Greenpeace wearing out welcome in developing world

GREENPEACE has embarrassed Papua New Guinea for its own gain in a report issued on the sidelines of the meeting of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Japan last month.
It accused the PNG government of trying to garner international aid for reduced greenhouse emissions without having any plans to address deforestation and climate change issues in the country.
Attempting to gain further media mileage for the report, Greenpeace handed PNG’s government its “golden chainsaw” award at the event.
The report and award follow a Greenpeace attack on PNG at the last round of climate negotiations in China.
There, Greenpeace accused the PNG delegation of trying to derail the entire climate process by pushing for a streamlining of payments for avoided deforestation, otherwise known as REDD (reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation).
Why has Greenpeace singled out Papua New Guinea on REDD? There are two reasons.
First, Greenpeace is criticising the Somare government and PNG more broadly in an attempt to derail the entire REDD process within the United Nations.
To observers of non-governmental organisation campaigns on forestry, this should not be surprising.
Greenpeace, and other organisations like it, do not take aim at the worst offenders – they take aim at the most prominent organisations.
In the case of REDD, the Somare government has been one of its most ardent supporters. It was PNG that first proposed REDD at the United Nations almost five years ago.
PNG is a sizeable scalp in forestry terms, combining with West Papua to form one of the largest expanses of tropical rainforest on the planet.
The country is currently co-chair of the REDD partnership and has established itself as a leader in adopting the process. 
This contrasts heavily with Greenpeace, which has paid only lip service to REDD.
It claims support for the initiatives, but it fundamentally objects to many aspects of REDD in its current form.
They object to improving forestry practices and harvesting techniques in order to reduce emissions.
They object to the use of forestry to offset the emissions of developed nations.
They object to the use of forest plantations for carbon offsets or harvesting.
They have claimed that allowing forest-based carbon credits into global markets will cause a collapse in the global carbon price.
They also claim it will essentially fail to reduce emissions and fuel corruption.
The Greenpeace position is essentially this: Forests should not be used by humans for anything economic.
They do not want forests to be cut, even if the action is vital to produce more food for growing populations.
Second, Greenpeace’s smear on REDD comes during the finalisation of a programme with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) on REDD.
Greenpeace’s chief claim is that large forest companies are driving deforestation in PNG.
The group’s work in PNG hinges upon this claim.
FAO’s data on forestry in PNG has stated that roughly 25% to 33% of all wood removals from PNG’s forests are for commercial use.
The remainder is for fuelwood; agricultural clearing makes up more than half of clearing.
This contradicts Greenpeace’s anti-forestry claims.
One of the first studies under the FAO programme will be an examination of the drivers of deforestation in PNG.
The proposed work will be run by the FAO and PNG’s forestry and climate agencies.
In other words, it will be a study based on fact. It will use ground-truthing and satellite data to determine past and current deforestation drivers.
It will not be determined by politics. No wonder Greenpeace is opposing the programme.
In its attack on the government, Greenpeace has attempted to politicise the debate.
The government has become collateral political damage in its attempt to achieve broader political goals.
Its partner organisations in PNG have launched personal attacks on civil servants and, rather than engage meaningfully, it is decrying the entire process as corrupt.
In Indonesia, this kind of action has backfired on Greenpeace.
Like PNG, Indonesia is not the worst offender on forestry matters – it is a prominent target.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono made a personal pledge to reduce Indonesia’s deforestation levels by 20% – higher than most developed nations.
Despite this, Greenpeace handed him a “world cup of forest destruction” in January this year in an effort to embarrass him.
Around the same time, a number of Greenpeace activists were expelled from the country for breaching immigration rules. 
Its camp in Sumatra was burnt down by local people and smallholders protested against the group in the streets of Jakarta.
When Greenpeace’s Rainbow Warrior attempted to return to Indonesia last month, the vessel was blocked by the Indonesian government, which claimed its request for entry was inconsistent.
Greenpeace is wearing out its welcome in the developing world. – World Growth