World Growth Chairman Alan Oxley gave a press conference at the climate change negotiations in Cancun, Mexico, and further questioned the emphasis placed upon deforestation emissions by wealthy countries, stating that it will undermine economic development in developing countries and provide only a fraction of the emissions cuts promised.

This has been backed up by new research from Winrock International, which released figures yesterday that effectively halve the percentage of emissions from deforestation from around 17 per cent to 8 per cent.

The research confirms what World Growth has contended for years: deforestation emissions are overstated.

The new research has also been highlighted by Fred Pearce at NewScientist. Pearce is respected journalist among environmentalists and has long been seen as a booster for the climate cause.

Elsewhere at the conference there has been a considerable emphasis placed upon agriculture, with widespread recognition that it is agriculture that is the main driver of deforestation in the developing world, not the forestry industry.

The new emphasis upon agriculture will inevitably see the Green movement continue its shift towards campaigning on food issues. Oxfam has already moved away from its 'mitigation' position and is now campaigning almost solely for funds for adaptation for the world's poor.

This poses a question for groups like Greenpeace: if deforestation is caused by agriculture -- particularly in poor countries -- will Greenpeace campaign for less food production in poor countries? The farm lobby in the US tested this route earlier this year, generating considerable anger in countries like Brazil.

Expect Greenpeace to do what it always does: change course to the most fashionable cause.

Indonesia has delivered a rebuke to Greenpeace on the eve of the United Nations climate change conference in Mexico.

Indonesian Government officials publicly criticized the claims and data in a Greenpeace report that claims aid money will be misused by the Indonesian Government. They also rejected Greenpeace's call for 'zero deforestation' in Indonesia.

Greenpeace issued the report in the week prior to the Cancun talks. The report is an attempt to lobby for tighter conditions on the bilateral forest deal between Indonesia and Norway. Greenpeace - like many other NGOs - is lobbying for no money to contribute to improved practices in the private sector against financial contributions towards improved private sector practices.

Indonesia criticized Greenpeace for its claim that the Forestry Ministry was to allocate 63 million ha of forest area to the agriculture, forestry and mining sectors for use as production forests or for conversion to plantation forests.

Indonesian officials said that the true figure area is less than half that - and that the figure Greenpeace presented had been ‘made up.’ Researchers from CIFOR have also stated that Greenpeace had 'overstated' the numbers.

The Indonesian Government has conceded that 24 million ha of forest land will be either used for forestry or converted to other uses. This is a complete rejection of Greenpeace's 'zero deforestation' push.

The criticisms of the Greenpeace data follow a string of domestic criticism over data use in Indonesia that has - unsurprisingly - not been covered in Western media.

Late last month, former Indonesian House speaker Amien Rais called for Greenpeace to be publicly investigated after their claims about regarding the forestry, and pulp and paper sector were found to be incorrect.

In November, Greenpeace's data was heavily criticized by researchers at the Bogor Agricultural Institute.

Protesters from the group Solidaritas Untuk Nusantara burnt the Dutch flag and publicly protested Greenpeace's presence in Indonesia.

Its Greenpeace's latest report, which specifically criticizes the Indonesian Forest Ministry, contains a large number of contentions that could be challenged from a factual or development perspective.

Increasing food production – The report criticizes Indonesia for an expressed desire to increase food production for domestic consumption and exports. In Indonesia the percentage of children under the age of 5 that are underweight or have stunted growth is 20 per cent and 40 per cent respectively. In the Netherlands - where the Greenpeace report was produced - these percentages are so negligible that they do not register in World Bank data.

Harvested wood products – The Greenpeace report assumes - as does the UNFCCC - that all timber is oxidized in its year of removal. While this adheres to UNFCCC accounting rules, it has no basis in fact. Timber-based products, such as lumber and paper products, store carbon. In landfill very little if any carbon makes its way into the atmosphere. The US Environmental Protection Authority has stated that harvested wood products make up for more than 12 per cent of all carbon pools in the US.

Plantations and ecosystem services – The Greenpeace report contends that forest plantations perform no environmental functions. Yet the most recent research on orang-utans in Borneo has demonstrated that viable populations of orang-utans live within acacia plantations. Additionally, planted forests are often used for environmental protection purposes including such as watershed protection.

Energy – The report criticizes the development of both biofuels and coal in Indonesia. Greenpeace has also lobbied against nuclear plants in the country. The equatorial position of the Indonesian archipelago means that it has low winds rendering wind power unviable. Furthermore, the cost of solar on a large scale is prohibitive in developing countries. Biomass and geothermal projects are prospective, but they are not mentioned in the report, and obviously fuelwood is out of the question in Greenpeace's eyes. The question to Greenpeace is: where should Indonesia's 230 million people get their power?

Conspiracy theory – Above all, the Greenpeace report attempts to project an image of the Forestry Ministry in Indonesia as a corrupt bureaucratic body that is attempting to derail the bilateral agreement between Norway and Indonesia, or use it to its own advantage. This is a complete misrepresentation of the events to date. News reports quoting the Norwegian deal brokers have stated publicly that talks are stumbling because they have attributed the delays to disagreements over of financial arrangements and whether they should be handled by a domestic agency or a multilateral body such as the World Bank.

The broader question is why Greenpeace itself seems to want the deal halted.

The answer is that Greenpeace fundamentally objects to any economic activity that involves forests. It refers to forestry or agriculture as 'industrial scale' activity and only condones low levels of community forestry that are by and large economically unsustainable.

Any program that would benefit or grow the agriculture or forestry industry's existing operations or see it grow is, according to Greenpeace, objectionable. Any funds that might contribute toward that growth are also objectionable.

This is consistent with Greenpeace's insistence upon rejecting REDD+ (reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation plus sustainable forest management, among other things) at last year's climate summit in Copenhagen. Greenpeace stated that sustainable forest management was 'doublespeak' for the forestry industry. It also accused UN bodies such as the FAO and UNFF of being 'captured' by vested interests.

Greenpeace seems to have done the same with its latest missive. All they have done is substituted FAO with 'Norway' and 'vested interests' with Indonesia.

Fortunately for Indonesia's poor, neither Norway nor Indonesia are likely to buckle to yet another Greenpeace fabrication in Indonesia.

A research team from the Bogor Agricultural Institute (IPB) – Indonesia’s most respected forestry and agriculture institution – have found Greenpeace’s claims over deforestation in Indonesia to be highly inaccutate.

Professor Bambang Hiro Saharjo and Dr Yanto Santosa conducted research between April and July 2010. According to their research, the Greenpeace definition of forest overstates the extent of deforestation in Indonesia.

The definition used by Greenpeace includes shrubland and imperata grassland, and also includes lands that have been designated for agricultural development.

Dr Yanto spoke with reporters on November 1, where he said that he has attempted to meet with Greenpeace and explain his results. Greenpeace has rejected the results.

Read the story here

The most recent FAO study has indicated that forest areas have decreased globally, but have increased most significantly in Asia and the Caribbean. The increase in forest area in Asia is largely due to the reforestation and afforestation efforts of China and Vietnam. Forest area in Asia increased by 0.29 per cent; this contrasts with increases of 0.07 per cent in Europe.

In the Caribbean, Cuba and Puerto Rico have largely been responsible for the forest area increases. This is a result of Puerto Rico’s significant reforestation and afforestation programs. However, the annual growth in Puerto Rico’s forests has slowed to 1.68 per cent from rates of almost 5 per cent during the 1990s.

Most NGOs have remained quiet about the figures, which indicate that deforestation rates have slowed considerably since the 1990s.

Greenpeace, however, was more than happy to issue a statement earlier in the week that said Indonesia was losing 1.8 million ha of forest annually – more than 1 million ha than the FAO figures. Greenpeace did qualify that by later stating the figure includes degraded forest. But since there is no standard definition for degraded forest – something the UNFCCC is currently debating – we’re assuming they pulled the figure out of the air.

The UNFCCC meeting in Tianjin, China wrapped up last week. Most commentators noted slow progress in the negotiations, and that prospects for developments at the Cancun meeting look grim.

World Growth Chairman Alan Oxley was asked by China Radio International to comment on the negotiations, particularly as they relate to the rift between developed and developing countries over emissions reductions.

Listen to the interview here: mms://webcast.cri.cn/en/features/pik/2010/10/1011pik.wma

Comments by Australian Trade Minister Craig Emerson received considerable coverage over the weekend, with several pundits weighing in on the debate.

In an interview with Sky News, Dr Emerson attacked European trade restrictions as protectionism under a “green coat of respectability”. Emerson took a rare step for a politician, and called a spade a spade.

Europe has recently threatened to restrict trade with countries who are yet to put a price on Carbon. The Minister assured Australia would not bow to such pressure.

"What it actually is is all those old protectionist instincts coming out and we will use whatever trading rules through the WTO (World Trade Organisation) to fight against the use of these devices to protect industries in Europe or anywhere else from against competition."

Emerson’s comments were well covered in the Australian press. An editorial in The Australian referred to European protectionism as a “euroscam…in a fashionable shade of green”

According to the editorial piece, these developments have “nothing to do with saving the planet, but everything to do with trying to save the EU, which is struggling to rebuild its financial system and its credibility.”

The Minister should be commended for his (verbal) commitment to free trade. However, some commentators noted a hint of hypocrisy in the Australian Government’s message.

During the recent Australian election, Australia’s Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry Minister announced that if re-elected the Government would implement reforms to restrict the sale of illegally logged wood.

The announcement came despite findings from a Government commissioned report showing that trade restrictions would be both ineffective and unjustifiably costly (given the low quantities of ‘illegal’ timber assumed to enter Australia).

Ultimately such a policy would do little to reduce illegal logging imports. The policy was designed to appease the Greens and Unions in a pre-election climate. This is the very type of ‘green protectionism’ that Emerson is now rallying against.

The Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE), Brazil’s remote-sensing agency, and the Brazilian Government have release a preliminary satellite survey that indicates deforestation in the Amazon forest declined by 47.5 per cent over the past year.

According to news reports, this is the largest decrease since data was first recorded in 1988.

Greg Asner, a forest expert from Stanford University (see our previous post on his work in Peruvian forests here) has stated that this is likely to be part of a strong trends – not just an outlying piece of data.

Asner and other scientists have put the drop down to global recession. There is some stock in this. Food oil prices have dropped from the stellar highs of 2008 but are on their way back up. Soybean exports from Brazil are forecast to drop in 2010, but global production is projected to increase by 22 per cent this year. Brazilian production alone is headed for a 13 per cent increase according to the FAO. Brazilian beef prices are also being buoyed by robust domestic consumption (historically the industry’s biggest market), and prices are set to rise after declines in 2008 and 2009. This contrasts with the US market, where prices have been flat for a number of years according to FAO data.

But if it is domestic Brazilian consumption that ultimately drives expansion of agriculture, and this is to feed a population that is growing in number and wealth, what will aggressive Western activists such as Greenpeace – who launched an ugly campaign against the cattle industry early this year – do about it?

World Growth, along with FAO and CIFOR, has repeatedly underlined that it is forces outside of the forestry sector that are the big contributors to deforestation. Despite this, environmental campaigners are still doing their best to kick the forest industry at any moment, and governments – particularly Western ones – are more than happy to listen to them.

Thankfully the Indonesian Government is beginning to realise deforestation has many additional immediate causes outside the forest industry – and even the plantation sector. The Jakarta Post is reporting that the Forest Ministry is cracking down on illegal mining. They report that the Ministry is currently broadening a Presidential Instruction issued in 2005 on illegal logging to include plantations and mining.

Of course, this looks good on paper. The Decree looked good on paper in 2005 too. The original decree actually called on Provincial leaders to revoke licenses that contravened a forest law made in 2002 – which had to be introduced in order to undo the tenure problems created by the Reformasi period.

So, has the 2005 Decree helped? Yes and no. The problem with the Presidential Instruction is that it legally sits below anything in the legislature, meaning problems still remain – and the problems are mainly to do with land tenure. Land conflicts constitute the majority of cases heard by the Jakarta Administrative Court. According to anecdotal evidence the area of land that has been allocated by property titling in Java is seven times its actual land mass.

We’ve maintained that Indonesia’s forest problems are a symptom of tenure problems. Anyone wanting to solve the forest problems should probably look at tenure first. But that’s right, it’s complex. It’s probably much easier to go around and smear the reputations of Indonesia’s forest and agricultural industries.

A new paper from Stanford University the Peruvian Government and WWF has demonstrated that forest carbon stores in Amazon forests have been overestimated by approximately one third.

The paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, studied an area covering 4.3 million ha in the Peruvian Amazon. Researchers used a combination satellite imaging, aerial photography and ground-truthing to construct a carbon ‘map’ of the area. They discovered that carbon stores varied greatly across the area.

More significantly, researchers estimate the total carbon storage in the area during the period was 395 million tonnes. Yet the IPCC method for estimating the area’s carbon stores was 587 million tonnes – a 32 per cent discrepancy.

Tropical countries hoping to make a fortune in ‘forest carbon’ payments should take note.

Read the full paper here.

Green groups have attempted to spin the review to beef up their own cases for drastic climate policies.

Greenpeace described the work of those who found errors in the IPCC report as ‘crude’ and ‘muckraking’.

The question that needs to be thrown back at Greenpeace is why any attempt to make a scientific case more rigorous is crude?

Greenpeace’s response would no doubt be to state that the claims of the IPCC should probably be taken at face value.

The IAC review of the Glaciergate showed precisely why these high-profile policy reports shouldn’t be taken at face value. It showed that the authors and reviewers failed to respond to serious doubts on the accuracy of a passage in the report that stated the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.

The statement was based on WWF data. The Review also pointed out that this pointed to “insufficient evaluation of non-peer-reviewed literature by the Lead Authors”.

Greenpeace reports make their way into the IPCC reference list seven times. Why does this matter for current state of the forestry debate?

In its latest missive against the Indonesian forestry and agriculture industries, Greenpeace claims on the very first page that Indonesia is the world’s largest greenhouse emitter because of forestry.

But a look at the World Resources Institute’s climate analysis tools has them in fifth spot.

A few months back, Greenpeace also released a report on palm oil and forestry in Indonesia. Its first page claimed Indonesia has the world’s highest rates of deforestation. But a look at the source they used – the FAO’s Global Forest Resources Assessment -- shows that there are no less than 13 countries that have higher deforestation rates based on percentage. And on total forest area, Brazil’s deforestation outstrips Indonesia’s by more than 70 per cent.

The lesson from the IPCC for those that want to contribute meaningfully to the debate on forestry is that standards need to be raised by organisations – such as Greenpeace. Why? Because their actions can directly or indirectly impact the lives of millions of foresters and farmers in developing countries.

To simply throw around claims that are not based on ‘hard evidence’ – is reprehensible at best, misanthropic at worst.

When Greenpeace executive director Kumi Naidoo was appointed last year, he made a statement on science in the climate change debate. The first was that science “is often presented in ways that make it harder for people who aren’t specialists to engage with” – and that it had to be made “more accessible”.

Is Greenpeace’s presentation of FAO data what Naidoo was talking about?