Earthworm Foundation's Response to the World Rainforest Movement (WRM) Article 

6 May 2025

We acknowledge the concerns raised by the World Rainforest Movement (WRM) in their recent article, “NGOs at the service of plundering territories: the Earthworm Foundation case”.   

We value the voice of civil society actors and are saddened by the perception of Earthworm reflected in the article.  While it highlights important challenges, we feel it misrepresents the Foundation’s work, mission, and the quality of our engagement. We would therefore like to clarify our approach, share more about the work we’ve done, and lay the foundation for improved dialogue regarding the two conflict cases mentioned in the article.  

If our actions have inadvertently contributed to community divisions or overlooked challenges highlighted by local civil society actors, we are eager to understand and address these issues collaboratively.   

The article portrays Earthworm Foundation as an entity serving the interests of large corporations to facilitate unimpeded commodity flows, implying that our work amounts to greenwashing.    

Earthworm’s sole mission is to regenerate forests and soils, with and for people, not to lobby or advocate for corporate interests.  

Companies, through their operations or supply chains have an immense impact on land use and on the rights and well-being of communities. They produce and purchase hundreds of millions of tons of raw materials, palm oil among them. Their supply chains and operations contribute, directly or indirectly, to deforestation, conflicts, exploitation, poverty, pollution, and other harmful impacts.  

However, this is not inevitable. Earthworm believes that companies have a significant responsibility in addressing the environmental and social challenges they are connected to. With strong leadership and the right support, they can transform the negative impacts of their supply chains and operations into positive outcomes for people and nature.  

While it's true that a portion of our funding comes from companies, these resources are primarily directed toward transformative actions – not public relations or communications. They support forest protection, farmer resilience, community engagement, and conflict resolution initiatives. In fact, only 3% of Earthworm’s total budget is allocated to communications.  

The majority of our team members are based in countries where raw materials are produced, because we believe that proximity to the issues is essential to solving them. 

We maintain our integrity by setting clear expectations and benchmarks for progress when engaging with the private sector. When companies fail to demonstrate genuine commitment or make insufficient progress, we do not hesitate to disengage. Our primary accountability is to our mission. 

The WRM article rightly highlights the complexity of land rights issues, which often involve long-standing disputes, unclear boundaries, and deeply held grievances. 

In several cases, including those mentioned in the article, Earthworm has stepped in when communication between companies and communities has broken down and when tensions, legal disputes, or even violence are affecting all parties involved.  

It is important to clarify that we do not consider ourselves formal mediators. When we engage with a company, we also engage deeply with the whole community, listening to their concerns and perspectives while supporting meaningful change within the company. 

We focus on de-escalating conflict and rebuilding a functional dialogue between companies and communities. 

Community consent is a critical precondition for co-designing any sustainable solution. A core part of this work involves conducting field assessments to build a shared understanding of the issues and to identify root causes. The investigation with Socfin is one such example. 

Through this process, Earthworm engages with a wide range of stakeholders, including local civil society organisations, community members, and local authorities.  

But we’re very aware that this work happens in incredibly complex, sensitive environments, shaped by long histories of injustice, and we know that trust must be continually earned.  

If, as the article suggests, our work is perceived to contribute to division within communities, we take that seriously. It is never the intention of any Earthworm engagement to create division. On the contrary, our consultations are designed to foster openness, transparency, and respect for self-determination by communities. 

In Brazil, Earthworm Foundation has been working with Agropalma as part of a project initiated by a company that identified Agropalma as a high-priority supplier. Our role involved providing technical assistance to help Agropalma address sustainability compliance gaps, primarily in community relations, through a structured Action Plan that includes training and technical support.  

Agropalma then requested additional support from Earthworm to strengthen its team’s capacity to manage community relationships. This led to the co-design of a broader social project that is currently underway. It includes both theoretical and practical training for managers and technicians, as well as support for developing tools to improve community relations based on dialogue, respect, transparency, and mutual benefit principles. 

As a result of this collaborative effort, Agropalma developed several key tools: a Social Program, a FPIC protocol, and a procedure for conflict prevention and management.   

In our approach to working with communities and companies, we prioritised participatory mapping and inclusive dialogue to ensure community voices are central to decision-making. It's also worth noting that Earthworm implements other activities in the region to generate positive impacts for both people and the environment. These include training and support for local communities in developing tools that promote respect for human rights, FPIC, territorial management, women’s empowerment, integrated farm management, and strengthening agricultural cooperatives. 

Challenges Remain 

While progress has been made, challenges still exist:  

• Ensuring that all community voices are heard, which requires holding meetings at various times and locations to promote inclusivity.  
• Sustaining cross-departmental support within Agropalma to effectively implement social and environmental actions in a coordinated way. 
• Navigating internal community divisions, which can hinder collaborative efforts. Contrary to what is portrayed in the article, these internal divisions predate Earthworm’s work in this region.  
• Ensuring continuous, inclusive communication and adapting programmes based on community feedback.  

While there is still work to do, Earthworm assesses that the company leadership is committed to creating positive social impact and driving change beyond the sustainability commitments Agropalma has already adopted. That is why we continue to support them.  

We are particularly concerned by Mr. Pereira da Silva’s claim that “In 2023, in collaboration with Agropalma, Earthworm provoked an internal division among the indigenous populations.”  We are surprised by this statement and have written to Mr. Pereira to better understand his concerns. 

We encourage any stakeholder with concerns about our fieldwork to contact us directly through our grievance mechanism channel. 

In light of the World Rainforest Movement’s article and broader concerns raised by civil society, Earthworm Foundation considers it essential to provide a detailed account of our work with Socfin.   

Background and Investigation Process  

Earthworm Foundation began its partnership with Socfin in 2017. In March of that year, we supported the company in drafting and publishing its Group Policy for Responsible Management, which included a clear commitment to No Deforestation and marked the beginning of its implementation. Under this policy, the company committed not to clear any natural forests for plantation development. This policy built upon and replaced the Socfin Group Sustainability Policy released in July 2015, which had already included commitments to avoid clearing primary forests and High Conservation Value (HCV) areas. 

 In 2023, Socfin requested Earthworm to investigate allegations that were raised against Socfin by NGOs and international media related to their operations in Liberia, Cameroon, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Cambodia. Earthworm conducted the investigation with a commitment from the company to publish the findings in a transparent way. 

Prior to each field visit, Earthworm shared a letter with CSOs, NGOs, and local communities outlining the allegations we intended to investigate. These messages invited recipients to contribute additional information or evidence for review. Communities received the same list of allegations ahead of the visit, ensuring transparency and encouraging open participation.  

During the field visits, our approach was to be transparent about the scope of the investigation and to create space for affected stakeholders to engage openly. Meetings were held with multiple communities to discuss the allegations, gather testimonies, and collect supporting evidence. 

Communities were actively involved in the investigation process, and our reports clearly indicate the names of the communities visited. 

The full reports with all details on investigations can be found here. 

What has changed in SOCFIN 

Our work with Socfin has focused on helping them build their internal systems and capacity so that they can resolve long-standing issues and create a constructive dialogue with communities so that any new issues arising are understood and resolved as early as possible. We have seen significant changes within the company that we feel are setting them on the right track, including: 

• Institutional Reforms: Establishment of a Sustainability Department at the Headquarters and at each of the subsidiaries to oversee and coordinate responsible practices.  
• Staff Training: Capacity building across critical areas including stakeholder engagement, participatory mapping, grievance management, gender equity, child labour monitoring, and accident investigation.  
• Stakeholder Engagement Strategy: A formal strategy has been developed, encompassing communication, community development, and grievance management. This strategy has been endorsed by most General Managers, although its consistent implementation remains a challenge.  
• Grievance Mechanisms: Functional grievance systems have been rolled out at subsidiary levels to receive and address complaints.  
• Living Conditions Improvements: Construction and renovation of worker housing is underway, alongside infrastructure improvements such as water access and schooling facilities.  
• Gender Committees: These have been created in several subsidiaries to promote gender-sensitive engagement.   

Remaining challenges 

Nonetheless, as our investigations and recent media reports have highlighted, several serious outstanding issues remain to be resolved in a number of Socfin’s plantations: 

• A major source of tension has been land tenure. According to the emphyteutic lease N°1 dated August 30, 2005, Socapalm (a Socfin subsidiary) was granted 78,529 hectares of land, of which 20,466 hectares were to be returned to the Cameroonian state. While this retrocession has been completed administratively, implementation on the ground remains incomplete. This, coupled with a lack of demarcated boundaries, has contributed to allegations of land grabbing and community encroachment.  

Retrocession doesn’t depend entirely on the company, but Earthworm expects Socfin to be doing all it can to speed up the retrocession process. 

• Another critical issue is sexual harassment and sexual violence, that has been reported in Earthworm’s investigation and recently featured in media articles. While Socfin has taken action on communicating and training on its policies, supporting Gender Committees, and creating an anonymous worker complaint hotline, it is clear that these actions are not having the intended results to sufficiently protect women and hold violators to account. Over the coming months, Earthworm will be working with Socfin to build stronger systems in partnership with local experts in key affected estates. 
• Finally, the relationship between Socfin and many civil society actors remains complex. Earthworm has been constantly encouraging dialogue between Socfin and civil society, but it’s not been an easy task, considering the years of conflict and mistrust which need to be overcome.  

Before undertaking our field investigations, Synaparcam was invited to participate in the process and to provide evidence concerning each of the listed allegations. While they chose not to engage in our investigations, which we respect, Earthworm remains committed to stakeholder consultation, as we know that it is only by listening to others that we can truly understand the problems and find viable, long-lasting solutions. 

We respect the work of Synaparcam and the evidence they have published. It is natural that different investigations may yield different findings depending on the methods used, the individuals consulted, and the documents reviewed. Earthworm published its reports based on the evidence that was available to us.

We are open to look at any concerns that might not have been captured or a different reading of potential negative impacts that Earthworm has not accurately captured. We will contact Synaparcam with the hope that a dialogue can take place. 

Earthworm Foundation remains engaged with Socfin because we believe the company's leadership is committed to addressing challenges from the past, and we see them acting on key issues. 

 Hence, we see progress being achieved, although a lot of work remains.     

We also acknowledge that our work is not without imperfections.  

Over the past 25 years, Earthworm Foundation has embraced a journey of continuous learning, adapting our approaches based on feedback and evolving challenges.  The landscapes and supply chains in which we work are always complex and loaded with issues.  

We remain open to constructive criticism, and we encourage people with concerns related to Earthworm Foundation’s work, practices, or people to use our dedicated grievance mechanism.​ We are committed to listening and responding to all submissions in a timely, fair, and respectful manner. 

As mentioned in the beginning, if our actions have inadvertently contributed to community divisions or overlooked challenges highlighted by local civil society actors, we are eager to understand and address these issues collaboratively.  

We recognise the challenges associated with working in a context with different opinions and interests. We will continue to engage with stakeholders and local partners to improve the effectiveness of our safeguarding work and the inclusivity of our initiatives.  

We hope the organisations and individuals cited in the WRM article will accept to engage in direct dialogue with us to discuss the concerns raised.