JBS $2.5bn Livestock Deal: Civil Society Demands MoU Disclosure, Impact Assessment

A coalition of Nigerian civil society organisations, farmers’ and pastoralist groups, and youth, women, environmental and animal-welfare organisations has demanded full disclosure of the Federal Government’s proposed $2.5 billion investment deal with global meat company, JBS, warning that decisions being taken behind closed doors could reshape Nigeria’s land, water and food systems.

The coalition made the demand at the end of a three-day strategy workshop on JBS engagement and industrial livestock expansion held in Abuja from September 22 to 24, 2026.

The groups said the proposed investment, which would establish six industrial meat-processing facilities across Nigeria, was linked to the Federal Government’s National Livestock Transformation Plan and the Nigeria Livestock Master Plan 2026–2040.

They said nearly two years after the Federal Government signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with JBS, the agreement had yet to be made public, while no Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) relating to the project had been published.

The coalition said it was not opposed to agricultural investment but insisted that an investment capable of transforming the country’s livestock and food systems must be transparent, accountable and subject to meaningful participation by affected communities.

It expressed concern over the lack of public access to the project’s financing arrangements, environmental and social assessments, land allocation agreements, incentive packages and records of consultations with communities.

According to the coalition, the headline figure of $2.5 billion may be publicly known, but the lender terms, allocation of funds and beneficial ownership of private investment vehicles involved in the project remain undisclosed.

The groups further said Freedom of Information requests submitted to the Federal Ministry of Livestock Development, the Ogun State Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security and the Niger State Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries seeking the MoU, related agreements, ESIAs and records of engagement with JBS had not been honoured.

The coalition warned that without access to such information, Nigerians could not determine whether public land and resources were being committed in ways that primarily benefit private interests.

It said it would pursue lawful avenues available under the Freedom of Information Act 2011 to secure disclosure.

Of particular concern to the coalition were communities in Niger State, which it said were at the frontline of the livestock expansion and had reported grievances relating to land acquisition, including resettlement issues, unfulfilled promises and access to water.

The groups also expressed solidarity with communities in Niger and Ogun states, saying their rights must be protected as the industrial livestock expansion proceeds.

They called for comprehensive and independent environmental and social impact assessments covering the cumulative effects of the proposed development on land, water and ecosystems before any further land allocation, approval or construction.

The coalition also demanded genuine consultation with farmers, pastoralists, women, youth and civil society, including what it described as the free, prior and informed consent of affected communities.

It urged the Federal Government to disclose all agreements and contracts connected to the JBS investment, as well as land allocation arrangements, incentives, financing terms and the beneficial ownership of private investment vehicles involved.

The coalition further called for enforceable safeguards to protect smallholder farmers and pastoralists’ access to land and markets, waterways and groundwater, while also addressing animal welfare and public health concerns.

It said the livestock reforms must be implemented in a manner consistent with Nigeria’s commitments on climate change, biodiversity and open government, including transparent budgets, grievance mechanisms and independent monitoring involving civil society.

The groups said Nigeria already had functioning food systems supported by pastoralists, smallholder farmers and traditional producers, arguing that these systems should be strengthened rather than displaced by industrial expansion.

They also urged greater investment in agroecology, indigenous seeds and resilient local food systems that could strengthen the livelihoods of farmers and pastoralists.

The coalition raised concerns about JBS’s international record, citing what it described as links between the company’s supply chain and deforestation in Brazil, as well as allegations concerning labour and land rights.

It also referred to what it said was the company’s recent removal of explicit protections for Indigenous peoples and land rights from its human rights policy and its abandonment of its Net Zero 2040 climate and zero-deforestation pledges.

The coalition further pointed to Australia, where JBS entered the meat-processing sector in 2007, saying the Nigerian government should draw lessons from that experience as it considers the proposed investment.

The groups argued that increased production alone should not be equated with food security, stressing that the distribution of benefits, control of resources and protection of farmers, communities, animals and ecosystems were also critical.

They said the proposed investment must therefore be assessed not only in terms of its promised capital injection and industrial capacity, but also its implications for the people and natural resources underpinning Nigeria’s food system.

“Transparency is not optional. It is the foundation of food security,” the coalition said, insisting that Nigeria’s food future must be built on public accountability, food sovereignty, environmental integrity and the voices of the people who produce the nation’s food.

The coalition said Nigeria had the benefit of hindsight from other countries and urged the government to ensure that agreements capable of transforming the country’s food system were not concluded behind closed doors.

It maintained that affected communities must be heard before, rather than after, decisions concerning their land, water and livelihoods are taken.