Friday, November 27, 2020

#SAVETHEAMAZON
Peru’s Oil Industry Is Engulfed In Crisis


Editor OilPrice.com
Thu, November 26, 2020

A combination of sharply weaker oil prices, inconsistent regulation, the COVID-19 pandemic, and constant conflict in the Amazon where most of Peru’s onshore oil industry is located has triggered a crisis that has brought the industry to the brink of collapse. This was recently recognized by Peru’s National Society of Mining, Oil, and Energy (SNMPE – Spanish initials) which released a media statement (Spanish) asking the central government to implement measures to reverse the crisis. Lima has long downplayed Peru’s considerable oil potential in preference to advancing the Andean country’s mining industry and exploiting its vast mineral wealth. That saw Peru become the world’s second-largest copper producer and the red metal, which is a vital ingredient in a range of industrial applications, become the country’s top export. The severe economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic, with the IMF predicting that Peru’s economy will shrink by a worrying 14%, sees Lima looking to bolster the economy and GDP growth by any means possible.

This has sparked a renewed focus on ramping-up activity in Peru’s oil industry. In October 2020 Peru’s Ministry of Energy and Mines announced it was (Spanish) preparing a series of regulatory proposals aimed at providing greater clarity for the exploration and exploitation of the country’s hydrocarbon resources. While this is designed to attract greater investment and boost activity in Peru’s petroleum industry, it appears to be singularly insufficient to achieve that, particularly considering the latest media release from the SNMPE. A key issue facing Peru’s nascent petroleum industry is the Andean country’s limited proven oil reserves. At the end of 2018, the last time they were officially measured, the Ministry of Energy and Mines determined (Spanish) Peru only had 344.5 million barrels of proven oil reserves and proven possible and probable (3P) reserves of 660.4 million barrels, some of the lowest of any oil-producing nation in Latin America. The Andean country, however, is believed to possess considerable hydrocarbon potential with Peru assessed to have prospective and contingent petroleum resources of almost 24 billion barrels. Most of that oil potential is contained in the Marañon Basin which is part of the Putumayo-Oriente-Marañon Basin complex that stretches through the Amazon from southeastern Colombia to northeastern Peru. The U.S. Geological Survey estimated the Putumayo-Oriente-Marañon Basin holds mean undiscovered hydrocarbon resources of 3.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent including just over 3 billion barrels of crude oil. This underscores the tremendous oil potential of the Marañon Basin, which if correctly exploited will give Peru’s economy a solid boost, particularly if oil keeps rallying higher.

Marañon Basin and Oil Producing Areas
Maranon  Source: Petroperu.

Most of Peru’s discovered oil reserves and undiscovered hydrocarbon resources along with the core of its operational petroleum industry and related infrastructure are in the country’s Amazon region. It is this which has been the cause of a key source of conflict for Peru’s hydrocarbon sector. Allegations of mismanagement, corruption, and environmental damage along with a lack of social license and a shortfall of resources in the region are key drivers of the persistent conflict impacting Peru’s petroleum industry. Many of those issues have been aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic which highlighted the deep divisions between Peru’s rich and poor as well as the latter’s lack of access to basic resources. This includes a lack of access to essential amenities including electricity, running water, and basic medical treatment. This is despite the substantial government revenue generated by the region which is responsible for most of Peru’s oil production. The sharp impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on indigenous communities caused tensions to boil-over in early August 2020 triggering violent protests in Peru’s Amazon leading to attacks on energy infrastructure and oil fields. That forced upstream oil producer PetroTal to shutter its Bretaña oilfield. Protestors also seized control of a Petroperu pump station, impacting pipeline operations.

Community blockades and protests are common events in Peru’s Amazon, which is one of the country’s most impoverished regions despite its considerable oil wealth. Canadian oil junior Frontera Energy was forced to declare force majeure in March 2020 regarding its operations at Block 192 located in the Amazon Basin on Peru’s border with Ecuador. This along with ongoing community opposition to the oil industry in the region coupled with lengthy pipeline outages is a primary reason for Frontera choosing to reconsider making investments in Peru. PetroTal earlier this month announced it had curtailed oil production to 5,000 barrels daily, or around half of its normal oil output, so as to preserve oil inventories in light of ongoing social unrest and threats of disruption to operations at its Bretaña field. This is despite a September 2020 agreement between the government and local communities for increased funding and access to basic resources. But cutting production to conserve oil inventories indicates that PetroTal’s management is not confident that the agreement between local communities and the government will allay social unrest and prevent further protests. The Petroperu owned and operated Oleoducto Nor Peruano (ONP), which originates in Peru’s Loreto department is in the Amazon Basin, is the only economic means of transporting the crude oil produced in the Marañon Basin to the Bayóvar terminal on Peru's Pacific Coast. The ONP has a long history of outages and oil spills. These have caused considerable environmental damage, polluted waterways contaminated drinking water, and sharply impacted local communities. That is another source of ongoing community enmity toward Lima and Peru’s petroleum industry. Those incidents only serve to further undermine any attempts to broaden the social license for oil companies to operate in the region.

Ongoing conflict, social unrest, and sharply weaker oil prices have caused investment in Peru’s oil industry to plummet, falling to $200 million for the first eight months of 2020, which is half of what it was for the same period a year earlier. The SNMPE claims that exploration activity has ground to a halt and no new oil wells have been drilled over the last five months. This the executive director of the society, Pablo de la Flor, claims indicates that Peru’s oil industry in crisis and close to collapse.

Drill rig and oil production data supports this assertion. The latest Baker Hughes rig count does not show any operational drilling rigs in October 2020, or for the four preceding months, compared to four operational rigs for the same month in 2019. Oil production for October 2020 (Spanish) averaged a mere 37,800 barrels daily, which was almost 33% lower than a year earlier. October natural gas output of 1.254 million cubic feet daily and total hydrocarbon liquids production of 122,000 barrels of oil equivalent daily were 12% lower than for the same period in 2019. Those numbers underscore the fact that Peru’s hydrocarbon sector is facing a crisis.

Until the many headwinds including a lack of social license and ongoing civil conflict are resolved, Peru’s oil industry will remain under considerable pressure, impacting production and fiscal revenue. It will also weigh upon urgently needed investment by foreign energy companies to expand exploration and boost Peru’s limited oil reserves. It is important that the SNMPE’s plea to Peru’s central government and local communities in the Amazon doesn’t fall on deaf ears and Lima enacts appropriate policies to deal with the deep-seated issues which are impacting the country’s petroleum operations.

By Matthew Smith for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com

Mine ponds amplify mercury risks in Peru's Amazon

Gold miners have dramatically altered the landscape of Peru's Amazon, increasing mercury poisoning risks for humans and wildlife

DUKE UNIVERSITY

Research News

IMAGE

IMAGE: THOUSANDS OF ARTIFICIAL PONDS LIKE THIS ONE, CREATED WHEN RAINWATER FILLED IN AN ABANDONED GOLD MINING PIT, ARE AMPLIFYING RISKS OF MERCURY EXPOSURE FOR HUMANS AND WILDLIFE IN THE PERUVIAN... view more 

CREDIT: MELISSA MARCHESE

DURHAM, N.C. - The proliferation of pits and ponds created in recent years by miners digging for small deposits of alluvial gold in Peru's Amazon has dramatically altered the landscape and increased the risk of mercury exposure for indigenous communities and wildlife, a new study shows.

"In heavily mined watersheds, there's been a 670% increase in the extent of ponds across the landscape since 1985. These ponds are almost entirely artificial lakes created as thousands of former mining pits fill in with rainwater and groundwater over time," said Simon Topp, a doctoral student in geological sciences at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who co-led the study.

Landscapes formerly dominated by forests are now increasingly dotted by these small lakes, which, the study finds, provide low-oxygen conditions in which submerged mercury - a toxic leftover from the gold mining process - can be converted by microbial activity into an even more toxic form of the element, called methylmercury, at net rates 5-to-7 times greater than in rivers.

"Methylmercury poses especially high risks for humans and large predators because it bioaccumulates in body tissue as it moves up the food chain. That's particularly concerning given the high biodiversity and the large number of indigenous populations that live in the Peruvian Amazon," said Jacqueline Gerson, a doctoral student in ecology at Duke University, who also co-led the study.

These heightened risks likely also occur in other locations where unregulated artisanal small-scale gold mining takes place, including Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of South America, she said.

Topp, Gerson and their colleagues published their peer-reviewed study Nov. 27 in Science Advances.

Artisanal gold miners use mercury, a potent neurotoxin, to separate their gold ore from soil and sediments, often without adequate safety precautions to protect themselves or the environment.

Mercury poisoning can cause a wide range of health impacts, including tremors, muscle weakness, vision and hearing impairments, and loss of coordination and balance. In severe cases, it can lead to birth defects or death.

Some of the mercury used by the miners is burned off into the air or spilled into nearby rivers, creating far-reaching environmental and human health risks that have been well documented in past studies. The new study is the first to document how the mining has altered the landscape and simultaneously amplified the risks of mercury poisoning through the creation of ponds and the microbial processing of mercury into methylmercury that occurs there.

To conduct the study, the scientists collected water and sediment samples at sites upstream and downstream of artisanal gold mining sites along Peru's Madre de Dios River, its tributaries, surrounding lakes, and mining ponds during the dry season in July and August of 2019. They measured each sample for total mercury content and for the proportion of that mercury that was in the more toxic form of methylmercury.

By combining these measurements with more than three decades of high-resolution satellite data from the region, they were able to determine the extent of artificial ponding and mercury contamination at each site and identify causal links.

"You can clearly see that the increase in artificial lakes and ponds in heavily mined areas accelerated after 2008, when gold prices dramatically increased along with mining activity," Topp said. By contrast, the total surface area of ponds in areas without heavy mining increased by an average of only 20% over the entire study period.

"We expect that this trend, and the environmental and human health risks it causes, will continue as long as gold prices remain high and artisanal small-scale gold mining is a profitable activity," he said.

###

Co-authors of the new study were John Gardner, Xiao Yang and Tamlin Pavelsky of UNC-CH; Emily Bernhardt of Duke; and Claudia Vega and Luis Fernandez of Wake Forest University's Center for Amazonian Scientific Innovation in Peru.

Funding came from Duke University.

CITATION: "Artificial Lake Expansion Amplifies Mercury Pollution from Gold Mining," Jacqueline R. Gerson, Simon N. Topp. Claudia M. Vega, John R. Gardner, Xiao Yang, Luis E. Fernandez, Emily S. Bernhardt and Tamlin M. Pavelsky. Science Advances, Nov. 27, 2020. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abd4953

15 Contemporary US Indigenous Photographers Whose Work You Should Know

Kalen Goodluck, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Kalen Goodluck
The Apache Tears Motel

"Kalen Goodluck is Diné, Mandan, Hidatsa, and Tsimshian. The Apache Tears Motel was once a historic roadside stop for motorists in Tucson off Benson Highway and featured a kitsch statue of a cross-legged Indian donning a headdress. It sits on a tract of land illegally seized from Western Apache Bands in 1886 and was sold to benefit the University of Arizona’s endowment. This photo and others was a part of High Country News’ ‘Land Grab Universities’ project, an investigation into how expropriated Indigenous lands formed the foundation of today’s public land grant university system."



Will Wilson, Santa Fe, New Mexico


Will Wilson

"When it comes down to it, I really love sharing the craft. The wet plate process really enables a slower more personal and direct experience of photography, and then there is the gifting of the photographic object to the sitter in exchange for a digital facsimile. I made this recently. It's the AIR protagonist figuring out the drone he uses to photograph Abandoned Uranium Mines on the Navajo Nation. For many of my tintypes, you can engage with the person and collaborator in the portrait through the Talking Tintype app, it's a free download from the Apple App Store. I also run the photography program at The Santa Fe Community College."


Josué Rivas, Chinook, Cowlitz, and Clackamas Territory | Portland, OR


Josué Rivas
A woman walks in the snow during a blizzard. Standing Rock, North Dakota, USA. November, 2016.


“I want my images to be a reminder of our collective power not only as Indigenous peoples but also as human beings. The intention of my work is to be a starting point for a conversation about decolonization, acknowledgment, healing, and reconciliation, not only with each other but also with all our relations.

My identity is the foundation and serves as a guide for my work. Whether I'm documenting Indigenous movements or creating spaces for us to tell our own story, my ancestors stand behind me and my descendants in front of me. My practice is also guided by the understanding that we as Indigenous peoples will exist in the future; I believe we are in a moment where telling our own stories and reclaiming our narrative is a first step towards reimagining what that future looks like. Technology will shape visual storytelling, and I think Indigenous peoples will be at the forefront of that transition. My hope is that our identity will continue to serve as a reference point for the stories we tell now — we are future ancestors.”

SEE THE REST HERE 


GOOD NEWS


The TikToker Fired For His Viral Paint-Mixing Account Has A New Job

Tony Piloseno said he got job and collaboration offers from almost every major paint company, but he "really connected with" the founder of Florida Paints over a shared "passion for paint."


















Tony Piloseno, the 22-year-old Ohio University student who was fired by Sherwin-Williams over his wildly successful paint-mixing TikTok account, has accepted a full-time job working for a Florida-based paint company aptly called Florida Paints.

Piloseno received job offers from almost all the "major paint companies ... Benjamin Moore, Behr, all those guys," he told BuzzFeed News, after his story went viral.


While he was focused on building his @tonesterpaints account, his passion from day one was always mixing paints in-house. At Florida Paints, he'll be once again working as a sales associate in a physical store.

"I talked to a bunch of people from a bunch of companies, but Don Strube, the co-owner of Florida Paints, he really connected with me when he called me and talked about his passion for paint," Piloseno said. "I found that very special."

Strube is also aware of and encourages Piloseno to continue to "express his [creativity] on social media."

"I really want to work in the paint industry along with social media itself, while still making content," Piloseno said.

He's also arranged with the administration at Ohio University to finish his degree online while he starts work at Florida Paints next month.

Piloseno plans on using funds from his GoFundMe (a total of $2,365) that he was originally going to spend on more paint supplies toward his big move to Orlando.

Due to the latest surge of COVID-19 cases, Piloseno said he'll be getting tested before he starts his new job, and he'll "be wearing a mask regularly in the store."

"I just want to say I really do appreciate all the fans and my audience for having my back — for seeing my side of things," he added.


ICE Expelled 33 Immigrant Children Back To Guatemala After A Judge Said They Couldn't

“It is unconscionable that they are leaving the kids there and that they did not immediately bring them back,” one immigration analyst said.

Hamed Aleaziz BuzzFeed News Reporter
Posted on November 24, 2020

Eric Gay / AP
Immigrants from El Salvador and Guatemala who entered the US illegally board a bus in 2015.

The Trump administration expelled 33 children who came to the US without a parent back to Guatemala after a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the controversial practice that same day.

The injunction was issued Wednesday by US Judge Emmet Sullivan minutes before an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) flight left for Guatemala City with the 33 children.

An ICE official confirmed that the flight left “shortly before ICE was informed of the court's injunction” against Title 42, the public health provision used by the Trump administration to expel people from the US citing the coronavirus pandemic.

The official said that ICE officers on the ground did not become aware of the judge’s order until the flight had landed and Guatemalan authorities were greeting the children, who remained in Guatemala as of Tuesday.

“We are aware of the situation and are looking into it. Hopefully, no child is being denied the benefit of the ruling,” said Lee Gelernt, an ACLU attorney who led the lawsuit that resulted in the preliminary injunction blocking the policy.

The expulsion of the 33 children happening on the same day of Sullivan’s order could force the agency to bring back the children because it violated the judge’s decision, legal experts said.

“It is unconscionable that they are leaving the kids there and that they did not immediately bring them back,” said Sarah Pierce, an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. Even if the flight took off before ICE officials knew, she added, “the expulsion is not only putting kids on the plane and taking off, it is also placing them in another country.”


Brad Doherty / AP
Immigrants are checked and loaded onto a plane in 2014 at Brownsville South Padre Island International Airport Texas.

Pratheepan Gulasekaram, a professor at Santa Clara University Law School, said ICE’s repeated issues in court under the Trump administration could play a factor in this case if Sullivan assesses whether they violated his order. Federal court judges have complained that they were lied to by officials in cases involving immigration policy during the Trump administration.

“It is not out of the power of the district court, if someone could raise the matter, to order ICE to return the children that it removed on that flight,” he said, noting that ICE officials will likely say that there will be practical difficulties in tracking down and locating the 33 children.

The Trump administration has argued that the current policy is necessary to prevent the spread of the coronavirus in the United States.

“If the Title 42 order were to be undone by the court or the next administration, especially in the midst of a surging pandemic, ICE will be obligated to increase transportation operations, conducting the escorts of individuals and unaccompanied children using commercial airlines and ground transportation, as appropriate,” the ICE official said. “This poses an increased risk to the general public aboard commercial airlines as the Title 42 order was enacted to mitigate the public health risks of aliens attempting to unlawfully enter the United States in the midst of the pandemic.”

Critics said the government was using public health orders from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as an excuse to violate federal laws that govern the processing of unaccompanied children at the border.

BuzzFeed News previously reported that the Department of Homeland Security has expelled unaccompanied immigrant children from the US border more than 13,000 times since March.

Before the pandemic, unaccompanied children picked up by Border Patrol agents would be sent to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), where they would be housed in shelters as they started applying for asylum and waited to be reunited with family members in the US.

The ORR referral process was created by the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which was signed by then-president George W. Bush in 2008. Under the law, Customs and Border Protection officials are generally required to refer the children within 72 hours to the US refugee agency. But those referrals dropped precipitously after the CDC's coronavirus order.

Instead, unaccompanied children at the border are turned back immediately to Mexico or held in detention facilities until a flight can get them out of the country.

In late June, US District Judge Carl Nichols, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, blocked the deportation of a 16-year-old Honduran boy under the CDC's order. While the ruling did not void the policy altogether, it was seen as a blow to the administration. Since then, the government has said it was no longer seeking to use the CDC's order to remove the boy from the country.

ICE officials said four of the children on the flight to Guatemala had tested positive for COVID-19.

MORE ON THIS
A Judge Has Blocked The Trump Administration From Turning Back Unaccompanied Children At The Border Hamed Aleaziz · Nov. 18, 2020


WWF'S SECRET WAR
WWF Admitted “Sorrow” Over Human Rights Abuses


A 160-page report, in response to a BuzzFeed News investigation, found long-standing failures at the celebrated wildlife charity.

Katie J.M. Baker BuzzFeed News Investigative Reporter
Tom Warren Investigations Correspondent

Posted on November 25, 2020


Tim Lane / BuzzFeed News

Read the original March 2019 BuzzFeed News investigation.

One of the world’s largest charities knew for years that it was funding alleged human rights abusers but repeatedly failed to address the issue, a lengthy, long-delayed report revealed on Tuesday.

A BuzzFeed News investigation first exposed in March 2019 how WWF, the beloved nonprofit with the cuddly panda logo, financed and equipped park rangers accused of beating, torturing, sexually assaulting, and murdering scores of people. In response, WWF immediately commissioned an “independent review” led by Navi Pillay, a former United Nations commissioner for human rights.

The 160-page review, which has now been published online, corroborates problems exposed by BuzzFeed News in Nepal, Cameroon, the Republic of the Congo, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The report claimed the panel was prevented by the COVID-19 pandemic from traveling to locations where the abuses reportedly took place.

The review found that WWF had failed again and again to follow “its own commitments to respect human rights” — commitments that are not just required by law but essential to “the conservation of nature.”

In a statement issued in response to the review, WWF expressed “deep and unreserved sorrow for those who have suffered,” and said that abuses by park rangers “horrify us and go against all the values for which we stand.” The charity acknowledged its shortcomings and welcomed the recommendations, saying “we can and will do more.”

Pillay’s review declined to address whether high-level executives, who BuzzFeed News found were aware of “accelerating” violence at at least one wildlife park as early as January 2018, were responsible for the charity’s missteps.

In the Congo Basin, where WWF did an “especially weak” job fulfilling its human rights commitments, the wildlife charity did not fully investigate accounts of murder, rape, and torture out of fear that government partners would “react negatively to an effort to investigate past human rights abuses,” the panel found. There and elsewhere, WWF provided technical and financial support to park rangers, known locally as “eco-guards,” even after learning about similar, horrifying allegations — and, in some cases, after damning reviews commissioned by the non-profit itself confirmed “serious and widespread” reports of abuse.

The report found “no formal mechanism in place for WWF to be informed of alleged abuses during anti-poaching missions” in Nepal, despite torture, rape, and murder allegations ranging from the early 2000s to this past July, when park officials were alleged to have beaten an Indigenous youth and destroyed homes of a local community. “WWF needs to know what is happening on the ground where it works” in order to fulfill its own human rights policies, the report said.


Frank Bienewald / Getty Images
A river in Nepal's Chitwan National Park.

Overall, WWF paid too little attention to credible abuse allegations, failed to construct a system for victims to make complaints, and painted an overly rosy picture of its anti-poaching war in public communications, the report found. "Unfortunately, WWF’s commitments to implement its social policies have not been adequately and consistently followed through,” the report’s authors wrote.

WWF has supported efforts to fight wildlife crime for decades. Although local governments officially employ and pay park rangers who patrol national parks and protected wildlife reserves, in a number of countries across Africa and Asia WWF has provided crucial funding to make their jobs possible. The charity has framed its crusade against poaching in the hardened terms of war.

In a multipart series, BuzzFeed News found that WWF’s war on poaching came with civilian casualties: impoverished villagers living near the parks. At the time, WWF responded that many of BuzzFeed’s assertions did “not match our understanding of events” — yet the charity swiftly overhauled many of its human rights policies after publication.

In the US, the series spurred a bipartisan investigation and proposed legislation that would prohibit the government from awarding money to international conservation groups that fund or support human rights violations. It also prompted a freeze of funds by the Interior Department, a review by the Government Accountability Office, and separate government probes in the UK and Germany.

The new review offers more recommendations for the charity to improve its oversight, including hiring more human rights specialists, conducting stronger due diligence before committing to conservation projects, signing human rights commitments with WWF’s government and law enforcement partners in the field, and establishing effective complaint systems so that Indigenous people can more easily report abuse.

The review found that there was no “consistent and unified effort” across WWF’s network of offices around the world to “address complaints about human rights abuses” until 2018.

Many of the panel’s findings pointed directly to the top: “Commitments to meet the responsibility to respect human rights should be approved at the most senior level of the institution,” the panel wrote. Although all of WWF’s offices in the Congo Basin fall under the direct authority of WWF International, staff at its headquarters in Gland, Switzerland did little to oversee the organization’s work there.

WWF International also didn’t provide clear guidance to local offices about how to implement its human rights commitments. For example, there were no network-wide norms about how to work with law enforcement and park rangers. As a result, each program office “was left on its own to develop – or not – codes of conduct, training materials, conditions for supporting rangers, and procedures for responding to allegations of abuse.”

“Ultimately, the responsibility was on WWF International and the WWF Network as a whole to ensure that the allegations of human rights abuses by eco-guards to which WWF was providing financial and technical support were properly addressed,” the panel wrote.


Ezequiel Becerra / Getty Images
WWF International Director General Marco Lambertini


Last October BuzzFeed News revealed that both Director General Marco Lambertini and Chief Operating Officer Dominic O’Neill personally reviewed a WWF-commissioned report documenting “accelerating” accounts of violence by WWF-backed guards in Cameroon. That report was sent to higher-ups in January 2018 — more than a year before BuzzFeed News began exposing similar abuses. Yet Pillay’s review said little about whether WWF executives were responsible for the charity’s failings.

Instead the review focused on WWF’s complex system, under which individual program offices partner with countries “with apparently very limited consultation or oversight from WWF International,” even when WWF International is legally responsible. This obscured “clear lines of responsibility and accountability,” resulting in “difficulties and confusion” and “ineffective” attempts to address human rights, the panel wrote.

The panel couldn’t find a single contract between WWF International and its partner countries that contained provisions concerning human rights responsibilities or the rights of Indigenous people.

The panel also criticized WWF’s press briefings at length, saying it needed to be “more forthcoming about the challenges it faces” and “more transparent about how it responds when faced with allegations of human rights abuses associated with activities that it supports.” In some cases, “it is clear that to avoid fuelling criticism WWF decided not to publish commissioned reports, to downplay information received, or to overstate the effectiveness of its proposed responses.”

An internal focus on promoting “good news” seems “to have led to a culture” in which program offices “have been unwilling to share or escalate the full extent of their knowledge about allegations of human rights abuses because of concern about scaring off donors or offending state partners,” the report said. “WWF at all levels should be more transparent both internally and externally about the challenges it faces in promoting conservation and respecting human rights. Equally important, it must be more forthright about the effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of its efforts to overcome those challenges.”

The report attracted immediate criticism from prominent voices who said it did not fully acknowledge the charity’s responsibility for abuses against Indigenous people. Stephen Corry, the director of Survival International, the tribal rights advocacy group, said “the report echoes previous WWF responses in passing the blame onto ‘government rangers.’” A spokesperson for Rainforest Foundation UK said the report “fails to take responsibility” for WWF’s shortcomings “or issue a sincere apology to the many individuals who have suffered human rights abuses carried out in their name.”

The Forest Peoples Program, an Indigenous rights group that has reported abuses to WWF, said the report showed the need for all wildlife charities to take a hard look at themselves.

“The human rights abuses suffered by Indigenous peoples and local communities listed in the report highlight fundamental issues that arise across the conservation sector as a whole, not isolated to WWF,” said Helen Tugendhat, program coordinator at the Forest Peoples Program. “We urge other conservation organizations as well as conservation funders to read this report closely and evaluate and amend their own practices.”

MORE ON THIS
WWF Funds Guards Who Have Tortured And Killed People Tom Warren · March 4, 2019
Katie J.M. Baker · March 5, 2019
Katie J.M. Baker · Oct. 17, 2019



Katie Baker is an investigative reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in London.


Tom Warren is an investigations correspondent for BuzzFeed News and is based in London.






The Coronavirus Outbreaks In Meatpacking Plants Were Likely Much Worse Than Official Numbers Show

Of the 45 JBS, Smithfield, Tyson, and Cargill facilities around the country that recorded at least 50 confirmed COVID-19 cases, only 20 ordered full-scale testing for all employees, according to a BuzzFeed News investigation.

Karen Wang BuzzFeed Contributor Albert Samaha BuzzFeed News Reporter
Posted on November 27, 2020

Andy Cross / Getty Images
JBS Greeley Beef Plant president of safety, Jay Rawlings heads up to the plant from the new employee entrance that includes a temperature check with an infrared camera system April 23, 2020.


During the first wave of the pandemic, the meatpacking industry emerged as an early and shocking hot spot. Since then, around 40,000 meatpacking workers nationwide have tested positive for the coronavirus, according to news organizations tracking the industry. Around half of them were employed by JBS, Smithfield, Tyson, or Cargill, the four industry giants collectively responsible for more than 80% of the meat consumed in the US. At least 200 workers have died.

But a BuzzFeed News investigation has found that the real scope of the outbreaks — in an industry where workers stand shoulder to shoulder for hours in sometimes poorly ventilated warehouses — was likely far worse, because dozens of plants didn’t test all their employees even when scores of workers were falling ill and, in some cases, public health officials offered the tests free of charge.

As infections surge anew across the country, the extent of the spring outbreaks — and thus the true scale of the danger to the industry’s workers — remains unknown, shrouded by meatpacking companies’ patchwork testing practices. And even now, with federal officials giving meatpackers broad authority over how to keep their workers safe, the companies have yet to implement universal testing. All four companies told BuzzFeed News that they have minimized the risk their workers face through new safety gear, protective barriers, distancing protocols, screening programs aimed at ensuring that anyone showing symptoms stays home, and mandatory testing for employees who show symptoms or are exposed to a confirmed case.

But meatpacking workers are still getting sick.

Seven months after the JBS plant in Greeley, Colorado, briefly closed due to an outbreak in the spring that left six people dead, the virus has hit that workplace again: Last week, 20 employees at the facility and 34 more at the local corporate headquarters tested positive, according to state health department data.

The company attributed that to “the increase in the number of cases in the surrounding community,” JBS spokesperson Cameron Bruett told BuzzFeed News, noting that it was “not unexpected.”

“The rate of increase among our workforce is not nearly at the rate we are seeing in the local community,” he said. But the plant still does not conduct facility-wide testing, leaving the full scope of the new outbreak uncertain. At Greeley, as at many plants across the country, an early outbreak wasn’t enough to spur universal testing protocols.


Of the 45 JBS, Smithfield, Tyson, and Cargill facilities around the country that recorded at least 50 confirmed cases, only 20 ordered full-scale testing for all employees, according to interviews with local health officials, company statements, and a review of data compiled by the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting.

The four companies say that they responded to outbreaks by directing sick and exposed workers to quarantine for two weeks, implementing additional safety policies, and encouraging employees to stay home or get tested if they showed symptoms or were in close contact with someone who tested positive.

In Joslin, Illinois, where local officials announced that 194 employees tested positive at a Tyson plant in the spring, the Rock Island County Health Department told BuzzFeed News that the company declined its offer for a local clinic to set up facility-wide testing. Instead, Tyson partnered with mobile health clinics to test workers who had symptoms or were exposed to a known case.

“The decision to conduct facility-wide testing is handled on a case-by-case and has typically involved the input of state and/or local health officials as well as other outside medical experts,” Tyson spokesperson Gary Mickelson told BuzzFeed News, noting that the company conducted facility-wide testing at 17 of its 25 plants with outbreaks of at least 50 cases. “Other factors include the number of active cases involving our workers as well as the number of cases in the community.”

In Arkansas, seven meat processing plants owned by JBS, Tyson, or Cargill with at least 50 confirmed cases declined the state health department’s offer “to conduct testing on-site,” according to Danyelle McNeill, Arkansas Department of Health’s public information coordinator, and just two of those plants later arranged for all employees to be tested. In statements to BuzzFeed News, Tyson denied that the state offered mass testing for its Arkansas facilities, Cargill didn’t address specific plants, and JBS said that local testing was “widely available” and the company has “partnered with the health department on contact testing our team members.”

In Colorado, JBS officials turned down testing in the early days of the April outbreak. Though testing kits were scarce at the time, state officials secured enough tests to cover all 3,200 workers at the Greeley plant, where a coronavirus outbreak was emerging, according to the local health department. But on the day the testing was scheduled to start, JBS “got a hold of all the employees and told them that they weren't testing anymore,” said Rosario Hernandez, whose husband works at the plant. If they needed to get tested, she said, “they had to do it on their own.” Company and union officials confirmed her account.

The Greeley plant later emerged as one of the deadliest workplace clusters in the US, with six employees dying of COVID-19 complications in April and May.

The numbers at the Greeley plant were high, but "if they would have tested every worker, this would have probably been one of the highest in the whole country," said Kim Cordova, president of UFCW Local 7 of Colorado and Wyoming.

In all, that location logged a total of 312 confirmed cases as of mid-November, according to local health department data. Some plants of similar size that did facility-wide testing, such as Tyson’s pork processing operations in Waterloo, Iowa, and Logansport, Indiana, recorded around 1,000 confirmed cases each — a testament to the way the contagious virus raced through the plants, sickening some and making many others asymptomatic carriers.


The company maintains that it acted quickly to close the plant after the outbreak began and that local testing is available for everybody.


“If someone did not get tested, it was a personal decision,” JBS spokesperson Bruett told BuzzFeed News.


Courtesy the Hernandez family
Alfredo Hernandez
Rosario Hernandez’s husband was among those who got sick.


Alfredo Hernandez, who has worked at the JBS plant in Greeley for 31 years, developed a cough and felt unusually tired in mid-March, before he was aware of any cases at work. He thought it was a cold at first, but his exhaustion escalated, his temperature rose, and his back began to ache. On March 23, Rosario called her husband’s supervisor to say he was showing coronavirus symptoms. She left a voicemail message that was never returned, she told BuzzFeed News. JBS didn’t comment on specific cases.

Five days later, with her husband's condition worsening, Rosario drove him to the hospital, where he was immediately hooked up to an oxygen mask and tested for COVID-19. He was positive. Within days, more workers fell ill, Rosario and Cordova said. By April 1, county health officials were aware of at least 14 JBS workers who tested positive, including nine who "worked while symptomatic and therefore were contagious to others," the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment stated in an April 4 letter to JBS's human resources director. By April 10, the number had risen to 43, including 14 hospitalizations and two deaths. "The rapid nature of the spread of disease among JBS employees is very concerning," state and county officials said in a letter to JBS that day, ordering the company to "identify ill workers" and implement "an ongoing testing and monitoring program."

And yet, the company quickly abandoned a plan to test all its workers.


Initially, JBS, in conjunction with local officials, announced plans for comprehensive testing. But the company changed course within 24 hours, instead deciding to close the plant for two weeks but let testing be voluntary, according to spokespeople for JBS and the state health department.

Though the state initially directed that all workers be tested before the plant reopened, officials retreated from the order. The state health department didn’t respond to questions about the reason for the shift. In a statement to BuzzFeed News, it noted that the two-week closure “provided quarantine or isolation time for employees who were exposed or sick.”

JBS spokesperson Bruett said that such mass testing had proven to be logistically unfeasible "given the short turnaround." The union, however, alleged that the company didn’t want to know how high its case count really was, fearing a public relations problem that could keep the plant closed even longer.

The company says the safety of its workers has always been its top priority; Bruett noted that JBS directed workers who needed or wanted tests to a drive-through-testing facility, although he acknowledged there was no way that site could accommodate the entire workforce.


The day the plant reopened, local health officials set up a temporary testing site for JBS employees and their relatives, but it only had capacity to test 300 a day and stayed open just five days, according to records obtained by BuzzFeed News. By the end of April, 245 workers had tested positive. Like at most plants that closed due to outbreaks, JBS reopened its Greeley facility without knowing for certain whether infected workers were cleared of the virus or untested workers were bringing it inside.

Employees could return once they were free from symptoms for 72 hours without having to get retested. While masks, face shields, fans, and plexiglass barriers have reduced exposure, at least 65 workers at the plant have tested positive in the months since it reopened, according to health department data.

The company “was just pushing for that plant to open regardless of testing or regardless of whether people were positive without symptoms,” Cordova, the union president, said. “The workers in this plant have been treated as just sacrificial human beings.”

JBS noted that public health officials approved their plans to restart operations at the plant. But while Weld County's health department signed off, the state health department did not, and requested that it be removed from the company’s statements about the reopening, according to emails obtained by BuzzFeed News. State health officials did not respond to questions about why they did that.


Andy Cross / Getty Images
The exterior of the JBS Greeley Beef Plant April 23, 2020.

Nine months into the pandemic, JBS tests a random sample of workers every two weeks, the company said, and Tyson conducts surveillance testing based on an algorithm tied to “the number of positive cases involving plant workers as well as people in the community,” according to a company statement. Smithfield says that it now requires all workers to be tested before a closed plant reopens.

But Cordova, the union president for JBS Greeley, noted that many workers are torn between protecting their health and avoiding “financial devastation.”

“There's a 'work while sick' culture in these facilities,” she said. “The workers feel like they can't afford to wait and not have a source of income.”

Two medical assistants contracted to conduct COVID screenings at the JBS Greeley plant after it reopened claimed in affidavits filed earlier this fall that the company encouraged workers to clock in even when they showed symptoms, such as a cough or a high temperature, the Greeley Tribune reported. The company, in a statement to the newspaper, called the claims “unsubstantiated” and said that its “screening process has been reviewed and approved multiple times by local, state and federal entities, including the CDC.”

Meatpacking workers are not assured paychecks if their illness exceeds their two-week sick leave. In Minneapolis, where more than 200 JBS employees tested positive in April, nearly 80% the 930 COVID-related worker’s compensation claims in the industry were rejected, with the rest still pending, and in Utah, where more than 300 JBS workers tested positive, the company rejected all seven claims filed through the end of July, Reuters reported.

“Given the widespread nature of viral spread, our third-party claims administrator reviews each case thoroughly and independently,” Bruett told Reuters.

Hernandez was in the hospital for a week. When he returned home on April 5, he was bedridden and hooked up to an oxygen tank. JBS provided two weeks of paid sick leave, but after that Hernandez had to apply for short-term disability, which covers around 60% of his salary, though he went four weeks without pay before the claim was processed, his wife said.

He provides the sole income in his household, and he is unsure when he will return to work. He still feels lingering effects of the infection months after testing positive, with body aches, fatigue, and difficulty breathing.

In September, the Department of Labor issued a fine to JBS for “for failing to protect employees from exposure to the coronavirus” at the Greeley plant. The total penalty was $15,615. While the union protested that the amount was so low as to be “insulting,” the company argued that it shouldn't have been fined at all, calling the citation “entirely without merit” because it “attempts to impose a standard that did not exist in March as we fought the pandemic with no guidance,” according to statements from both sides. JBS contested the fine, and the case will go to an independent arbitrator. ●


MORE ON THIS
Smithfield Foods Is Blaming “Living Circumstances In Certain Cultures” For One Of America’s Largest COVID-19 Clusters Albert Samaha · April 20, 2020

This Texas Town Is America’s COVID-19 Future Anne Helen Petersen · June 14, 2020


Karen Wang is a senior at the University of Southern California. She is based in Los Angeles.


Albert Samaha is an investigative reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in New York