Greenpeace takes issue with report

Your recent opinion piece "NGO sees red over REDD" refers to the findings of a new report which questions the logic behind plans to reduce emissions from deforestation. However, the claims made in this report do not stand up to scrutiny, and its claims of objectivity are undermined by the background of the organisation which produced it. World Growth was set up in December 2007 by an individual who, by his own admission, does not believe that human activity is responsible for climate change, and is a paid consultant to the logging industry in Papua New Guinea.

Even ignoring these dubious credentials, one of the report’s central claims - that the felling of trees is not a significant contributor to CO₂ emissions if the timber is used in wood products - will have been immediately dismissed by the vast majority of your readers. As anyone with even a passing interest in forestry knows, the process of felling trees and disturbing soil banks not only releases carbon in itself but also impacts on the forest’s ability to absorb more CO₂.

Although Greenpeace does support a version of REDD, what we propose differs significantly from the markets-based approach of the World Bank. In addition, it is imperative that local people in tropical forest nations benefit from keeping their remaining forests intact.

Belinda Fletcher
Senior forests campaigner
Greenpeace UK