, Denmark, Spain and France, 50% of its production is exported to other parts of the world. In 2018, Tönnies controlled 30% of the German market, more than double the share of Vion and Westfleisch, the other major European pork processors.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-122-backlink">122</span></span></sup> Our data show that Tönnies’ total pork production was equivalent to 7.5% of <span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">EU</span><span class="Opentype---Subscript"><span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">2</span></span><span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">8</span> pork production in 2018.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-123-backlink">123</span></span></sup> The company lacks any climate accounting. It has a weak climate target which cannot be verified due to a lack of public reporting. It is limited to emissions reductions "per tour" of its vehicles and only related to three of its sites in Germany.</p> <p class="Body">In 2020, Tönnies was again condemned for widespread COVID-19 cases in its slaughterhouses, forcing the lockdown of the town of Gütersloh with over 370,000 inhabitants.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-124-backlink">124</span></span></sup> Thousands of workers were infected with COVID-19. Tönnies co-owner Clemens Tönnies apologised and took responsibility in response to the coronavirus outbreak, announcing a change in the whole sector.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-125-backlink">125</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body">Widespread use of contract labour in German slaughterhouses means that German meat processing companies have largely not borne responsibility for workers’ health. Wages are low in the industry, and working conditions are appalling. The Gütersloh and other COVID-19 outbreaks in German slaughterhouses led to a national law in 2021 banning the use of contract labour in slaughterhouses, aimed to improve working and living conditions for slaughterhouse workers.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-126-backlink">126</span></span></sup> Despite these problems, Tönnies maintained its German market share in 2020.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-127-backlink">127</span></span></sup> JBS, the world’s biggest meat company, was close to buying Tönnies earlier this year, but the Tönnies family decided against the sale.</p> <p class="Body">German dairy and pork giants <strong><span class="Bold">Deutsches Milchkontor</span><span class="CharOverride-7"> </span><span class="Bold">(DMK)</span><span class="CharOverride-7">, </span><span class="Bold">Westfleisch</span></strong> and <strong><span class="Bold">Müller Gruppe</span></strong> seemingly feel no compunction to report emissions or set climate targets. Westfleisch had begun to report on some of its emissions from 2012 – 2014 but appears to have abandoned the effort ever since.</p> <p class="Body"><strong><span class="Bold">Spain’s Coren</span></strong> Like Groupe Bigard, Coren does not provide even basic transparency about its operations, including the total number of animals it slaughters per year, let alone emissions reporting or targets. This is not uncommon in the meat and dairy industry where governments require little public transparency about the industry’s operations. Two other Spanish meat producers made our list of 35 top emitting European companies: Grupo Vall and Grupo Jorge. In its 2020 annual report, Grupo Jorge has an illustration of its emissions total and the quantity of emissions the company has offset.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-128-backlink">128</span></span></sup> By 2020, the company claims to have offset more emissions than it has generated due to its participation in various offset projects in countries of the Global South. The company’s lack of transparency about its operations makes these claims hard to verify; the company does not publicly disclose the number of animals it slaughters each year. In 2020, Grupo Jorge invested in methane digesters in Mexico and hydroelectric power plants in India, Vietnam, Brazil and China and claims these as Certified Emissions Reductions (CER) accredited under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the UNFCCC.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-129-backlink">129</span></span></sup> Grupo Jorge is a prime example of livestock industry greenwashing: The company claims to avoid or sequester more carbon than it emits, but there is no known independent verification of emissions reductions. The claim relies entirely on offsets using carbon credits in third countries rather than direct action to reduce the company’s emissions. In addition, without published data on the number of animals in its supply chain, these claims cannot be verified.</p> <h2>3.5 Ireland and U.K.: ABP, Dawn Meats and Glanbia</h2> <p class="Body">Ireland’s export-driven meat and livestock industry is worth 4 billion euros per year.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-130-backlink">130</span></span></sup> Brexit notwithstanding, food supply chains between Ireland and the U.K. remain closely intertwined. Half of Ireland’s beef and 70% of its poultry is exported to the U.K. Companies headquartered in Ireland have subsidiaries in the U.K.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-131-backlink">131</span></span></sup> Over 35% of Ireland’s emissions stem from agriculture — animal agriculture contributes 95% of these emissions.<span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-132-backlink">132</span></span></p> <h3>ABP</h3> <p class="Body">Headquartered in Ireland, ABP is a privately-owned global company. Its core business is beef. With 51 locations across Ireland, U.K. and Europe and operating in nine countries worldwide,<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-133-backlink">133</span></span></sup> ABP is similar to private players Lactalis, Bigard and Tönnies, with minimal public information on its website. There is no publicly accessible annual report or provision of the company’s annual slaughter numbers. According to Unigrains, ABP processed 1.2 million cattle in 2018 (the number excludes what it processed in Poland) in 2018.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-134-backlink">134</span></span></sup> The company came under scrutiny by the EU competition authority in 2016 when it acquired U.K.’s Slaney Foods together with another beef company, Fane Valley. The EU was concerned about the combined market power of the three companies but deemed that farmers would be able to secure “better prices elsewhere” and gave the merger a green light.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-135-backlink">135</span></span></sup> The same year, the company acquired its third meat company in Poland.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-136-backlink">136</span></span></sup> ABP claims to have reduced a cumulative 0.350 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq since 2008.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-137-backlink">137</span></span></sup> ABP does not publicly report the number of animals it slaughters per year, and thus once again, it is hard to verify these claims. ABP has also partnered with SBTi and set climate targets, committing to absolute emissions reductions of 17% from its supply chain that relate to “purchased goods and services (raw materials and packaging)” by 2030 from a 2016 base year.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-138-backlink">138</span></span></sup> According to ABP’s Environmental and Sustainability Manager roughly 80% of ABP’s scope 3 emissions come from livestock and the target includes these emissions.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-139-backlink">139</span></span></sup> But there is no evidence of ABP emissions reporting or independent verification of emission reductions on either its own website or that of the CDP or SBTi.</p> <h3>Dawn Meats</h3> <p class="Body">Dawn Meats, another global company based in Ireland, processes beef and lamb from 1 million cattle per year and 3 million sheep. With 10 sites in Ireland and 12 in the U.K., it also sources from 50 countries and sells to 150 countries worldwide.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-140-backlink">140</span></span></sup> It claims to be the first European beef and lamb processor in Europe to have its climate targets approved by the SBTi. Dawn Meats has set an emissions intensity target for its supply chain emissions: “28% reduction of <span class="Body---Italic">per tonne of finished product</span> (emphasis added)” of purchased goods and services by 2030 with a 2016 baseline. It states that 99% percent of its 2020 emissions came from its supply chain (scope 3) with 70% from agriculture itself.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-141-backlink">141</span></span></sup> Only scope 1 and 2 have an absolute reduction target of 30% below 2016 levels (by 2030). It claims to report annually to the CDP and to have already reduced overall emissions by 0.248 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq, of that amount 0.189 MtCO<span class="Opentype---Subscript _idGenCharOverride-1">2</span>eq coming from scope 3. However, it is hard to examine these claims given that no reports were found on the CDP website.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-142-backlink">142</span></span></sup> Apart from its Corporate Social Responsibility/Sustainability Report 2019 – 2021, annual reports were also not found on its website.</p> <p class="Body">Despite its stated commitment to sustainability, Dawn Meats has been growing. It acquired a 49% stake in Elivia, France’s second largest beef processor in 2015, and in 2017, it acquired a major U.K.-based livestock company, Dunbia, expanding its stock of livestock. The company claims to slaughter the same number of animals year on year from 2019 – 2021, counting animals slaughtered in Ireland and the U.K. only.</p> <p class="Body">Responding to calls to transition away from large-scale industrial livestock production, the company states that the assertion that the world must significantly reduce the size of national herds and the total number of animals in global supply chains is “overly simplistic and ignores the changes underway in how the livestock sector can and does contribute to reducing emissions and sequestering carbon on farm, for which no allowance is currently made in emissions accounting.”<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-143-backlink">143</span></span></sup> Instead, the company advocates for such measures as reducing animal age at slaughter (for beef cattle, the less time they live, the less they emit), optimising feed, use of feed additives, lower emissions slurry spreading and avoiding deforestation.</p> <p class="Body">The company is also interested in offsetting its emissions by quantifying carbon sequestered on its supplier farms. The company is taking part in a program led by the Irish government with dairy and cattle farms to measure soil carbon as part of the Signpost Programme (see Box 4). As stated above, measuring and counting soil carbon as a permanent emissions reduction strategy is deeply problematic. The meat industry’s use of these impermanent assets to offset its growth plans and emissions is a distraction from urgently needed actions to cut emissions. Instead, farmers should be supported and rewarded for changing practices with measurable metrics for biodiversity and ecosystem restoration and agroecology, all of which can contribute positively to both emissions mitigation and climate adaptation.</p> <hr /><hr /><h3>Box 4: Irish government’s Signpost Programme</h3> <p class="Box---Intro" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">The Irish government’s Signpost Programme<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-149-backlink">149</span></span></sup> enrols dairy and cattle farms to set up demonstration farms and sites for carbon sequestration measurements. It sets emissions intensity targets for both the dairy and beef sector. Other targets include fertiliser use reduction, storage of manure slurry and minimum replacement rates of dairy and beef cattle herds. A key element of the program is to set up a National Agricultural Soil Carbon Observatory, which appears geared toward gathering data on long term trends in soil carbon sequestration from demonstration farms: “Deep soil samples will be taken on the Signpost farms to establish baseline soil carbon levels, with the sampling process repeated in a number of years’ time to monitor any changes. In addition, flux data from long-term eddy covariance towers will provide detailed information on carbon exchange at an ecosystem level; these towers will be located on a subset of the Signpost farms.”<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-150-backlink">150</span></span></sup> As a research program, this is a useful exercise to understand long-term trends for grassland carbon sequestration. The risk is that the Irish government and the companies that are part of this program also begin to count the carbon sequestered here towards carbon credits or offsetting their own emissions, ignoring the impermanence of land-based carbon and the need to directly cut their emissions.</p> <hr /><hr /><h3>Glanbia PLC Group</h3> <p class="Body">The Glanbia PLC Group, an Ireland based but internationally operating company with focus on dairy and cheese products and sports nutrition, states their commitment to “a net zero or negative carbon footprint” for their business and supply chain and signed up to the SBTi in 2021.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-144-backlink">144</span></span></sup> Their major dairy joint venture Glanbia Ireland is not part of these commitments but is to set its own SBTi targets (see Annexe 1). While both are still setting targets for a 30% absolute reduction of scope 1 and 2 emissions, scope 3 emissions are again only to be reduced in terms of intensity.</p> <h2>3.6 Poland, global livestock corporations’ backyard</h2> <p class="Body">Poland serves as the production pipeline of virtually every major European meat and dairy company examined in this report. Poland was the fourth largest producer of meat in the <span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">EU</span><span class="Opentype---Subscript"><span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">2</span></span><span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">8</span> in 2018 and the sixth largest producer of dairy in 2017.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-145-backlink">145</span></span></sup> Poland also has weak climate and environmental governance and oversight.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-146-backlink">146</span></span></sup> The big pork, beef, poultry and dairy companies in Europe all have operations in Poland, including Danish Crown, Dawn Meats, Inalca, Arla and Danone. Global corporations based outside of the EU such as Smithfield also have a big presence in Poland. Smithfield belongs to the biggest pork producer in the world, WH Group, which also owns Animex in Poland. Animex, in turn, is the biggest meat producer and exporter of pork, poultry and processed meat in Poland.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-147-backlink">147</span></span></sup> Its “sister company” Agri Plus, also owned by WH Group, supplies the pigs through contract farming.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-148-backlink">148</span></span></sup> The company continues to expand, buying out Spain’s Pini Polonia company in 2019.</p> <p class="Body">Companies such as Smithfield and Danish Crown do not include emissions stemming from production in Poland in their supply chain emissions, sidestepping the country’s poor record of environmental regulation and weak labour laws.</p> <h2>3.7 Poultry companies feel no pressure on climate</h2> <p class="Body">Forty-five percent of the emissions attributed to livestock emissions come from feed, while 39% emanate from the guts of ruminants like cattle. Yet the pork and poultry companies are rarely in the spotlight, despite their importance in feed use. Even as EU cattle herds have declined, industrial feed has remained constant at 30%, in part due to the tremendous increase of poultry production in recent years — a 22% increase between 2006 – 2017. The focus on cattle in climate debates has let poultry companies off the greenhouse gas emissions hook. They apparently feel little obligation to address climate change publicly. We looked at the climate plans of the top five poultry companies in our list of the largest 35 meat and dairy firms. Combined, these five produce the equivalent of 20% of the total emissions from the poultry sector in the <span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">EU</span><span class="Opentype---Subscript"><span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">2</span></span><span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">8</span>. Three out of the five only partially report their emissions. None of them have set targets for emissions reduction. One company, Germany’s PHW, devotes two pages of its sustainability report to its offset projects in Saxony, the Peruvian Amazon and Ghana (see Annexe 1).</p> <p class="Body"><img alt="Chickens" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="3c2b4189-1ace-421e-bd0b-6863cd21405f" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/chickens.jpg" width="75%" /></p> <div class="Basic-Text-Frame" id="_idContainer253"> <p class="Body---Intro-Paragraph" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Photo: iStock.com / pidjoe</p> </div> <div class="Basic-Text-Frame" id="_idContainer305"> <p class="Caption-on-Image---White" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"><img alt="European flags" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2ad5da77-784a-494d-bf2c-d2b4ced61bf2" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/govt%20policy.jpg" width="75%" /></p> <p class="Caption-on-Image---White" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Photo: Håkan Dahlström (CC BY 2.0)</p> </div> <h1>4 | Government policy: a major driver of corporate power and emissions</h1> <p>Ten European countries are responsible for the lion’s share of meat and dairy production, hence the bulk of European and a significant part of global livestock-related emissions. In 2018/2019, 86% of the meat produced in the <span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">EU</span><span class="Opentype---Subscript"><span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">2</span></span><span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">8</span> came from just 10 European countries: Germany, France, Spain, U.K., Poland, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland and Belgium (see Annexe 3). The same countries contributed to nearly 86% dairy production of the <span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">EU</span><span class="Opentype---Subscript"><span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">2</span></span><span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">8</span> in 2017. It is no accident that most of the companies featured in this report reside in one of these 10 countries, enabling their rise in power, corporate concentration and emissions (Figure 6).</p> <p class="Body _idGenParaOverride-3">These EU member states determine the fate of the sector’s capability to transition out of a destructive model of mass livestock production within the EU. Whether the concentrated agribusiness sector is allowed to capture EU’s climate policy as it has agriculture and trade policies will determine not only the effectiveness of the EU’s climate targets for 2030 and beyond, but also the world’s ability to limit global warming to 1.5°C.</p> <p class="Body _idGenParaOverride-3"><img alt="Emissions Impossible Europe Figure 6" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="8f4ce6b9-0acd-43dd-98f4-474c57609cb8" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/dairy%20meat%20production.jpg" /></p> <h2>4.1 Real cost of production: why companies and not producers are responsible for these emissions</h2> <p class="Body">The discourse on environmental responsibility in the food system often pits producers and consumers against each other. “If only the farmers cleaned up their act” or “If only consumers would purchase differently,” goes the story, “then we could solve our climate/nitrate/biodiversity crises.” This narrative ignores where the real power lies: with a small number of dominant agribusiness firms, which control how food is grown and distributed around the world. National competition policies in the EU and the U.S. have allowed agri­businesses to get bigger, empowering them to dictate the prices paid to producers, which are often less than the cost of production.</p> <p class="Body">Farmers are trapped in their supply chains because there are few buyers. They produce at the scale demanded of them to stay in business. Both our <span class="Body---Italic">Milking the Planet </span>report and data from the Thünen Institute’s 2020 Agribenchmark <span class="Body---Italic">Pig Network</span> and <span class="Body---Italic">Beef and Sheep Network</span> reports show how often dairy and meat producers are paid below their cost of production. Beef farms in Austria, Czech Republic, France, Italy, Poland and the U.K. incurred losses in 2018 and 2019; while pork farms in Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Spain incurred the same fate.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-151-backlink">151</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body">Public money provided through the agriculture subsidies in the Common Agriculture Program (CAP) is keeping this failed system afloat, essentially subsidising agribusiness by keeping large farmers in business. Many farmers who don’t fit the scale demanded by the large companies and do not benefit from CAP payments simply have to stop farming. Four out of five EU dairy farms disappeared in a 30-year period (1981 – 2013).<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-152-backlink">152</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body">Global dairy companies that claim a cooperative farmer-owned structure function more like global agribusinesses. They are focused on global export markets with management structures removed from the realities of most members within their cooperatives. For farmers to shift agricultural practices, corporations must change their production and remuneration models. Farmers do not have the economic autonomy to make this transition on their own.</p> <p class="Body">Part 3 of this report on the companies’ climate plans shows that farmers in European member states are increasingly asked by companies to voluntarily enrol in programs that digitally capture their farm data. Those enrolled are required to make certain changes in their practices, which increases their burden of reporting and monitoring. Where financial support is provided by the companies enrolling them, it is limited to a few years. The economic risk of these changes stays with the producers, the supply chain remains fundamentally the same, and milk and meat prices do not capture the cost of the new practices. The European meat industry also continues to profit from the lack of labour rights for migrant workers. An investigative report by The Guardian found that Europe’s meat industry (worth 220 billion euro) employs around 1 million workers.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-153-backlink">153</span></span></sup> Thousands of workers have precarious contracts, dependent on third-party agencies operating in a grey legal zone that provide migrant workers work with low pay. Trade unions in the EU are calling for a ban on such contracts.</p> <p class="Body">Companies must be regulated to reduce their climate footprint without shifting these transition and investment costs onto producers and workers. Clear policies are needed on producer prices and environmental, public health and labour costs that corporations should be required to internalise in their business model. CAP direct payments could then go towards environmental and biodiversity improvements on farms to support a just agroecological transition instead of subsidising below cost farm prices for agribusiness.</p> <h2>4.2 Exports driving EU’s livestock growth and emissions</h2> <p class="Body">Trade is a strong driver of the EU’s agriculture policy, a fact reflected in the importance of agriculture in numerous existing EU free trade agreements (FTAs) and those in negotiation. European livestock industry’s growth depends on exports (Figure 7). Using FAOSTAT data, we compared production, consumption and exports of beef, dairy, pork and poultry in the <span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">EU</span><span class="Opentype---Subscript"><span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">2</span></span><span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">8</span> between 2005 and 2018. There was a 38% increase in poultry production in 2018 compared to 2005 and over a 10% increase in dairy and pork production between those two years. Demand within the EU in no way warrants this growth. Exports, on the other hand, increased by 93%, 45% and 58% for poultry, dairy and pork, respectively (Figure 7). Even beef, the only sector that incurred a slight decline in production (of less than 2%), saw exports increase by a staggering 46%.</p> <p class="Body">Domestic per capita consumption of dairy products in the EU fell by 19%, while pork consumption increased a fraction, by 0.1%. European beef consumption went down by 12%, but European poultry consumption increased by 13% between 2005 and 2018. The rise in exports dwarfs imports of poultry, beef and pork, although imports, too, rose significantly between 2005 and 2018. The dairy sector had a trade balance in exports and imports.</p> <p class="Body">There is no doubt that Europeans consume far too much meat and dairy compared to the rest of the world. Yet while Europe’s per capita meat consumption remains nearly double that of the world average (64.8 kg per capita compared to 34.7 kg in 2016 – 2018),<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-154-backlink">154</span></span></sup> the EU’s agroeconomic ambitions are centred on continuing to increase exports of dairy and meat to the world.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-155-backlink">155</span></span></sup> The trends show that a narrow focus on reducing meat and dairy consumption in Europe will have a limited effect as long as the region’s outsized influence on global dairy and meat exports is ignored.</p> <p class="Body"><img alt="Emissions Impossible Europe Figure 07" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="585489d3-83f7-4b49-bea5-19c80034e745" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/Figure%2007.jpg" width="75%" /></p> <h2>4.3 More production = more feed and land use change</h2> <p class="Body">The export-driven growth in European livestock production has also led to more feed being grown and imported into the region. The feed is sourced in crop systems that spur further deforestation and land degradation. Feed bought from industry (as opposed to grown on farm) grew by 13% from 2006 to 2017 for poultry, pig and cattle.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-156-backlink">156</span></span></sup> Even as cattle herds have declined, the amount of feed needed for cattle grew over this period. This indicates a trend of fewer cattle on pasture and more cattle raised within the industrial model of production. Given the massive growth in EU poultry production, related feed use increased by a whopping 22% from 2006 – 2017 for poultry.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-157-backlink">157</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body">The latest EU Agricultural Outlook projects that the use of land for pasture, fodder and protein crops is expected to grow in this decade.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-158-backlink">158</span></span></sup> An increase of 500 thousand hectares within Europe is estimated to be devoted to temporary grassland, silage maize used for fodder for livestock and feedstock for biogas, going from 19.7 million hectares in 2018 to 20.2 million hectares by the end of the decade.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-159-backlink">159</span></span></sup> The Commission also predicts that by 2030, one-third of the reduction in suckler cows for dairy in Western Europe is expected to be replaced by their expansion in Eastern Europe. The cattle herd in Eastern Europe is projected to rise by 30% over the next decade, notably in the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-160-backlink">160</span></span></sup></p> <h2>4.4 Way Forward</h2> <p class="Body">First, the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) remains one of the central EU policy interventions to transform European agriculture. Yet, EU policymakers have just agreed to a business-as-usual CAP for the period 2023 – 2027, benefiting Big Agribusiness once again. In the most consequential decade for the climate, this was a devastating decision. Agricultural emissions reductions have not only stagnated in the past 15 years, but methane and nitrous oxide emissions related to agriculture actually increased from 2012 to 2017.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-161-backlink">161</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body">Second, EU climate policy on agriculture this decade will have a pivotal impact on the limits to CAP and agricultural reform, as well as on the extent to which agribusiness can game climate policy to continue polluting. The implementation of the Farm to Fork strategy and elements of the EU’s “Fit for 55” climate package will have major implications for transforming agriculture in the coming years. In the Commission’s climate package, agriculture and forestry sectors are expected to become carbon neutral by 2035, with some within DG Clima (the EU ministry in charge of climate policy) and corporations advocating for the sector to be included in the Emissions Trading Scheme by the end of this decade.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-162-backlink">162</span></span></sup> The European Commission is embarking on the Carbon Farming Initiative as part of its Communication on Sustainable Carbon Cycles. The Commission will also propose an eventual legislation on the certification of carbon removals in the last quarter of 2022. The forthcoming Communication will lay the foundations for the carbon certification legislation and the type of incentives policymakers create for European agriculture reform to meet climate goals.</p> <p class="Body">The Communication and its outcomes can and should support a transition towards agroecology rather than incentivise more emissions intensity reductions and offsets by Big Meat and Dairy and other corporations. However, an initial analysis of the leaked draft Communication shows a bias in favour of carbon offset schemes for agriculture. The leaked draft lays out several caveats to implementing an approach reliant on carbon markets and a narrow “results-based” focus on carbon sequestration in supporting documents to the Communication.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-163-backlink">163</span></span></sup> The authors of the leaked draft Communication acknowledge barriers to such an approach, such as 1) the risk to “land managers” given the financial burden and “uncertainty about revenue possibilities” and 2) “the complexity and high costs of robust monitoring, reporting and verification systems” associated with carbon credits.<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-164-backlink">164</span></span></sup> Yet, it appears biased towards diverting critical public funds to validating carbon credits and bolstering voluntary carbon markets.</p> <p class="Body">The Communication further lays out the case to use public funds to support these carbon markets, for instance, through the CAP’s eco-schemes and state aid.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-165-backlink">165</span></span></sup> These public funds could more optimally be used to support farmers directly in expanding and transitioning to a holistic agroecological approach to farming. This approach would also ensure that more funds are directed to frontline communities rather than diverted to carbon consultants to support costly monitoring, reporting and verification of impermanent land-based carbon sequestration. Finally, the leaked draft opens the door to both agribusinesses and other corporations (including fossil fuel companies) to use carbon farming offsets against their own emissions.<sup><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-166-backlink">166</span></span></sup></p> <p class="Body">These are troubling proposals. Carbon markets are the wrong path for a transformative climate and agriculture agenda. Farmers need stable predictable finance to support concrete actions for holistic ecosystem restoration. This can only come from a mix of regulations and public finance that aligns climate and agriculture policy towards an agroecological transition. To do this, the EU must regulate corporations, redirect public finance (the CAP primarily and climate finance) and set rules in place that help regenerate rural economies and provide decent work in the food sector.</p> <p class="Body">The European Court of Auditors highlights that the CAP’s failure to incentivise a reduction in livestock numbers has contributed to rising agricultural emissions despite more than 100 billion euros of the CAP budget earmarked for “climate spending” from 2014 – 2020.<sup><sub><span class="endnote-reference CharOverride-13"><span id="endnote-167-backlink">167</span></span></sub></sup> It is not too late. National CAP strategic plans offer an opportunity to align EU and global climate goals with concrete action on agriculture that ties country-level financing to a concrete transition towards agroecology.</p> <p class="Body">European food, farm, development, environment and climate organisations and activists came together to push for a different CAP outcome in the past two years. As this movement grows bigger and louder, we must ensure that the 2027 CAP is rewritten. It must be truly transformative for the climate, biodiversity and for a just transition for producers. The EU Food Policy Coalition, a platform of over 57 organisations from the food, farm, environment, development and economic justice movement, has clearly articulated the direction Farm to Fork (<span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">F2F</span>) implementation must take, prioritising 10 elements. These include:<sup><span class="endnote-reference _idGenCharOverride-1"><span id="endnote-168-backlink">168</span></span></sup></p> <ul><li class="Body---List---Bullets">bold and urgent action to transform the food system, turning <span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">F</span><span class="Opentype---Subscript"><span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">2</span></span><span class="Override-Molecule-Name-GREP">F</span> targets on fertiliser and pesticide reduction and expansion of organic farming into binding legislation,</li> <li class="Body---List---Bullets">a transition to agroecology and “less and better animal farming” along with meat, dairy and eggs consumption,</li> <li class="Body---List---Bullets">strengthening “measures focusing on the rights, working and employment conditions and social protection of farm labourers and food sector workers,”</li> <li class="Body---List---Bullets">strengthening animal welfare legislation,</li> <li class="Body---List---Bullets">revisioning of trade rules. The EU-Mercosur agreement will have far-reaching political and environmental consequences for the growing might of the global livestock industry and on the message the EU sends to the world about its commitment to stop deforestation and reverse climate change. The agreement must not be ratified.</li> </ul><div class="Basic-Text-Frame" id="_idContainer509"> <p class="Caption-on-Image---White" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"><img alt="Serve up a better future for farming photo" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="0a9909c6-2934-4c24-9ad7-02349de7ec0f" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/better%20future%20farming.jpg" /></p> <p class="Caption-on-Image---White" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Photo: ©GFGF/Philip Reynaers</p> </div> <h1>5 | Conclusion</h1> <p class="Body---Intro-Paragraph" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">Six years after the Paris Agreement and 18 years after the Kyoto Agreement that mandated governments to reduce GHG emissions, decision-makers still lack basic foundational data such as emission volumes from the largest meat and dairy emitters in the European Union.</p> <p class="Body-with-Dropcap" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB"><span class="_idGenDropcap-1">I</span>n the absence of governments setting up accountable regulatory regimes, voluntary initiatives are proliferating. The resulting targets are, at best, unaccountable, lacking clear benchmarks, indicators and robust third-party verification. At their worst, they are platforms for corporate greenwashing.</p> <p class="Body" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">The IPCC’s latest indictment on our prospects for limiting warming to 1.5°C in 19 years requires a total systemic shift of every sector, including agriculture. This is feasible if governments act quickly and decisively on the climate crisis as they have with enacting policies to limit the COVID-19 pandemic. The IPCC singles out methane as a key gateway emission to cut to buy time for eliminating fossil fuel emissions over time. The U.S. and EU have responded with a proposal for a Global Methane Pledge that sets an aggregate 30% cut in methane emissions by 2030 between all countries willing to do so.</p> <p class="Body" lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB" xml:lang="en-GB">The largest source of methane is large-scale industrial agriculture. Solutions politicised and proposed by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the EU and the U.S. on livestock have a heavy industry footprint in that they limit solutions to technological innovations that tinker around the edges while the planet burns: feed additives and carbon markets for methane digesters linking Big Livestock to Big Oil and Gas. They do not call for a reduction in livestock numbers, shorter supply chains or investment in decentralised food systems that are diverse and agroecological. We need this type of shift by the end of this decade. We need all hands on deck to transform both public funds and climate and agriculture policy in supporting a transition to agroecology. It won’t happen if Big Meat and Dairy continues to co-opt governments and civil society’s narratives on regenerative agriculture and agroecology. <span class="CharOverride-7">It will only happen when governments wake up to our </span><span class="CharOverride-7">existential crisis and begin regulating agribusiness. </span></p> <h1>Methodology Note</h1> <h4>A. Calculating corporate GHG emissions</h4> <p class="Body">The methodology for calculating corporate emissions involved a three-step process:</p> <ol><li class="Body---List---Numbered">Determining the quantity of meat and milk processed per year by each company, where possible. We utilised public company reports wherever possible, as well as data generated by <span class="Body---Italic">WATT </span>(Poultry Trends) and<span class="Body---Italic"> IFCN Dairy Research Network </span>(formerly known as the International Farm Comparison Network). We used the year 2019 for poultry and 2018 for both pork and beef. Dairy volumes are based on the IFCN ratings from 2018 which utilise mostly 2017 volumes. Our calculations are based on different reference years as we used the most recent data available for companies’ emissions in each sector at the time of calculation. For beef and poultry, we also determined the quantity of production per geographic region for each company, based on company reports.</li> <li class="Body---List---Numbered">Using the U.N. FAO’s most recent and public GLEAM 2.0 data (with a data reference year of 2010) to determine the GHG emissions per kilo of beef, pork, poultry and milk (emissions factors) for each company. The GLEAM data includes regionalised slaughter weights, carcass dressing percentages and GHG emission intensity values on a per-tonne-of-product basis. For beef, poultry and milk, our calculation of emissions factors included a regional breakdown of production per company, given the available company data on geographic production and the GLEAM model’s significant differences in emissions factors between regions. For pork, we used global averages to generate emissions factors for each company, given the lack of available company data on geographic production and the small variations in emission factors for industrial production provided by the GLEAM model for the relevant regions.</li> <li class="Body---List---Numbered">Multiplying the production quantity by the emissions factors to get the totals for each company, the emissions estimates obtained with GLEAM are intended to be approximate indicators of corporate emissions in the absence of standard and transparent emissions calculations and reporting across the industry. Our calculations are likely conservative estimates given that GLEAM limits land use change to “the transformation of forest to arable land for feed crops and that of forest to pasture” and uses the basic IPCC Tier 1 guidelines, rather than more detailed calculations. In reality, more pastureland expansion has taken place on natural grasslands and cropland expansion replaced mainly forests (IPCC Special Report on Land, chapter 1). Large conversions have also taken place in dry woodlands and savannas, for instance the Cerrado in Brazil. GLEAM also limits feed crop expansion to soybean and palm oil, thus excluding corn, barley, sorghum and other oilseeds used in animal feed.</li> </ol><p class="Body">We calculated the emissions of the top 10 corporate emitters/producers of beef, pork, poultry and dairy, respectively. Danish Crown, Vion Foods, Tönnies, Westfleisch and Group Bigard appear in two top 10 lists: pork and beef. Therefore, there are 35 companies in total whose emissions we have estimated.</p> <p class="Body">Our emissions estimations based on this methodology can be found in our primary dataset: <a href="https://bit.ly/3o9bVxP"><span class="Hyperlink">https://bit.ly/3o9bVxP</span></a>. For a more detailed breakdown, see also the GLEAM emissions calculations: <a href="https://bit.ly/3xMb2yn"><span class="Hyperlink">https://bit.ly/3xMb2yn</span></a> — t<a href="https://bit.ly/3xMb2yn">his file</a> includes individual datasets for emissions of the top 10 beef, pork, poultry and dairy companies respectively. It also provides the most recent publicly available GLEAM data and emissions factors that we used to calculate company emissions.</p> <h4>B. Identifying corporate GHG emissions reporting and emissions reduction targets (as discussed in the report and cited in figures) for 20 of the largest corporate emitters plus five of the largest poultry emitters, a total of 25 companies.</h4> <p class="Body">For Annexe 1 and related information on company emissions reporting, their scopes and their climate targets, we investigated the emissions reporting and emissions reduction targets of 25 of the largest European beef, pork, poultry and dairy processors by volume. Even though poultry companies are not among the top 20 biggest emitters, they produce significant quantities of emissions, nonetheless. Thus, we also evaluated climate targets and reporting of five of them.</p> <p class="Body">For each of the 25 companies, we attempted to obtain several types of information from sources such as companies’ sustainability reports, corporate social responsibility reports, public press releases, online descriptions on company websites or similar documents or filings containing details on GHG emissions and/or emission-reduction targets and plans. The types of information sought included the following:</p> <ul><li class="Body---List---Bullets">The latest greenhouse gas inventory/information filings with organisations such as the Climate Disclosure Project (CDP) and any climate targets set, including with the Science-based Target Initiative (SBTi).</li> <li class="Body---List---Bullets">Information about how emission values were calculated, including system boundaries or scope, geographical area(s), corporate divisions included, time period, etc.</li> <li class="Body---List---Bullets">Details of emission-reduction targets, including base year, target year, scope of emissions covered, and whether the target is intensity-based or for absolute emission reductions.</li> <li class="Body---List---Bullets">Where adequate emissions data and reduction plans existed, we examined how companies plan to reduce emissions and meet targets.</li> </ul><p class="Body">It is important to note that there exists no central public repository for the meat and dairy industries’ corporate emissions data or targets, nor on the number of animals they slaughter for beef and pork. Some companies publish this information in annual reports, others in sustainability reports, others on webpages and still others in filings with third parties such as CDP. Thus, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether a given company does or does not have an emission-reduction target, or if the company is reporting its emissions.</p> <p class="Body">This situation is made more difficult by the fact that most companies we contacted by email with questions regarding emissions and targets did not reply. At times, publicly listed emails bounced back, and at other times, there was no response to their standard contact form or even after attempts to contact through multiple company-listed addresses.</p> <p class="Body">We based our characteristics of corporations’ emissions data and targets on extensive research of public websites and analysis of publicly available documents. Nonetheless, there remains the possibility that we may have listed a company as, for example, having no targets when in fact that company has published a target somewhere. As much as anything, this risk reflects the disorganised and dysfunctional emissions reporting and the need for a central public repository for such data.</p> <p class="Body">A full compilation of our data on the 25 companies’ reporting and targets are detailed in Annexe 1.</p> <h4>C. Change in company emissions over two years</h4> <p class="Body">For Figure 3, we compared change in emissions between 2015 – 2017 for dairy companies and 2016 – 2018 for pork and beef companies that featured in our first report with GRAIN, <a href="https://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible"><span class="Body---Italic">Emissions Impossible: How Big Meat and Dairy are heating up the planet</span></a>. See Table 2.1 in <a href="https://bit.ly/3o9bVxP">primary dataset</a>: <a href="https://bit.ly/3o9bVxP"><span class="Hyperlink">https://bit.ly/3o9bVxP</span></a></p> <h4>D. Additional information on figures</h4> <p class="Body">The primary dataset contains the data for Figure 1, the comparison between top 20 corporations (Table 1.9.1, see also Annexe 2) and EU countries (Table 3.1); for Figure 2, comparison between the companies and the Carbon Majors (Table 3.2); for Figure 6, the major meat and dairy producing countries in the EU based on EUROSTAT data (Table 1.1); and for Figure 7, IATP calculation of FAOSTAT data on production, consumption, exports and imports in years 2005 and 2018 (Tables 4.1 – 4.4). The primary dataset can be accessed at: <a href="https://bit.ly/3o9bVxP"><span class="Hyperlink">https://bit.ly/3o9bVxP</span></a></p> <p class="Body">For the Annexes and Endnotes, <a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/IATP_Emissions-Impossible-Europe-f_0.pdf">download the PDF</a>. </p> <h2 class="Body">Downloads:</h2> <p><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/IATP_Emissions-Impossible-Europe-f_0.pdf">Download a PDF of the full report</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/IATP_Emissions-Impossible-Europe-MethodologyNote.pdf">A note about our methodology</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/IATP_Emissions-Impossible-Europe-Annexes_0.pdf">Annexes</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/IATP_Emissions-Impossible-Europe_ES_EN.pdf">English Executive Summary</a></p> <h3>Original Datasets:</h3> <p><a href="https://bit.ly/3o9bVxP">Primary dataset</a></p> <p><a href="https://bit.ly/3xMb2yn">Aggregate Emissions Estimates Calculations for Main Dataset- IATP EI Europe 2021</a></p> <h3>Translations of the Executive Summary:</h3> <p><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/IAPT_002_Emissions-Impossible_ES_ES.pdf">Spanish translation of the Executive Summary (Descargue la traducción al español del Resumen Ejecutivo.)</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/IAPT_002_Emissions-Impossible_ES_FR.pdf">French translation of the Executive Summary (Télécharger une traduction française du résumé exécutif.)</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/IAPT_002_Emissions-Impossible_ES_GER.pdf">German translation of the Executive Summary (Download einer deutschen Übersetzung der Zusammenfassung.)</a></p> <hr /><hr /><p>Read more from the <a href="https://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible-series">Emissions Impossible Series</a>. </p> <p>Watch a short <a href="https://www.iatp.org/watch-emissions-impossible-europe">video</a> about<em> Emissions Impossible Europe.</em> </p> </div> <div class="field field--name-upload field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf icon-before"><span class="file-icon"><span class="icon glyphicon glyphicon-file text-primary" aria-hidden="true"></span></span><span class="file-link"><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/IATP_Emissions-Impossible-Europe-f_0.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=27007997" title="Open file in new window" target="_blank" data-toggle="tooltip" data-placement="bottom">IATP_Emissions-Impossible-Europe-f_0.pdf</a></span><span class="file-size">25.76 MB</span></span></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-category field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Primary category</div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/industrialized-meat" hreflang="en">Industrial Livestock</a></div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-teaser-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Teaser image</div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/media/11446" hreflang="en">Emissions Impossible cover teaser</a></div> </div> </div> Mon, 13 Dec 2021 20:33:48 +0000 Colleen Borgendale 44691 at https://www.iatp.org