Latest news with #UNClimateConference
Time of India
07-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Are designer handbags linked to illegal deforestation?
AI- Generated Image Designer brands such as Coach, Fendi and Hugo Boss have been listed as buyers of raw materials sourced from destroyed forests in Para, the northern Brazilian state set to host the UN Climate Conference, COP30, in November. The allegations, which most companies have denied, are detailed in a report published by Earthsight, a UK-based non profit focused on environmental and injustice investigations. Their findings draw on thousands of records of Brazilian leather exports, data on the cattle sector, court rulings and satellite imagery, as well as interviews and on-the-ground research. "Consumers probably expect that when buying a luxury product, the high price tag guarantees some level of ethics and sustainability," Lara Shirra White, an Earthsight researcher, told DW. "They don't expect that the leather bag might be linked to deforestation and human rights violations." The NGO warns of products made from the hides of cattle reared on farms embargoed for environmental violations, including some operating illegally within Para's Apyterewa Indigenous Territory, which was heavily deforested during the presidency of Jair Bolsonaro from 2019 to 2022. As part of its research, Earthsight investigated the business operations of Frigol, a Brazilian meatpacking company identified as one of the buyers of cattle raised on the territory. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trending in in 2025: Local network access control [Click Here] Esseps Learn More Undo The report says at least 17,000 animals were sold to Frigol between 2020 and 2023, which is "enough to produce 425 tons of leather." Researchers linked some of those cattle to illegal farms but said it's not possible to determine the exact number that left Apyterewa, in part because Frigol itself "does not trace most of its indirect suppliers." The report says this gap in reporting leaves the company's "supply chain vulnerable to the widespread practice of 'cattle laundering,'" in which cows from illegal farms are transferred to legally registered properties before being sold. Paulo Barreto, senior researcher at the Brazilian conservation and sustainable development Institute of Man and Environment of the Amazon, Imazon, said control over indirect suppliers is either nonexistent or incomplete. "As a result, cattle raised in illegally deforested areas end up entering the market as if they were legal. The lack of a transparent public system regarding the origin of the cattle makes control difficult." Frigol, however, told DW via email that it does not purchase cattle from Indigenous lands and monitors 100% of its direct suppliers. "We are committed to working together with industry institutions, the production chain and public authorities to make progress," the company said in a statement. It added that it believes "only individual traceability of animals for socio-environmental purposes will make it possible to mitigate deforestation across all links of the cattle supply chain." Brazilian leather, Italian prestige According to Earthsight's research, after the animals are slaughtered at Frigol's facilities, a percentage of cow skins are exported, in part by the Brazilian leather company Durlicouros, which shipped 14,700 tons of hide to Italy between 2020 and 2023. Some of that, the report found, went to the Italian tanneries Conceria Cristina and Faeda. The research lists high-end names like Coach, Fendi, Chloé, Hugo Boss and Saint Laurent among Conceria Cristina's clients. Faeda, meanwhile, provides leather to brands such as Chanel, Balenciaga and Gucci, according to the investigation. In response to a DW request for comment, Chanel cited deforestation as a "major concern" and said it no longer works with Faeda due to unmet traceability requirements: "92% of the calfskin we use is sourced from Europe, and we audit slaughterhouses and farms outside Europe to ensure they are not in deforestation zones. The Kering Group, which owns Balenciaga, Gucci, and Saint Laurent, told DW that while the two Italian companies mentioned in the report are suppliers, "the leather they provide to any Kering house does not come from Brazil." Based on Earthsight's findings, Hugo Boss issued a statement to say it had conducted a detailed review, and could "confirm that none of the leather" it is supplied with "is connected to any of the alleged parties in connection with the investigation." LVMH, which owns Fendi and Louis Vuitton, said it has a system capable of tracing the origin of 98% of the leather used in its products and that it does not source this from South America. And Tapestry, which owns the Coach brand, wrote to DW saying that while the system for tracking raw materials in Brazil is "complex and imperfect," it is working to be "part of the solution to improve traceability and transparency." Chloé, Conceria Cristina and Faeda had not responded to a DW request for comment at the time of publication. Flaws in the certification system Durlicouros told DW that it tracks its indirect suppliers and participates in discussions on state and national models for full traceability and compliance. "In addition, all Durlicouros facilities are certified by the Leather Working Group (LWG), ensuring high standards of sustainability, traceability, and environmental responsibility, according to the purpose of each facility." But Earthsight researcher Lara Shirra White said companies often use the certification to vouch for the ethics and sustainability of the leather they produce "instead of conducting meaningful due diligence themselves to ensure their supply chains are deforestation-free." She said the problem with the LWG, founded in 2005, is that "it does not require traceability back to the farms," and can therefore not account for environmental and human rights abuses in the areas where the cattle are raised. The LWG told DW it is enhancing its "due diligence requirements related to deforestation and land conversion," which will "include establishing a chain of custody system that would support more detailed traceability across the leather value chain." Can a shift come via Europe? There is some hope that the European Union's Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) could make a contribution to change. Due to come into effect at the end of this year after a 12-month delay, it will ban the purchase of products originating from destroyed forest areas. "We hope the law will be implemented on schedule, despite certain sectors of the industry still trying, in some way, to exclude leather from the scope of the legislation," Rafael Pieroni, a researcher at Earthsight, told DW. However, he said the report also contains a message for the Brazilian government. "It should implement traceability and make all data public. Transparency is the best way to avoid all the illegalities we are exposing in our investigation," he said.
Washington Post
01-07-2025
- Climate
- Washington Post
Catholic bishops from Asia, Africa, Latin America demand climate justice
VATICAN CITY — Catholic bishops from Asia, Africa and Latin America demanded climate justice for the parts of the world most affected by rising temperatures and rejected what they said were the 'false solutions' promoted by wealthy countries. As a heat wave hits much of Europe , including the Vatican, the continental bishops conferences of the Global South penned a first-ever joint ecological appeal ahead of the next U.N. climate conference in November in Belem, Brazil.
DW
26-06-2025
- Business
- DW
Are designer handbags linked to illegal deforestation? – DW – 06/26/2025
Leather from cattle raised in deforested areas and on Indigenous land in the northern Brazilian state of Pará is being turned into luxury items in Italy, according to an investigation. Designer brands such as Coach, Fendi, and Hugo Boss have been listed as buyers of raw materials sourced from destroyed forests in Pará, the northern Brazilian state set to host the UN Climate Conference, COP30, in November. The allegations, which most companies deny, are detailed in a report published by Earthsight, a UK-based nonprofit focused on environmental and injustice investigations. Their findings draw on thousands of records of Brazilian leather exports, data on the cattle sector, court rulings, satellite imagery, as well as interviews and on-the-ground research. "Consumers probably expect that when buying a luxury product, the high price tag guarantees some level of ethics and sustainability," Lara Shirra White, an Earthsight researcher told DW. "They don't expect that the leather bag might be linked to deforestation and human rights violations." The NGO warns of products made from the hides of cattle reared on farms embargoed for environmental violations. Including some operating illegally within Pará's Apyterewa Indigenous Territory, which was heavily deforested during Jair Bolsonaro's presidency. As part of its research, Earthsight investigated the business operations of Frigol, a Brazilian meatpacking company identified as one of the buyers of cattle raised on the territory. The report says at least 17,000 animals were sold to Frigol between 2020 and 2023, which is "enough to produce 425 tons of leather." Researchers link some of those cattle to illegal farms but say it is not possible to determine the exact number that left Apyterewa, in part because Frigol itself "does not trace most of its indirect suppliers." It says this gap in reporting leaves the company's "supply chain vulnerable to the widespread practice of 'cattle laundering,'" in which cows from illegal farms are transferred to legally registered properties before being sold. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Paulo Barreto, senior researcher at the Brazilian conservation and sustainable development Institute of Man and Environment of the Amazon (Imazon) said control over indirect suppliers is either non-existent or incomplete. "As a result, cattle raised in illegally deforested areas end up entering the market as if they were legal. The lack of a transparent public system regarding the origin of the cattle makes control difficult." Frigol, however, told DW via email that it does not purchase cattle from Indigenous lands and monitors 100% of its direct suppliers. "We are committed to working together with industry institutions, the production chain, and public authorities to make progress," the company said in a statement. Adding that it believes "only individual traceability of animals for socio-environmental purposes will make it possible to mitigate deforestation across all links of the cattle supply chain." According to the Earthsight research, after the animals are slaughtered at Frigol's facilities, a percentage of cowskins are exported. In part by the Brazilian leather company Durlicouros, which shipped 14,700 tons of hide to Italy between 2020 and 2023. Some of that, the report found, went to the European tanneries Conceria Cristina and Faeda. The research lists high-end names like Coach, Fendi, Chloé, Hugo Boss and Saint Lauren among Conceria Cristina's clients. Faeda, meanwhile, provides leather to brands such as Chanel, Balenciaga and Gucci, according to the investigation. In response to a DW request for comment, Chanel cited deforestation as a "major concern" and said it no longer works with Faeda due to unmet traceability requirements. "92% of the calfskin we use is sourced from Europe, and we audit slaughterhouses and farms outside Europe to ensure they are not in deforestation zones." The Kering Group, which owns Balenciaga, Gucci, and Saint Laurent, told DW that while the two Italian companies mentioned in the report are suppliers, "the leather they provide to any Kering house does not come from Brazil." Based on Earthsight's findings, Hugo Boss issued a statement to say it had conducted a detailed review, and could "confirm that none of the leather" it is supplied "is connected to any of the alleged parties in connection with the investigation." LVMH, which owns Fendi and Louis Vuitton, says it has a system capable of tracing the origin of 98% of the leather used in its products and that it does not source this from South America. And Tapestry, which owns the Coach brand, wrote to DW saying that while the system for tracking raw materials in Brazil is "complex and imperfect," it is working to be "part of the solution to improve traceability and transparency." Chloé, Conceria Cristina and Faeda had not responded to request for comment at the time of publication. Durlicouros told DW that it tracks its indirect suppliers and participates in discussions on state and national models for full traceability and compliance."In addition, all Durlicouros facilities are certified by the Leather Working Group (LWG), ensuring high standards of sustainability, traceability, and environmental responsibility, according to the purpose of each facility." But Earthsight researcher Lara Shirra White said companies often use the certification to vouch for the ethics and sustainability of the leather they produce "instead of conducting meaningful due diligence themselves to ensure their supply chains are deforestation-free." She says the problem with the LWG, founded in 2005, is that "it does not require traceability back to the farms," and can therefore not account for environmental and human rights abuses in the areas where the cattle are raised. The LWG told DW it is enhancing its "due diligence requirements related to deforestation and land conversion,' which will "include establishing a chain of custody system that would support more detailed traceability across the leather value chain." There is some hope that the European Union's Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) could make a contribution to change. Due to come into effect at the end of this year after a 12-month delay, it will ban the purchase of products originating from destroyed forest areas. "We hope the law will be implemented on schedule, despite certain sectors of the industry still trying, in some way, to exclude leather from the scope of the legislation," Rafael Pieroni, a researcher at Earthsight, told DW. But he said the report also contains a message for the Brazilian government. "It should implement traceability and make all data public. Transparency is the best way to avoid all the illegalities we are exposing in our investigation."
Scoop
24-04-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Report On TFFF Exposes Flaws, Urges Real Forest Protection
Press Release – Global Forest Coalition TFFF expected to be launched at COP30 in Brazil UTRECHT/LA PAZ, 24 APRIL 2025 –NGOs including forest people's rights groups are raising deep concerns about a new $125 billion market mechanism called the Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF) that has been proposed to incentivise the preservation of tropical forests and is expected to launch at this year's UN Climate Conference (COP30) in Belém. It is being spearheaded by the governments of Brazil, Indonesia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), which contain more than half of the world's rainforests. A new report from the Global Forest Coalition (GFC) and Fundación Solón explains what is known so far about the TFFF and highlights many questions that are cause for alarm. These include whether allocating just $4 per hectare of jungle could solve the 'market failure' that TFFF proponents claim is behind deforestation, and why the future of tropical forests should have to rely on private investment while public funding increasingly goes to high-emission sectors such as the military. 'Forests are not commodities to be traded on financial markets,' said Mary Louise Malig, GFC policy director and co-author of the report. 'They are complex living ecosystems with intrinsic value, essential to the livelihoods of countless communities and the health of our planet. The TFFF reduces their worth to a mere dollar-per-hectare figure, which is not only wholly inadequate but fundamentally misguided.' 'The climate emergency is not a market failure but a failure of governance and responsibility. We need to confront the structural drivers of deforestation and invest in real solutions that empower local communities,' added Pablo Solón, director of Fundación Solón and co-author of the report. 'Climate finance has long-since been co-opted by corporate interests, and the TFFF is no different — the alarm bells should be ringing for us all. The TFFF is a shiny new tool for greenwashing, designed to attract investment rather than tackle the systemic drivers of deforestation.' Market mechanisms like carbon trading and offsets have proven to be a flawed way of helping frontline communities and instead allow polluters to continue business as usual. This is why they are known among civil society as false solutions; they ignore the root causes of the climate and biodiversity crisis. 'By sidelining Indigenous voices and decision-making power, particularly women, the TFFF perpetuates the same systems of governance that have historically oppressed these communities,' explained Kwami Kpondzo, a campaign coordinator at GFC. 'Forest conservation mechanisms must take into consideration Indigenous traditional knowledge and prioritise the rights and needs of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, Afro-descendant peoples, women, and youth who manage over half of the world's remaining intact forests.' The new report on the TFFF also champions the establishment of an alternative non-market finance mechanism that provides sustainable funding levels directly to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. 'The climate crisis cannot be solved by mechanisms that perpetuate inequality,' said Satrio Manggala of GFC member organisation WALHI Indonesia. 'We need solutions that give direct power to Indigenous Peoples and women, who are the true stewards of our forests, rather than sidelining them in favour of market-driven approaches.'
Scoop
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Report On TFFF Exposes Flaws, Urges Real Forest Protection
UTRECHT/LA PAZ, 24 APRIL 2025 –NGOs including forest people's rights groups are raising deep concerns about a new $125 billion market mechanism called the Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF) that has been proposed to incentivise the preservation of tropical forests and is expected to launch at this year's UN Climate Conference (COP30) in Belém. It is being spearheaded by the governments of Brazil, Indonesia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), which contain more than half of the world's rainforests. A new report from the Global Forest Coalition (GFC) and Fundación Solón explains what is known so far about the TFFF and highlights many questions that are cause for alarm. These include whether allocating just $4 per hectare of jungle could solve the "market failure" that TFFF proponents claim is behind deforestation, and why the future of tropical forests should have to rely on private investment while public funding increasingly goes to high-emission sectors such as the military. 'Forests are not commodities to be traded on financial markets,' said Mary Louise Malig, GFC policy director and co-author of the report. 'They are complex living ecosystems with intrinsic value, essential to the livelihoods of countless communities and the health of our planet. The TFFF reduces their worth to a mere dollar-per-hectare figure, which is not only wholly inadequate but fundamentally misguided.' 'The climate emergency is not a market failure but a failure of governance and responsibility. We need to confront the structural drivers of deforestation and invest in real solutions that empower local communities,' added Pablo Solón, director of Fundación Solón and co-author of the report. 'Climate finance has long-since been co-opted by corporate interests, and the TFFF is no different — the alarm bells should be ringing for us all. The TFFF is a shiny new tool for greenwashing, designed to attract investment rather than tackle the systemic drivers of deforestation.' Market mechanisms like carbon trading and offsets have proven to be a flawed way of helping frontline communities and instead allow polluters to continue business as usual. This is why they are known among civil society as false solutions; they ignore the root causes of the climate and biodiversity crisis. 'By sidelining Indigenous voices and decision-making power, particularly women, the TFFF perpetuates the same systems of governance that have historically oppressed these communities,' explained Kwami Kpondzo, a campaign coordinator at GFC. 'Forest conservation mechanisms must take into consideration Indigenous traditional knowledge and prioritise the rights and needs of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, Afro-descendant peoples, women, and youth who manage over half of the world's remaining intact forests.' The new report on the TFFF also champions the establishment of an alternative non-market finance mechanism that provides sustainable funding levels directly to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. 'The climate crisis cannot be solved by mechanisms that perpetuate inequality,' said Satrio Manggala of GFC member organisation WALHI Indonesia. 'We need solutions that give direct power to Indigenous Peoples and women, who are the true stewards of our forests, rather than sidelining them in favour of market-driven approaches.'
