12 April 2013

In an echo of the Brent Spar oil rig debacle in 1995, Greenpeace has had to apologise for making false claims in support of its campaign to undermine the landmark 2010 Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement (CBFA), to which it was a signatory.

With Brent Spar, Greenpeace multiplied the amount of oil on a North Sea oil platform by 100 times to force Shell to dispose of the platform on land rather than by skuttling it at sea. When its claim was shown to be false, Greenpeace apologised and had to lay off staff, but it didn't back down on the campaign itself.

In December 2012 Greenpeace pulled the plug on the CBFA, claiming it had proof from GPS-tagged video and pictures that one of the coalition industry members, Resolute Forest Products, was building logging roads in areas forbidden by the agreement. It released pictures it said were taken in August 2012 in Quebec's Montagnes Blanches region and promptly resigned from the CBFA.

Unlike many companies that buckle under the pressure of what is sometimes known as 'greenmail', Resolute was as good as its name. It believed it was standing on firm factual ground and refused to be bullied.

Finally in a huge embarrassment, on 19 March Greenpeace was forced to admit that it had bungled its "investigation" and that the unimpeachable videos and photos were just plain wrong. Even as it crowed about its 40 years of commitment to "best available science and research," Greenpeace admitted it relied on "inaccurate maps" before launching its highly public and damaging attacks.

Yet Greenpeace continues to oppose the CBFA, saying it would have quit the organisation even if it hadn't fumbled its campaign.

In an article in Forbes magazine Jon Entine, executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, argues that the Canadian boreal forest mêlée is actually a skirmish in the an ongoing battle between the two major forestry eco-label schemes: the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC), a favorite of campaigning greens, and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI).

Pointing to an analysis by Peter Foster in the Financial Post, he says Greenpeace's "take no prisoners" strategy is hardly unique — it mirrors the aggressive tractics used by the FSC in establishing itself as a powerful voice in the forestry eco-label movement.

"That's why it's so important that there are choices when it comes to eco-labels, particularly in the forestry management area. Many FSC proponents are decidedly anti-development and opposed to controversial technologies, including sustainable biotechnology; the SFI does not resort to or encourage greenmail; it's less confrontational, which clearly does not sit well its harshest critics, like aggressive environmental groups, such as Greenpeace," says Entine.

"Policies regarding the procurement of timber, use of building codes and what businesses can sell to their customers should be informed by facts and science, not scare tactics. Greenpeace's deception is only the latest propaganda effort that has muddied rather than clarified the issues surrounding forestry practices.

"With a majority of forests lacking certification, we need common-sense incentives and more certification options to achieve sustainable forestry management goals. Consumers and the general public deserve much better than the disinformation campaigns that have shadowed this debate."

Jon Entine is a senior fellow at the Center for Health & Risk Communication and STATS (Statistical Assessment Service) at George Mason University.

Source: Article by Jon Entine, contributor to Forbes magazine. To read the full article, click here.